sendler2112 wrote: ↑
Apr 08, 2018 6:50 am
billvon wrote: ↑
Apr 08, 2018 12:28 am
Hillhater wrote: ↑
Apr 07, 2018 5:05 pm
....Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
And even with all that - solar is growing faster than coal. In fact, faster than all fossil fuel new installs.
There's that old saying - lead, follow or get out of the way. Looks like it's time for coal to get out of the way.
APRIL 5, 2018 / 6:08 AM / 3 DAYS AGO
Solar power eclipsed fossil fuels in new 2017 generating capacity: U.N.
Nina Chestney, Alister Doyle
LONDON/OSLO (Reuters) - Chinese solar power led a record 157 gigawatts (GW) of new renewable energy capacity added worldwide last year, more than double the amount of new generation capacity from fossil fuels, a U.N.-backed report showed on Thursday.
Globally, a record 98 GW of solar power capacity was installed last year with China contributing more than half, or 53 GW, according to U.N. Environment, the Frankfurt School-UNEP Collaborating Centre and Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
The new renewable energy generating capacity, also including wind, biofuels and geothermal energy, dwarfed the 70 GW of net new capacity from fossil fuels in 2017, it said.
“We are at a turning point ... from fossil fuels to the renewable world,” Erik Solheim, head of U.N. Environment, told Reuters. “The markets are there and renewables can take on coal, they can take on oil and gas.”
This is a perfect example of why this thread drags on and on repeating the same things. All of these green raving articles quote nameplate capacity and omit the fact that wind and solar will average only 25% of nameplate while thermal electric will make 90% and for twice the service life. Intentionally or ignorance?
The real takeaway is that new fossil fired electrical generation is still leading rebuildable generation installs 2:1 which tells us that the majority of new capacity isn't replacing anything. It is being installed to keep up with GDP growth as the three Billion people that still burn sticks in order to cook claw there way up to a modern standard of living.
I'm not pro fossil fuel. I'm not pro rebuildable. I am pro human civilization. Energy underpins everything. Every item or service starts with an energy input. Debt is a claim against future energy consumption. World banking has been operating on a fractional (nearly creationist) model. Loans are created from thin air with no actual money taken out of circulation to balance it. The virtual money anihlates itself as it is paid back but the interest becomes real added debt. The only way this has always worked through all time, and continues to work, is if GDP growth outpaces the interest rates. If energy growth outpaces the interest rates. But there is a limit to growth on a planet with finite resources.
The free market also functions only from growth. Workers labor hard for a better tomorrow. What if tomorrow is always a little worse. 50% of Americans have been in that boat since 2000 due to inequity of wealth even with continual growth. Investors will stop if the best payback is 90% over 20 years. Our cornucopian economic model will cease to function as resources continue to get more remote. And then what?
We need to find a different way.
Great post, very deep.
I was listening to a Stefan Molyneux video on energy and global warming, I can't remember which one it was.
https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot/se ... ry=warming
And he or the person he was interviewing was constantly bringing up the claim that the fight against fossil fuel power-stations is killing about 2 million children in the 3rd world per year due denial of rising living standards via electricty etc.
Looking at the whole 1600 coal power-stations underway, I was looking at one of the most sourced site on these numbers endcoal.org and its amazing to look at this website/sister sites and see all the coal-power stations being built.
While I may be big on copying and pasting URLs and looking at this stuff via google-sat view there is just way too many places urls for me to look at, my head will fall off before I done going through all this. I suspect the people that funded this research are well funded because there is a lot of work done here.
You can click on various countries and types of coal power-stations development levels.
You can click on a pretty obscure area and still bring up a coal power-station half built or having extra units being added to it.
If you click on extra detail it sends you to the sourcewatch website. Some of the coal stations say they are being "proposed" but look like they are being in fact being currently built as far as the google-satellite view suggests.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/L ... er_Project
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/K ... er_Station
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/B ... er_Station
^Like this Barauni power-station, says its been shutdown but a new one has been "proposed" but you go down about 500meters to 1km and you see a new one there that looks like its close to being completed https://goo.gl/maps/5YSuqtTm8TC2
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J ... er_station
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/K ... er_Project
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/C ... er_station
You can see ones are being built deep inside India https://goo.gl/maps/32tRx84jkU62
Still Google maps sat view is not that up to date, there is a solar farm in NSW that is basically non-existent on googlemaps but is in fact fully completed.
If you dont see much around some sites just look around the area a bit on googlemaps and you see things like this,
I think I have looked at enough coal power-stations in sat view to spot new ones/nearby upgrade-extensions being built
While a lot of work has gone into this endcoal website its also clear there are a lot of errors.
Looking at Dubia's coal power-station it listed, I simply couldn't find it using Endcoals or Sourcewatch coordinates.
I manually googled around and found it manually.
The actual site of this coal power-station (which happens to be a clean-coal station) and where Endcoal.org claimed it was located was about 40km of distance off the mark, so pretty far off the mark. https://goo.gl/maps/k694ZAE9czG2
Actual UAE coal power-station under construction https://goo.gl/maps/iCaXrPXRCGT2
(and another one 1km away of some type https://goo.gl/maps/L85kwGsmpd82
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/H ... er_Project
(nothing here on their official location but some housing https://goo.gl/maps/faisJdDcrDs
) Half the reason I went manually looking was due to the fact this location didn't make sense as it was highly populated and a considerable distance from the sea-water, you would want to place it near a sea shipping port where you could conveyor-belt the coal into the power-station.
These "clean coal" power-stations claim to reduce CO2 by 25% of regular coal power-stations and 40% less than old coal power-stations by running at higher temperatures/pressures, gas is typically 50% less co2 than normal coal, so maybe as much as half way there to a gas power-station levels. The other thing behind clean coal is they have advanced scrubber technology in them that filters out just about everything other than the co2
http://www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/ ... letter.pdf
http://www.minerals.org.au/resources/co ... technology
http://www.minerals.org.au/news/deliver ... oal_future
http://www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/ ... b_2015.pdf
http://www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/ ... _FINAL.pdf
Looks like the state of South Australia were having a lovely morning from about 3am onwards when the powers not really needed with the wind generation at a rather high capacity compared to its average, but it looks like there was a significant drop that caught them off guard as the price per MWh went up to $5000 per MWh.
Looking at the SA Tesla battery thats been in the ABC news lately again lately saving the world somehow, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-06/t ... as/9625726
I don't know if they're trying to steal page views from renewecomy or just its quiet campaigning for the Greens party. Its manipulative words suggest the big Tesla battery put in 600MW or so when the coal power wasn't available when we all know it was about 8MW as discussed back here https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewt ... 5#p1367950
. ABC news is more of a manipulative cancer on peoples ability to have an accurate view of the world
The thing is this power demand/loss like the Victorian unit 3 coal power-station trip where everyone celebrated how the big Tesla battery saved everyone by discharging 8MW of power into the grid but ignored the fact SA is hopeless addicted to Victorian coal power, this current $5000 MWh spot price need for power produced 25MW for a short period of time from the Tesla/Hornsdale power reserve battery, which as far as I am concened was a record, everyone imagined (including me) that we would see the big Tesla grid battery frequently discharging up to 100MW but this really looks like this is never ever going to happen unless something biblically bad happens like the interstate grid power-lines to SA go down.
I think the ABC article near the bottom points out the real reason why, if its overused too much then its end of lifecycle could be met too quickly and not end its life as a profitable project, considering how insanely supporting the news articles are about this Tesla battery there could be a lot of truth to this statement then we imagine, because ABC and renewecomy are very big fans of this RE.
Energy Synapse's founder Marija Petkovic says the battery's operators will need to be careful to avoid needlessly cycling it for little financial gain.
"This is an important consideration because the lifetime of a battery is strongly related to how many times it is cycled," she wrote.