UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (53) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: JohnEBgood Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 465143  
Subject: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 12/31/2013 1:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 17
GOOD NEWS:

What we are talking about is energy independence in the next few years. But 2015, the experts say, the U.S. will be the largest energy producer in the world.....

...when you think of the economic implications. There's talk of a manufacturing renaissance in this country.


BAD NEWS:

But when you consider the environmental impact, there is a lot to think about. And this year, scientists released a study which definitively linked a series of earthquakes in Youngstown, Ohio, to hydraulic fracturing......

But this is a concern when you think about that potential and also water quality issues and general concern about the environment that goes along with all this......

If fossil fuels are that readily available, that inexpensive and that plentiful in this country, the move towards solar energy, the move toward alternatives that would get us in a situation where we wouldn't -- we're hastening the climate change problem -- gets moved down the road......

And that
(carbon dioxide) number is something this planet has not seen in millions of years, not in recorded history. And this occurred in the course of the Industrial Revolution. We are speeding up the climate in ways that we do -- we're part of an experiment. We don't know where we're headed with it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec13/science_12...

All of which remind me of one of my favorite sayings: "There's no free lunch."

Happy New Year, everybody!

Jack
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: waterfell Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441062 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 12/31/2013 4:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 15
There is a way to have a modern, energy abundant society, and still release small amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Consider the comparison between two countries.

France produces near 80% of its electric power with nuclear energy.
http://www.iea.org/statistics/statisticssearch/report/?count...

Germany produced (as of 2011) about 60% of its power from fossil fuels. Most of those fossil fuels were coal.
http://www.iea.org/statistics/statisticssearch/report/?count...

As a result, France emits around 80 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour produced. Germany produces over 500 grams of CO2/kwh.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/co2-electrici...

In the link immediately above, it can be noted that other very low CO2 producing countries are Sweden and Switzerland, both of which have large amounts of nuclear and hydropower. Norway has the lowest emissions per kwh, and gets its power almost exclusively from hydro. But hydroelectricity cannot be produced everywhere. You need a lot of running water to adequately exploit that resource. Nuclear energy is not so constrained.

In case you are wondering about cost, below shows the average price of electricity in various countries:
http://theenergycollective.com/lindsay-wilson/279126/average...

Nuclear powered France: 19 US cents per kwh.
Fossil fueled Germany (with a significant amount of wind and solar capacity): 35 US cents per kwh

One last comparison, showing overall per capita CO2 emissions from the US, Canada, France and Germany. You can use this interactive database to look at any country you want to, as well as many other indicators.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&a...

One significant answer is out there, but few people want to seriously consider it. The other main consumer of fossil fuels is the transportation sector, and there are ways that can be addressed, too.

- Pete

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441064 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 12/31/2013 4:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Pete, from the link: http://theenergycollective.com/lindsay-wilson/279126/average...

Once you adjust for the different price levels between countries Canadians have the cheapest electricity and Germans the most expensive.

Places like Nigeria and India have jumped up the list due to their lower price levels, while countries including Denmark, Australia and Japan have fallen because they are relatively expensive places to live. In general accounting for purchasing power lessened the difference between countries, but significant differences remain.

Which brings me back to Nova Scotia. Paying 12 US cents/kWh is expensive in Canada.

Just don’t moan about it abroad!



Since I live in Nova Scotia I can assure you they do moan a lot... at least at home.


Tim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441066 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 12/31/2013 5:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Consider the comparison between two countries.

===============

Why not consider comparison between Japan and Germany and their nuclear power programs.

Both Japan and Russia had the worst nuclear accidents and Germany did not like the radiation fallout they got from Chernobyl disaster. When Fukushima disaster occurred, the Germans said enough is enough. Get rid of those crappy nuclear power plants forever.

Germany is doing very well economically while converting to renewable energy and shutting down nuclear. They have super reliability on their electrical systems - better than US and rest of Europe. They have less pollution from their power plants than the US. Germans love their "luft and sonnen" and everything Green!! German manufacturing is growing and considered the best in the world.

Japan is struggling with not enough electrical energy generation because they put too many eggs in the nuclear basket. They have lost their technological reputation with their inept operation of nuclear power plants and the corruption of their electrical power industry. They also do not know how to handle the $500 billion cleanup of Fukushima.

jaagu

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441070 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 12/31/2013 6:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Germany is doing very well economically while converting to renewable energy and shutting down nuclear. They have super reliability on their electrical systems - better than US and rest of Europe. They have less pollution from their power plants than the US.

jaagu

Would you like to tell us (preferably with links from reliable sources) how they manage to do that while burning one of the dirtiest products on the planet? Lignite coal barely qualifies as coal at all, much closer to peat.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignite

Lignite, often referred to as brown coal, is a soft brown combustible sedimentary rock that is formed from naturally compressed peat. It is considered the lowest rank of coal due to its relatively low heat content. It is mined in Bulgaria, Greece, Germany, Poland, Serbia, Russia, the United States, Canada, India, Australia and many other parts of Europe and it is used almost exclusively as a fuel for steam-electric power generation. 25.7% of Germany's electricity comes from lignite power plants....

...

Lignite is brownish-black in color and has a carbon content of around 25-35%, a high inherent moisture content sometimes as high as 66%, and an ash content ranging from 6% to 19% compared with 6% to 12% for bituminous coal.[2]

The energy content of lignite ranges from 10 - 20 MJ/kg (9–17 million BTU per short ton) on a moist, mineral-matter-free basis. The energy content of lignite consumed in United States averages 15 MJ/kg (13 million BTU/ton), ...

Uses[edit]

Because of its low energy density and typically high moisture content, brown coal is inefficient to transport and is not traded extensively on the world market compared with higher coal grades.


Anyone who has Google Earth should search for "Julich, Germany" to get a nice picture of massive diggers and drag lines hauling in Lignite to the power plants. If you look at the mine to the south west you get a nice plumb of "less polluting" smoke from the power station which is just 13 Km upwind of where I lived for 13 years.



https://www.google.ca/search?q=mining+lignite+in+germany&...


Of course you could do what you usually do when I post something you don't like and just FA it?

Tim

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: waterfell Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441076 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 12/31/2013 6:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
25.7% of Germany's electricity comes from lignite power plants....
----------------------------------------------------------

Lignite has another detrimental effect on the landscape. Sometimes they have to move entire villages to get at the stuff.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-court-to-...

A giant open-pit mining area near Cologne has already swallowed up 14 villages, but one police officer is fighting to protect his home. He has managed to bring his case before Germany's highest court, and its ruling could have major implications for the future of brown coal mining in Germany.
.
.
Just a single red brick house stands out on the drab street, with sumptuous rhododendrons by the front door and blue wisteria climbing all the way up to the house's gable. This is the home of Stephan Pütz and his wife, the last remaining residents of Fasanenweg. All their other neighbors have given up and fled from the encroaching excavators.

-------------------------------------------------

Sadly, Mr. Pütz lost his case in the courts.

http://www.dw.de/constitutional-court-clears-residents-compl...

Stephan Pütz, a policeman who fought to Germany's highest court in a bid to save his home from demolition, lost his case and conceded defeat at the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe on Tuesday.

"It was a long journey and the result is very disappointing. There are surely more pleasant final destinations," Pütz said in court when the judges ruled that his right to stay in a home he owned, enshrined in Article 11 of the German constitution, was trumped by the public requirement for power generation.

------------------------------------------------

Germany is scheduled to permanently shut down its nine remaining nuclear power plants in the next 8 or 9 years. They will replaced primarily with fossil fueled base-load plants. Fear of nuclear energy is a more powerful emotion than concern for the amount of CO2 produced.

- Pete

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JohnEBgood Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441090 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 12/31/2013 9:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Germany produced (as of 2011) about 60% of its power from fossil fuels. Most of those fossil fuels were coal.

But I thought that Germany was committed to developing renewable energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany

I do note this very recent article in Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2013/12/30/germany...

So has Germany made a big mistake? (as the article implies)

I think the article is written by somebody who is not a fan of
renewable energy, and who wants us to believe that smart countries
will just stick with good old fossil fuels:

Environmentalists and renewables advocates have long-held Germany’s as an example to emulate. While there is little doubt that the ‘Energiewende’ has accelerated the pace of wind and solar innovation, it has clearly done so at enormous cost. Unlike environmentalists in America who seem driven to squash any further development of hydrocarbons, Germans have been far more practical...

Personally, I think that if the United States put enough effort into the right projects, we could do amazing things with renewables. But now that we've uncovered all of the oil and natural gas, there is less of an incentive. Besides, a good portion of the electorate doubts (or doesn't understand) climate change.

Sad, really sad.

Jack

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: waterfell Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441092 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 12/31/2013 10:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
But I thought that Germany was committed to developing renewable energy.
Jack

------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Germany has built out a large amount of renewable energy. The problem is that it doesn't operate very much. Look at a map of how far north Germany is, and imagine how much solar energy they are producing this time of year. The answer is: practically none. Similarly, the wind doesn't always blow for the wind farms.

People in modern societies have this unfortunate tendency of wanting to use electricity at all hours of the day and night, not just when weather conditions are optimal. This results in the fossil fueled power plants still needing to run to keep the power grid on.

Below are a couple of English language articles from Der Spiegel, a major German magazine.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-e...

A commentary on the failure of Germany's green energy policies:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/commentary-why-g...
-------------------------------------------------------

Most nuclear power plants run at around a 90% capacity factor, and they produce electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The times they are down for refueling and maintenance are usually scheduled well in advance, for the times when the power demand is not very high.

For a country like Germany, the wind farms operate with capacity factors of 20 to 25%. Solar power capacity factor is even worse.

- Pete

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441093 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 12/31/2013 11:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.
You will be able to recommend 10 more posts today. (explain this)



Sadly the Greens in there insistence on getting rid of nuclear have added major pollution and consumer costs while many companies have had to begin moving production to lower power cost countries.

The idea of clean nuclear power and clean renewable energy seems to have fallen victim to the extreme wingers holding the major business friendly parties hostage.

So Canada has the cheapest power... hmmm what do we get for a prize. Well we also appear to have among the cleanest with our heavy reliance on hydro and nuclear.

Nova Scotia still has a lot of coal power but with our tiny population we are statistically insignificant compared to Ontario, BC and Quebec who have almost none. Once (if?) the Lower Churchill hydro project and Link are complete we will be up there with the best.


Tim (in 2014 here in Nova Scotia on the far east coast)

http://www.nalcorenergy.com/lower-churchill-project.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Churchill_Project#Maritim...


http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2013/exec/1210n07.htm...

Executive Council
Natural Resources
December 10, 2013

Harper Government Announces Final Loan Guarantee for Lower Churchill Projects

ST. JOHN’S — The Honourable Rob Moore, Regional Minister for Newfoundland and Labrador and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), on behalf of the Honourable Joe Oliver, Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources, today announced the finalization of the federal loan guarantee for Nalcor’s Lower Churchill projects. Minister Moore was joined by the Honourable Kathy Dunderdale, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Honourable Andrew Younger, Nova Scotia’s Minister of Energy.

“The Lower Churchill projects will create jobs and economic growth for people in Atlantic Canada, while substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” said Minister Oliver. “The federal loan guarantee will not only provide a stable source of clean energy for the region, but will also save over $1 billion for ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.”

“This is an important step towards realizing the full potential of one of North America’s most ambitious clean energy projects,” said Minister Moore. “The Lower Churchill projects will generate major economic benefits and create thousands of high-quality jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador.”


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441098 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/1/2014 3:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
For a country like Germany, the wind farms operate with capacity factors of 20 to 25%. Solar power capacity factor is even worse.

And that's an average.

The 25% load factor for wind can easily be a summary of 50% in temperate weather and 0% when it's really cold. (Or pretty much any other combination...)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441155 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 9:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
JohnEBgood writes: I think the article is written by somebody who is not a fan of renewable energy ...

----------------

JohnEBgood,

You are exactly right. There are many people who hate renewable energy and write half truths about it. Some of them write for Forbes and some are here on the fool boards. The ones who hate renewable energy the most are the climate change deniers. The German Spiegel news media is often used as a source for anti renewable energy articles because Spiegel sides with both nuclear and fossil fuels for power generation groups while attacking renewable energy. Here are some examples of the nonsense publish be Spiegel.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/topic/renewable_energy/

The German goal for renewable electricity is - 35% by 2020, 50% by 2030, 65% by 2040, and 80% by 2050.

The truth is that Germany has undertaken a massive energy program to unwind nuclear, shutdown old inefficient coal/lignite plants and build new cleaner and more efficient coal/lignite power plants as a bridge power source to renewable energy dominance. In the short term, Germany will increase coal/lignite use slightly over the next 10 years, but this use will start to drop after 2025 and become minor by 2050. This will be done by massive building of wind, solar, hydro and energy storage facilities, upgrading their power grid and increasing the efficiency of energy use for buildings and transportation.

The German energy program is only a few years old – thus Germany has not yet even begun to build out their renewable energy infrastructure for electrical power generation and the improvements. But critics like to blast Germany with lies and half truths.

Here is an example of Germany’s new coal power plant to replace an old coal power plant:

With an electrical efficiency of 45.95%, the Lünen hard-coal-fired power plant, located ... in the state of North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany, is Europe’s cleanest and most efficient.

The 750-MW unit … is designed for high efficiency in base load operation, but it also has responsive ramping characteristics, which are crucial to meet changing demands resulting from Germany’s increasing reliance on renewable resources.

At a cost of about €1.4 billion, it ... also supplies the city with district heating. The owners currently expect the plant to operate for 7,000 full-load hours in 2014, which could save up to 1 million tons of CO2 compared to an older, less efficient coal-fired power plant.

http://www.powermag.com/europes-most-efficient-coal-plant-co...

jaagu

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441156 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 9:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
France produces near 80% of its electric power with nuclear energy.

The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) Lobby must be severely underfunded.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JohnEBgood Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441161 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 10:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
There are many people who hate renewable energy and write half truths about it. Some of them write for Forbes and some are here on the fool boards. The ones who hate renewable energy the most are the climate change deniers. The German Spiegel news media is often used as a source for anti renewable energy articles because Spiegel sides with both nuclear and fossil fuels for power generation groups while attacking renewable energy.

Thank you, jaagu. I learned a great deal from you post.

Now I understand that the United States is not unique in its political controversy over energy policies. It is especially irritating to me when elected officials SAY they want "clean energy," but are unwilling to really push for renewables and conservation (the latter is almost a dirty word to some people).

It sounds to me like Germany is going in the right direction. While I do not consider myself an expert in this field, it seems to me that the right mixture of science and money could wean the world from fossil fuels. But now that the US has this boon in oil and gas supplies, we will be set back many years because there is less of an incentive to invest in other options and technology.

Plus, the never ending controversy over climate change (sigh!)

I guess the war between science and ignorance will always afflict humans. And it's sad that it takes dreadful consequences to bring people around to reality.

Jack

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: waterfell Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441163 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 10:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
jaagu writes:
Here is an example of Germany’s new coal power plant to replace an old coal power plant:
With an electrical efficiency of 45.95%, the Lünen hard-coal-fired power plant, located ... in the state of North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany, is Europe’s cleanest and most efficient.
http://www.powermag.com/europes-most-efficient-coal-plant-co...

-----------------------------------------------------

I am not anti-renewables. I am just pro-arithmetic.
Even an efficient coal power plant produces a large amount of CO2 (not to mention other nasty stuff such as fly ash, sulfur, mercury, etc.) I figure about 4 million metric tons of CO2 will be produced every year from this one power plant.

If this Lünen plant that you give as an example runs with an efficiency of 45.95%, that corresponds to a heat rate of 7425 BTU/kwhe.

Giving coal an average CO2 emission factor of 95 kg of CO2 per million BTU...
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html

(7425 BTU/kwh) x (95 kgCO2/1E6 BTU) x (1000 grams/kg) = 705 grams of CO2 per kwh.

Assuming the plant runs at a capacity factor of 85%, it will generate...
(750,000 kw) x (24 hr/day) x (365 day/yr) x 0.85 = 5.584 billion kwh/yr.

705 grams CO2/kwh x 5.584 billion kwh/yr = 3.94 trillion grams CO2/yr
= 3.94 million metric tons of CO2 per year will be emitted.

To give as a comparison, the French electrical power system (primarily nuclear) emits an average of 79 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour.
http://canadianenergyissues.com/2013/12/25/reducing-carbon-p...

(In the link above, CIPK = carbon intensity in grams per kwh)

79 grams of CO2 versus 705 grams. If I was going to build a low carbon electricity system, I know which model I would use. (It wouldn't be the German one.)

- Pete

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441164 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 10:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
There are many people who hate renewable energy and write half truths about it.

...

shutdown old inefficient coal/lignite plants and build new cleaner and more efficient coal/lignite power plants as a bridge power source to renewable energy dominance. In the short term, Germany will increase coal/lignite use slightly over the next 10 years, but this use will start to drop after 2025 and become minor by 2050.

...

Here is an example of Germany’s new coal power plant to replace an old coal power plant:

With an electrical efficiency of 45.95%, the Lünen hard-coal-fired power plant, located ... in the state of North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany, is Europe’s cleanest and most efficient.




jaagu

Speaking of half truths there are people who hate nuclear power and "and write half truths about it".

Brand new coal plants do not last 10 years, 60+ is more typical. Do you really believe they will tear those plants down in ten years, if so I suspect you would have believed anything Joseph Goebbels (Hitler's Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda)would have told you.

The example of a new efficient coal plant would hardly be typical as it burns hard coal, how about some stats for the lignite plants that are the major coal power producers?

I must also ask if you really think going from 45% to 52% in coal use for power in the first half of 2013 qualifies as a "slight increase"?

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/germ...

German coal-fired power rises above 50% in first-half 2013 generation mix

London (Platts)--10Jul2013/755 am EDT/1155 GMT

Coal-fired power plants contributed 52% of Germany's first-half electricity demand as output from natural gas-fired power plants and wind turbines fell, research organization Fraunhofer Institute (ISE) said.


Finally you have insisted TRP was a bad investment, odd considering they have invested $5 billion in renewable power assets and just took over their fourth of nine projects new solar facilities.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/transcanada-adds-fourth-solar-...

TransCanada Adds Fourth Solar Facility to Energy Portfolio

Marketwired TRANSCANADA

2 hours ago

...

The combined capacity of the nine solar facilities is 86 MW at a total cost of approximately $500 million.

...

"We are pleased to have acquired an additional solar facility in Ontario as part of our growing energy portfolio, one-third of which are facilities that produce electricity from emission-less sources," said Russ Girling, TransCanada president and chief executive officer. "The addition of these solar facilities to our asset base continues to allow us to complement our existing operations in Ontario where we have become the largest independent power producer in the province."

To date, the company has invested over $5 billion in emission-less energy sources including the largest wind farm in New England, 13 hydro power facilities in New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Vermont, the Ontario solar projects and Canada's largest wind farm development located in Quebec. TransCanada is also a partner in Bruce Power, Canada's first private nuclear generator that currently produces 6,200 MW of emission-less electricity in Ontario. TransCanada also specializes in building highly efficient natural gas-fired power plants that are helping North America's transition to a less carbon-intensive electricity supply mix.



jaagu you are not a pro clean energy person at all, you are just an anti-nuc willing to tell any story that you think might serve your aims.


Tim


http://www.factfish.com/statistic-country/germany/lignite-br...

World share for Germany
Germany has a world share of 56,7%.


Note: many of the lignite plants don't burn briquettes, the drag the stuff right out of the open pit mine into the furnace.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441166 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 10:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Pete writes:

France produces near 80% of its electric power with nuclear energy.

Germany produced (as of 2011) about 60% of its power from fossil fuels. Most of those fossil fuels were coal.

As a result, France emits around 80 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour produced. Germany produces over 500 grams of CO2/kwh.


=================

Pete,

You are good at looking in the rear view mirror. Your historical data is good for 2011, but it does not represent where Germany and France are going in the future.

Germany is on a path to reduce fossil fuels use to less than 20% by 2050 and renewable energy to 80%. Every year they are getting closer to that goal.

France has realized that building more nuclear power plants is not economical. In the future as their old nuclear plants are shutdown, they will not build new plants. France will be adding renewable energy to replace their old nuclear power plants. France's current nuclear capacity of 75% will decline to 50% in next 10 to 20 years.

Meanwhile, the world's biggest users of coal China, USA and India get no discussion at all from you. China, India and USA are the world biggest polluters.

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=1&am...

China and India currently have very little nuclear and by 2050 they will both have less than 10% nuclear. USA currently has less than 20% nuclear and by 2050 the USA will still be less than 20% nuclear. See attached IAEA report

http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/rds1-33_web.pd...

Fossil fuels will continue to be a pollution problem for the world because of China, India and USA for the long term - but not because of Germany.

jaagu

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441168 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 10:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
France produces near 80% of its electric power with nuclear energy.

The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) Lobby must be severely underfunded.

JLC

===================

The French nuclear electrical power system was built by the government military complex. The government owns and operates the nuclear electrical power systems in France under the EDF and AREVA names.

NIMBY had no chance.

jaagu

Print the post Back To Top
Author: waterfell Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441174 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 11:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
Germany is on a path to reduce fossil fuels use to less than 20% by 2050 and renewable energy to 80%.
------------------------------------------------------

Easier said than done.

Hope is not a plan.

They can make some absurd goal like 80% renewables, but actually doing it is not possible with current technologies. The sun still doesn't shine at night, and the wind doesn't blow enough or strong enough to make that a viable option for a consistent energy supply that works 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Hydropower in Europe is built up as much as it is going to be, in all likelihood.

Meanwhile, the French actually have a low priced, low carbon power supply system right now, but since they don't use the politically favored and approved renewable energy sources, their methods are ignored.

But not ignored by everyone...
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-China-celebrates-constr...

- Pete

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441180 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 12:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.
Germany is on a path to reduce fossil fuels use to less than 20% by 2050 and renewable energy to 80%.
------------------------------------------------------

Easier said than done.

Hope is not a plan.



Pete,

As long as the deadline is after most of us are dead nobody (especially the politicians) will ever have to pay off the lying promises to the rather uninformed believers.

I saw an article this morning that the reason the Germans are currently pushing back into coal is because the carbon trading price has collapsed making it cheaper to burn coal than the very expensive but cleaner Nat gas. Sounds totally altruistic to me ... NOT!

I suspect if they can find a way to shed the currently needed Greens support they will dump the rest of the (already reduced once) solar subsidy promises as well. The German rate payers and business are rebelling at the high cost of power and the politicians are scared.


Tim <is that too political sounding?>


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-13/german-energy-plan-...

German Energy Plan ‘Schizophrenic’ as Coal Beats Gas, Greens Say


By Julia Mengewein Sep 13, 2013 4:30 AM GMT-0300

Germany’s renewable-energy drive is boosting carbon emissions by spurring coal-fed electricity generation at the expense of cleaner-burning natural gas, Lower Saxony’s environment minister said.

“What we are seeing is the schizophrenic situation of the renaissance of lignite plants while efficient power plants don’t get a chance to enter the market,” ...

...

Carbon Floor

The surplus of emission permits in Europe needs to be cut and a minimum price for carbon put in place to reduce the output of coal-fired plants,


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: whafa Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441183 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 1:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
They can make some absurd goal like 80% renewables, but actually doing it is not possible with current technologies.


2050 is 36 years away. Cell phones barely existed 36 years ago; today they are ubiquitous. I could list a dozen other examples but I'm sure you agree that technology isn't going to stagnate for the next 36 years. It's probably safe to assume it will advance a lot like the last 36 years.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441185 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 1:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Cell phones barely existed 36 years ago; today they are ubiquitous.

whafa,

Poor analogy, replacing something that didn't exist is easy, the massive installed infrastructure in energy assures change will be glacial.

Even if a major scientific breakthrough happened today (unlikely) it would be several decades before it could be built out over the globe. Power plants last many decades and we haven't even managed to get much done to replace the aging grid.

Heck people are still whining about getting rid of 100+ year old light bulb technology. }};-()


Tim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: notehound Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441186 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 1:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
...still whining about getting rid of 100+ year old light bulb...


I like the color of light produced by the old incandescent bulbs. It reminds me of candles or firelight.

I also like the fact that the lights warm up the bath on a cold morning.

;-)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441187 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 1:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I like the color of light produced by the old incandescent bulbs. It reminds me of candles or firelight.

I also like the fact that the lights warm up the bath on a cold morning.

;-)



I've bought several different brands of LED bulbs, so far the closest I've seen to the light produced by the incandescent bulbs are the CREE.

http://www.cree.com/Lighting

The 85% reduction in power requirement give a quick and very long term payback. An additional major benefit is not having to climb a ladder to change the things very often. The heat thing you are on your own as light bulbs are a pretty expensive way to heat a home. }};-D

My problem is I went through a bit of an obsession phase and now have more LED bulbs in the condo than I could use in my remaining years. }};-O

Tim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: steve203 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441189 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 2:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
the massive installed infrastructure in energy assures change will be glacial.

There is a massive installed infrastructure for POTS phone service too....but people look at me like I'm some sort of a luddite these days because I have a land line at home, and even my land line isn't POTS, since I switched to U-Verse service a year ago.

There is also a sizeable infrastructure for over the air broadcast TV, but iirc, only about 20% of TV viewers still use it.

Then there are the copper cable TV systems that are losing business to services like Verizon's FIOS.

Looks like existing infrastructure isn't a moat if someone figures a better way to make money.

Steve

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441190 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 2:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I like the color of light produced by the old incandescent bulbs. It reminds me of candles or firelight.

...

I've bought several different brands of LED bulbs, so far the closest I've seen to the light produced by the incandescent bulbs are the CREE.



Well speak of the devil.


Tim


http://www.cree.com/News-and-Events/Cree-News/Press-Releases...

The high-performance bulb is illuminated by Cree LED Filament Tower™ Technology and provides a compact optically balanced light source within a real glass bulb to deliver consumers the warm light they love and want.


Tim <hunkering down in his LED lit condo for a "Nor'easter on steroids">

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441191 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 2:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I've bought several different brands of LED bulbs, so far the closest I've seen to the light produced by the incandescent bulbs are the CREE.

FWIW, you need to look at the Kelvin scale listed on the bulb. I find those around 2700 are close to incandescent.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441196 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 3:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Pete writes: The sun still doesn't shine at night, and the wind doesn't blow enough or strong enough to make that a viable option for a consistent energy supply that works 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

==================

Pete,

Again you are just looking in the rear view mirror and trying to predict the future!

You obviously missed the following points in the energy literature:

1. Energy efficiency will make huge cuts in the need for coal/lignite power generation.

2. Energy storage will allow wind and solar energy to be used for times when they are not generating power.

3. Waste to energy plants will burn garbage and other industrial and commercial waste to generate electricity.

4. Agricultural waste will be used to generate power.

5. Geothermal will be developed to generate power.

jaagu

Print the post Back To Top
Author: desertdaveataol Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441206 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 7:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
... the massive installed infrastructure in energy assures change will be glacial.

Just look around at all those charging stations for electric cars that you don't see.

Desert (waiting to install a nuke engine in my HUMMER) Dave

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441224 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 10:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Pete writes: I am not anti-renewables.

88888888888888888888888888

With friends like you renewable energy doesn't need any enemies.

It has been a long time since have seen you say anything positive about renewable energy. Here is an example of the nonsense you wrote earlier today in this thread:

"Germany has built out a large amount of renewable energy. The problem is that it doesn't operate very much."

It truly is amazing that Germany generates 25% of its electricity with renewables, but you say it doesn't operate very much.

Here is a link that states it clearly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#Renewable_ene...

"The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to over 25 percent in the first half of 2012."

Also when I visit pro-nuclear websites, I often see anti-renewable energy rhetoric. Extremely pro-nuclear people tend to be anti-nuclear from my experience.

jaagu

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441228 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/2/2014 10:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Correction:

Extremely pro-nuclear people tend to be anti-renewable from my experience.

jaagu

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441265 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/3/2014 9:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I am not anti-renewables. I am just pro-arithmetic.
Even an efficient coal power plant produces a large amount of CO2 (not to mention other nasty stuff such as fly ash, sulfur, mercury, etc.) I figure about 4 million metric tons of CO2 will be produced every year from this one power plant.


It also releases more radioactive material into the environment in a lifetime of normal operation than a same-size, modern-design nuclear plant would be likely to in a major disaster.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441270 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/3/2014 9:55 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Heck people are still whining about getting rid of 100+ year old light bulb technology. }};-()

The new technology is still substantially more expensive and in some settings has significant disadvantages.

(An easy example: you don't have to clean snow off an incandescent bulb in an outdoor light - it self-clears. An LED light doesn't.)

We also are much better at storing oil, coal, uranium, or water than we are at storing electricity - and storing sunlight or wind simply isn't worth considering.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441288 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/3/2014 12:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
It also releases more radioactive material into the environment in a lifetime of normal operation than a same-size, modern-design nuclear plant would be likely to in a major disaster.

==========================

The radioactivity from coal fired plants is not killing people or making them sick, and coal fired power plants do not cause disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima.

I am not advocating coal fired power plants, but people should realize that the USA is operating more coal fired plants than Germany and that the eastern part of the USA and Canada are getting more coal power pollution than Germany.

So for people to pick on Germany as a big polluter is ridiculous. China, India and USA are the big polluters. Germany is working toward huge reduction in coal fired power. It would be wonderful if the USA would at least shutdown all the dirty old coal plants - but there is big money fighting EPA and environmentalist to keep coal power plants operating.

jaagu

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441329 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/3/2014 3:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
warrl writes:

It also releases more radioactive material into the environment in a lifetime of normal operation than a same-size, modern-design nuclear plant would be likely to in a major disaster.

88888888888888888888888888888888

A core melt disaster at a nuclear power plant without adequate containment would release harmful radioactive isotopes of iodine, cesium and other elements which are not released by coal fired power plants.

There are over two dozen nuclear plants operating in the USA without adequate containment designs.

jaagu

Print the post Back To Top
Author: waterfell Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441333 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/3/2014 4:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
jaagu claims:
There are over two dozen nuclear plants operating in the USA without adequate containment designs.
------------------------------------------------------------

The experts at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who are charged with protecting the health and safety of the US public regarding nuclear energy issues, seem to disagree with your opinion.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs...

Not long after the emergency began, the NRC established a task force of senior NRC experts to determine lessons learned from the accident and to initiate a review of NRC regulations to determine if additional measures needed to be taken immediately to ensure the safety of nuclear power plants in the United States. The task force issued its report on July 12, 2011, which concluded that there was no imminent risk from continued operation and licensing activities. The Task Force also concluded that enhancements to safety and emergency preparedness are warranted and made a dozen recommendations for Commission consideration. The Commission is currently considering both, short-term and longer-term actions to ensure nuclear plant safety in the United States.

More here on Fukushima lessons learned and actions in progress.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan-d...

- Pete

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: aleax Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Global Fool Pro Community Winner Motley Fool One Everlasting Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441386 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/3/2014 10:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The radioactivity from coal fired plants is not killing people or making them sick

Quite a controversial statement you're making there, with no supporting data -- see http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is... for a fair discussion of the issue.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441388 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/3/2014 10:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The radioactivity from coal fired plants is not killing people or making them sick

Quite a controversial statement you're making there, with no supporting data


And besides, dying from emphysema or some other respiratory illness is SO much better than dying from cancer, that it's okay to have many times as many people doing so.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441398 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/4/2014 1:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
aleax,

Did you read the article? Did you read the following paragraph:

"Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation.

So my statement is not controversial as the Scientific American article validates. Want to try finding another article?

jaagu

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441399 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/4/2014 1:52 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
warrl writes: And besides, dying from emphysema or some other respiratory illness is SO much better than dying from cancer, that it's okay to have many times as many people doing so.

================

Well I agree that coal fired plants are not good for human health. We sure do have lots of them in the USA, China and India.

Seriously how do you propose that these countries stop burning coal and switch to cleaner fuels?

jaagu

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441407 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/4/2014 8:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Well I agree that coal fired plants are not good for human health. We sure do have lots of them in the USA, China and India.

Seriously how do you propose that these countries stop burning coal and switch to cleaner fuels?

jaagu



Perhaps they should shut down their nuclear power plants then it would be OK with you for them to burn as much coal as they like?

</sarc>

Print the post Back To Top
Author: aleax Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Global Fool Pro Community Winner Motley Fool One Everlasting Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441464 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/4/2014 4:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Did you read the article? Did you read the following paragraph:

"Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation.

So my statement is not controversial as the Scientific American article validates. Want to try finding another article?


Scientific American's article is very fair and balanced, as I said (that's why I picked it!-), and so of course it gives plenty of space to `mainstream` thinking on the issues -- nor does anybody I know disagree that coal-fired power plants with today's technology are even more horrible for many other `side effects` than they might be for the specific issue of radioactivity.

Nevertheless, the reason SA found it worthwhile to write and publish the article in the first place is exactly because it _is_ a controversial issue -- not everybody, by a long shot! -- and they do give a little place to alternative viewpoints. So even if one's absolutely obsessed with radioactivity, as opposed to other even-worse side effects, closing nuclear plants and increasing the use of coal-powered ones, as Germany has done, is far from being a reasonable one!-)

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441465 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/4/2014 4:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.

...

closing nuclear plants and increasing the use of coal-powered ones, as Germany has done, is far from being a reasonable one!-)



That gets a rec every time but there is a good chance the post will be FAed.

It is all about German politics which are often even more weird*** than US politics.

*** - I prefer dysfunctional but it upsets the locals. }};-D

**** not signed ****

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441466 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/4/2014 4:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
nor does anybody I know disagree that coal-fired power plants with today's technology are even more horrible for many other `side effects` than they might be for the specific issue of radioactivity.

Coal plants are known for their mercury emissions, much of which ends up falling onto the oceans and ending up in fish and, ultimately, in us. That concerns me much more than radioactivity or the CO2 that's causing expeditions to be trapped in record summer ice in Antarctica.

--fleg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: waterfell Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441470 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/4/2014 5:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
It is all about German politics which are often even more weird than US politics.
------------------------------------------------------

A few years ago, the German government's environment minister came out strongly in favor of coal over nuclear power.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/08/magical-thinking-i...

Germany’s environment minister Sigmar Gabriel (Social Democratic Party) is pushing for the construction of new coal-fired power plants in Germany. "We need eight to twelve new coal plants if we want to get out of nuclear energy," Gabriel said on Friday at a meeting of the Mainz-Wiesbaden AG (KMW) in Mainz.

Also:
"Those who demonstrate against coal-fired power will get nuclear power plants instead."

From the UK Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-...

Air pollution from Europe's 300 largest coal power stations causes 22,300 premature deaths a year and costs companies and governments billions of pounds in disease treatment and lost working days, says a major study of the health impacts of burning coal to generate electricity.

One death from pollution is a tragedy. 22,000 deaths is apparently just a statistic.

It might be remembered that the first German chancellor to start phasing out nuclear power was Gerhard Schröder in 2000. Schröder also happens to be chairman of the board of Nord Stream AG, which is a natural gas pipeline company that moves gas from Russia to Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream_AG

I have to wonder which fossil fuel company's board of directors Angela Merkel will end up on after her time in office is over?

- Pete

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441497 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/5/2014 3:52 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
So even if one's absolutely obsessed with radioactivity, as opposed to other even-worse side effects, closing nuclear plants and increasing the use of coal-powered ones, as Germany has done, is far from being a reasonable one!

======================

alexa,

You seem to lack some basic understanding of German electrical power generation changes over the last 20 years. Germany has reduced their use of coal by increasing their use of renewable energy and with increased energy efficiency. So in fact they have been shutting down many dirty old coal fired power plants.

Did you not read my post earlier on this thread which showed that Germany produces 25% of its electricity with renewables? That means lots of old coal fired power plants were shutdown. The data for German consumption of coal in the last 20 years is shown in the following link:

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=1&am...

It shows that Germany consumed the following quantity of coal

1992 - 362,204 thousand short tons of coal
2012 - 262,564 thousand short tons of coal

That is a 38% reduction in coal consumption.

During the same time period, renewable energy production increased as shown in the following link:

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=6&am...

It shows that Germany produced the following quantity of electrical energy from renewables:

1992 - 23.731 Billion Kilowatthours
2012 - 140.092 Billion Kilowatthours

That is a 590% increase in renewable energy generated.

So if you think that for each nuclear plant Germany shuts down there is an equivalent coal fired power plant being put into operation, then you need to wake up to the fact that it is not so.

As I stated in an earlier post on this thread, Germany may slightly increase their use of coal in the next 10 years over their current consumption, but that slight increase will be gone when they reach their renewables milestones.

So in conclusion, your statement is wrong - Germany is very reasonable to shutdown old nuclear power plants and build a new renewable energy infrastructure.

jaagu

P.S. - What do you think of the big coal fired power plant countries of China, India and USA? Are you against their coal fired power plants? Or do you just like to make a mountain out of a mole hill?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441501 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/5/2014 9:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
So in conclusion, your statement is wrong - Germany is very reasonable to shutdown old nuclear power plants and build a new renewable energy infrastructure.

jaagu

P.S. - What do you think of the big coal fired power plant countries of China, India and USA? Are you against their coal fired power plants? Or do you just like to make a mountain out of a mole hill?



Really?


http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/germ...

German coal-fired power rises above 50% in first-half 2013 generation mix

London (Platts)--10Jul2013/755 am EDT/1155 GMT

Coal-fired power plants contributed 52% of Germany's first-half electricity demand as output from natural gas-fired power plants and wind turbines fell, research organization Fraunhofer Institute (ISE) said.

Coal plants increased production by about 5% to 130.3 TWh in the first six months of 2013 as output from gas-fired power plants fell 17% to 21.9 TWh, said ISE, which collated data from Germany's statistical office and the EEX transparency platform.



http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11391

May 23, 2013
Coal regains some electric generation market share from natural gas

After an equal share of electric power was generated from coal and natural gas in April 2012, EIA's most recent preliminary data through March 2013 show coal has generated 40% or more of the nation's electricity each month since November 2012, with natural gas fueling about 25% of generation during the same period.



So Germany at 52% should humble the US at a bit over 40%? I would add that India get 57% of its electricity from coal not massively higher than Germany and significantly lower than Australia's 76%?

Please explain... or you could just FA this post like you did the other two on this thread when they proved your nonsense?


Now if you need an example of how to get rid of coal you need look no further than these fellows. Of course AIT they are getting 68% of their power from nice clean nuclear (see link below).


Tim

http://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2013/11/ontario---first-place-...

Ontario - First Place in North America to End Coal-Fired Power

Together, Premier Kathleen Wynne and Al Gore Combat Climate Change


November 21, 2013 2:30 p.m.

Office of the Premier

Ontario is one step closer to being the first place in North America to eliminate coal as a source of electricity generation.



http://media.cns-snc.ca/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricit...

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: waterfell Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441511 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/5/2014 10:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
jaagu reports:
The data for German consumption of coal in the last 20 years is shown in the following link:
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=1&am...

It shows that Germany consumed the following quantity of coal
1992 - 362,204 thousand short tons of coal
2012 - 262,564 thousand short tons of coal

-------------------------------------------------------------

1992 was shortly after communist East Germany was reunited with the West. The East still had many old, inefficient Soviet era (and earlier?) power plants and factories that burned a lot of coal. From your link above, you can see most of the reduction in coal consumption was done in the 1990s. This was before the large renewable capacity was built up. Coal consumption in 2012 was slightly higher than 1999. Perhaps a more accurate representation should be:
1992 - 362,204 thousand tons
1999 - 257,562
2012 - 262,564

I will repeat with a link showing how much CO2 various European countries emit, based on grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour of electricity.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/co2-electrici...

Germany is over 500 grams/kwh. Nuclear powered France is around 90 grams/kwh. Nuclear and hydro powered Sweden and Switzerland are even less. This data is apparently from 2009, but you can see in your EIA link that Germany's coal consumption is up since 2009. If anything, Germany is emitting more CO2 (not to mention more damaging pollutants such as mercury, particulates, etc.), even though they continue to add largely ineffective solar and wind power capacity.

Germany is definitely a leader in renewable energy. Unfortunately, those renewables have not translated into significant CO2 reductions that occurred in France when they decided to go nuclear. Admittedly, the French went nuclear before many of the concerns about climate change emerged. They decided to build nuclear power for different reasons having to do with energy security. Nevertheless, France should be held up as an example of how to do it right in getting carbon emissions down.

- Pete

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: aleax Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Global Fool Pro Community Winner Motley Fool One Everlasting Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441554 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/5/2014 7:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
What do you think of the big coal fired power plant countries of China, India and USA? Are you against their coal fired power plants? Or do you just like to make a mountain out of a mole hill?

I'm strongly in favor of replacing them with natural gas -- no matter how the usual suspects fight to make this impossible by banning fracking (so I applaud the Democratic super-majority in California who's passed strong _regulation_ about fracking instead -- even though their eco-freak base is now attacking them for it, of course;-).

Problem #1 with most renewables is baseload generation, for which nuclear, coal (alas), and gas, are so suitable. Hydro is fine (except for its terrible ecological impact -- Hetch Hetchy activists are fighting to redefine hydro as _non_-renewable because of that) but limited, and always at risk in droughts. So are technologies focused on producing gas . But for technologies such as wind and solar, the needed massive amounts of storage remain a problem.

Cost is no picnic either -- per http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/be69a732-ab5a-11e2-8c63-00144... , BMW sited a new plant in the US because in Germany it pays 6 times more for electricity (even though I hear industrial users in Germany don't pay anywhere as much as residential users, saddled with renewable energy subsidies). US' cheap energy is of course one of the big motivations for the ongoing `reshoring` of manufacturing to the US; I wonder if Germany's risking undermining its manufacturing juggernaut, in the long run, due to imposing such high energy costs instead.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: flyerboys Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441564 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/5/2014 11:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Less to do with money than modern environmental religion, but, like ancient religions, environmental religion (as opposed to scientifically based environmental awareness) joined at the hip to power and money.

david fb

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441591 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/6/2014 12:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
This was before the large renewable capacity was built up. Coal consumption in 2012 was slightly higher than 1999. Perhaps a more accurate representation should be:
1992 - 362,204 thousand tons
1999 - 257,562
2012 - 262,564


============================

Pete,

German renewable capacity was not built up until about 2005 so your picking 1999 is so misleading and inaccurate.

Renewables energy generation:
2005 - 64.485 Billion Kilowatthours
2012 - 140.092 Billion Kilowatthours

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=6&am...

Coal consumption
2005 - 270,789 thousand short tons
2012 - 262,564 thousand short tons

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=1&am...

So we can see that renewables started to decrease coal consumption in 2005 to 2012.

jaagu

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441593 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/6/2014 1:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
1. I'm strongly in favor of replacing them with natural gas ...

2. I wonder if Germany's risking undermining its manufacturing juggernaut, in the long run, due to imposing such high energy costs instead.

================

Responses to your above points:

1. I agree that natural gas is the preferred option to coal when renewables are not ready to take up the demand. However, only the USA is lucky enough to have cheap natural gas. That is not an option for the other industrial countries like Germany, Japan, China or even India. Coal is the cheapest source of power for those countries and they all know about the health and environmental problems.
German, Japan, China and India are all building renewable power as fast as possible - but it will take them decades to wean themselves from coal.

Some of these countries are doing smart things like building highly clean and efficient coal power plants. Others are trying to do the same. They are also demanding energy efficiency in their buildings and transportation.

2. Germany, Japan, China and other manufacturing countries will feel the effects of cheap USA energy. BMW moving to USA is not a surprise. Japanese auto makers have been in the US for long time and may locate more plants in the USA. Germany is still a highly desired producer of machines and equipment for many industries. Germans know that to compete with the USA, it will need higher efficiencies and productivity than the USA. So far they have done very well against all other countries.

Closing down their nuclear plants is such a small part of the overall energy costs. The nuclear plants Germany shutdown already were old and the ones they will shutdown in ten years will also be old. Old nuclear plants require much more maintenance and major equipment replacement. That makes these old nuclear plants not economic.

New nuclear plants have shown to be to be too expensive as demonstrated in the ones under construction in Finland and France. The UK is taking a big gamble in their plans to build a few new nuclear plants.

The EIA just published the new world energy outlook which says:

Large differences in regional energy prices are set to affect industrial competitiveness, influencing investment decisions and company strategies. The extraordinary rise of light tight oil in the United States will play a major role in meeting global demand growth over the next decade, but the Middle East – the only large source of low-cost oil – will remain at the centre of the longer-term oil outlook. India is set to overtake China in the 2020s as the principal source of growth in global energy demand.

World Energy Outlook 2013
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/

jaagu

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: waterfell Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441602 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/6/2014 3:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
jaagu writes:
Closing down their nuclear plants is such a small part of the overall energy costs. The nuclear plants Germany shutdown already were old and the ones they will shutdown in ten years will also be old. Old nuclear plants require much more maintenance and major equipment replacement. That makes these old nuclear plants not economic.
--------------------------------------------------------

You continue to disparage nuclear power, but the data shows Germany's older nuclear plants are far more effective at providing usable energy than the politically popular renewable energy sources.
(pdf)
http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files...

The latest information I have from the Fraunhofer institute shows at the end of 2012, Germany had 32.44 Gigawatts (GW) of installed solar power capacity and 29.9 GW of wind power capacity. Total capacity for these two renewable sources was therefore 62.34 GW. In 2012, solar power produced 27.944 TWh of electricity, while wind produced 45.867 TWh.

In summary-
Total solar + wind: 62.34 GW capacity, produced 73.811 TWh of energy.

From the world-nuclear website, Germany's current combined nuclear power capacity is 12 GW.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries...

In 2012, the nuclear plants produced 94.111 TWh (94,111 GWh)
See page for Germany:
http://www.iea.org/stats/surveys/mes.pdf

Therefore, the nuclear plants have only 1/5 the capacity of the combined solar + wind capacity, but the nukes produced 27% more energy.

The nuclear plants in Germany are working just fine. In the IEA link above, note the Year-to-Date numbers for 2013. The nuclear plants are still producing more energy than the Geoth./Wind/Solar/Other category.
Jan through Sept, the nuclear plants produced about 19% more electricity.

As I wrote earlier in this thread, I am not anti-renewables. I am pro-arithmetic. A much smaller nuclear fleet produces more energy than the renewables. This is why Germany's coal consumption is going up.

From Der Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/commentary-why-g...

This same government acts as if this coal fever were merely a growing pain or transitional problem. But that's not true. Instead, it stems from structural flaws in the Energiewende. Renewable energy and the coal boom are causally linked. The insane system to promote renewable energy sources ensures that, with each new rooftop solar panel and each additional wind turbine, more coal is automatically burned and more CO2 released into the atmosphere.

If you really want to get carbon emissions down, there is a better way.

- Pete

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 441615 of 465143
Subject: Re: Energy: Good News/Bad News Date: 1/6/2014 6:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Pete,

LOL! You are really a funny guy! Your anti-renewables bias is showing again. Read the following and see what strange things you are saying:

Solar power : You are correct only if you think 32.4 GW of solar power can generate power at 32.4 GW every day and every night for a whole year. Last time I checked solar power generates zero power at night.

Wind power : You are correct only if you think 29.9 GW of wind power can generate power at 29.9 GW every day and every night for a whole year. Last time I checked wind power generates zero power when there is no wind.

Looks like you need to go back to basic energy engineering to understand solar and wind power correctly.

jaagu

P.S. - Keep on Referencing Der Spiegel - it shows your anti-renewable bias.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (53) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement