It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama didn't kill Coal, Economics did.

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
...
You too!

P.S. Liberalism is too far right for my taste. I am a Socialist and god damn proud of it.


Then move to Venezuela and live what you claim "helps people..."

People are suffering in Venezuela because of the "environmental policies they implemented to combat Climate Change..."

People only have a few hours of electricity, and the excuse for this was "to combat climate change."

Here is what happens when your socialist ideology is implemented.



The above is not a claim, like the left in the U.S. have been claiming that "people will die if climate change policies are not implemented," or "people will die if conservatives like Kavanaugh are put in power..."





By Caleb Maupin- RT Op-Edge
Jun 4th 2014 at 2.54pm

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has just announced its plan to fight climate change. Claudia Salerno, Vice Minister for North America at the Venezuelan Mission to the United Nations, explained her country's proposals fight climate change at a special meeting with the press May 30. She summed up the plan saying: "Venezuela's contribution is to change the system, not the climate."
...


Venezuela, Capitalism & Climate Change

If the Obama administration had been able to sell their claims of a need to implement even more stringent "environmental policies to fight climate change" we would have been in a similar situation as Venezuela...

People like me told you, socialists/leftists, of what was going to happen in Venezuela when Chavez took power. None of you listened and claimed when it all started that "it was going to be good because socialism was going to be implemented..."

So keep being proud of being a socialist...





edit on 23-12-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.




posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


This is false. It was Obama and his administration who closed coal mines and yes the excuse given was because of "environmentalism."


I have already illustrated why coal power stations were closed. They were:

- Low Natural Gas Prices
- Age of Generators
- Changes in regional electricity demand
- Increased competition from renewables
- Stricter Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rules

This information is from EIA. So I admit that environmental regulations did play some part.

But today, coal is uneconomic even if you exclude "clean coal" technology and exclude the increased cost of capital due to the risk of a carbon tax. It doesn't matter if you get rid of MATS or CO2 rules, it's still uneconomic. It's very unlikely that any significant coal electrical generating capacity additions will be made, ever again in the United States, and there isn't a thing in the world that Trump can do about it.

The only hope coal has, is that other countries where Coal remains viable, like India and China continue to build coal power stations, so the US can export it. Because Europe wants to minimize CO2 emissions and that means their Coal imports will decrease. There's also the market for metallurgical coal. Anyway, can you imagine the economics of shipping Coal to the other side of the planet? I already showed a source (BNEF) that claims solar is now cheaper than Coal in India.

Note that Coal employment peaked in the United States in 1923. It has been declining since. It even declined during the 1980s under Reagan. It declined under George Bush Senior. It rose again during George Bush Junior before falling again under Barack Obama. Now there's a tiny rebound under Trump. Note that most of these falls are largely because of automation, a trend which is going to continue. So you can blame Obama all you like for those lost jobs. He was only one tiny factor, and there's absolutely nothing that's going to bring back the majority of those jobs.

My point here, is if you are simply relying on economics and capitalism, then eventually this system is going to fail coal workers and communities. Note that I am not actually defending coal miners losing their jobs and not having a replacement. This is terrible. This is why I dislike neoliberalism and greedy, corrupt, unregulated, unmitigated Capitalism. The democrats are usually neoliberals with sprinkles of environmentalism on top. The Republicans aren't much different, minus the environmentalism. That's not going to work for these communities for the most part (and neither is good enough for the environment). Something else is needed here.
edit on 24/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Then move to Venezuela and live what you claim "helps people..."


The Right has a serious issue with telling (or making) people they don't like leave their own countries. I was actually born in my country and am a permanent resident and a citizen. And as I live in a Liberal Democracy, with political freedom of speech enshrined in law, I have a right to voice my concerns and vote. Therefore, I am not going to "move to Venezuela".

But thanks for mentioning Venezuela, I will look into them and try to find what did and did not work. And technically I consider myself a Social Democrat, which isn't really the same thing as being a "true" Socialist (although I am interested in Anarchism in particular at the moment).


People only have a few hours of electricity, and the excuse for this was "to combat climate change."


The electricity grid in many countries hasn't actually been using deregulated ("free") markets for that long. Instead the grid used to be and often still is owned and operated by the state for the public good. Examples of that include SECV (privatised in the 1990s) and Électricité de France (who still exist today). The implementation of a free electricity market is a new one, which came about as neoliberal policies came about and sold off state-owned assets to private companies. So that state controlling the supply isn't really something that's different or new to most western countries, instead it was how it was done for a very long time. Are you a neoliberal? Or maybe you haven't been here for long enough to know anything different.

But I am not actually calling for us to make the state own the entire electrical supply network (I'm not against it either). Just that some level of interference (carbon tax!) is desirable and will not lead to a total disaster. It is actually possible to have the state build a carbon free electrical supply network. France did it, although not to reduce carbon emissions, but to reduce dependence on foreign oil.



At the time of posting, the French electrical grid is utilizing:

53.1 GW of Nuclear out of total demand of 69.3 GW. They are also currently exporting electricity to Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Great Britain, and Italy. Where are these rolling blackouts you speak of? By the way, renewables are now cheaper than Nuclear. By a factor of two.

International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook 2018 considered multiple scenarios. One was called the Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS). They showed that with the right policies, the following is possible simultaneously:

- Limit Global Warming to around 1.5°C and well-below 2.0°C.
- Increase proportion of the population with access to clean fuels to 100% by 2030.
- Increase proportion of the population with access to electricity to 100% by 2030.
- Reduce air pollution deaths by 1.6 million PER YEAR by 2040.


The SDS presents an energy transition where renewables and energy efficiency lead the charge in reducing CO2 emissions as well as reducing pollutants that cause poor air quality. Renewables become the dominant force in power generation, providing over 65% of global electricity generation by 2040. Wind and solar PV, in particular, soon become the cheapest sources of electricity in many countries and provide nearly 40% of all electricity in 2040. Emissions reduction in transport, industry and buildings are achieved largely through greatly enhanced energy efficiency and increasing levels of electrification of end-uses. Overall, achieving the vision of the SDS would require an increase of only around 13% in energy investment globally, relative to NPS.

www.iea.org...


Don't tell me it can't be done.
edit on 24/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 07:21 AM
link   
If you would take the time to see what your original retort to me was, it was NPR and Slate links that you used. If you used other resources that is fine by me, but it does seem to me that you pick and choose sources that accept your claims. I personally have read enough to know that a blend of technologies is what is appropriate now and that coal is going nowhere but up in use on the world market. The larger countries with large populations will never be able to go all renewable energies in the near future. The distances and volume and differences in weather conditions geographically will not allow. In the future at some point it is possible, but probably not in the years that I have remaining.

I can tell by your posts that you are more than likely about 20 or more years younger than me. I have seen people saying the same things you are saying going back at least that many years ago. Since when the internet started. How old were you in 1996? Well whatever that age is, I heard people claiming renewable energy should be forced on the population to save the planet. Similar to what you are saying now. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. When I start seeing renewable technology that actually works as good as a coal plant in energy production then I will accept it - but until then I will watch people like you claim the impossible.

You appropriated the term "snowflake". We all know that was a term first applied to socialist and SJW types by the hard and vicious right.
My username means that we are all fools. Including yourself and me.



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: CADpro
0bama killed a lot of things, but wasn't able to pull off white genocide.


They're going to do a test run in South Africa shortly to see how it goes.



posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 11:45 PM
link   

I personally have read enough to know that a blend of technologies is what is appropriate now and that coal is going nowhere but up in use on the world market.


In World Energy Outlook 2008 (WEO 2008), worldwide coal demand was predicted to be 5746 mtce (million tonnes of coal equivalent) in 2015 and 7011 mtce in 2030. This is in the reference scenario which "embodies the effects of those government policies and measures that were enacted or adopted up to mid-2008, but not new ones". Actual coal demand was 5363 mtce in 2017 and is now predicted to be 5395 mtce in 2030 (predicted) as in WEO 2018.

I don't own WEO 2018 (it's expensive), but they do have some information online. If you go to the data tab and view Electricity Generation by technology for North America in the "New Policies Scenario", coal generation was 1450.75 TWh in 2017 but is predicted to decline to 919.76 TWh by 2040. Note that New Policies Scenario (NPS) is a reference scenario described as including policies and targets announced by governments.

World Solar PV capacity was 300 GW in 2017. In NPS, this is predicted to be 2540 GW in 2040. Wind was 515 GW in 2017, this is predicted to be 1707 GW by 2040. In Sustainable Development Scenario (that I talked about before), Solar PV would reach 4240 GW by 2040 and wind 2819 GW. Again, note that WEO has been hilariously pessimistic about renewable energy.

Check out this PV module price index for the past 12 months.


pvXchange price index

More..:


Warren Buffett trades for four solar plants, retiring a coal unit

All six power purchase agreements (PPAs) have prices below $30/MWh:

1. Sempra Renewables’ 250 MW Copper Mountain farm starts at $21.55/MWh, with a 2.5% annual escalation over the 25-year term of the contract.
2. 8minuteenergy’s 300 MW Eagle Shadow Mountain facility has a fixed PPA price of $23.76/MWh. This plant represents the lowest solar PPA price in the United State’s currently.
3. 174 Power Global’s 50 MW Techren V will sell power at $29.89/MWh with no escalation.
4. NextEra Energy’s 200 MW Dodge Flat solar plant includes a 50 MW / 200 MWh battery storage system, priced its PPA $26.51/MWh.
5. NextEra’s 100 MW Fish Springs Ranch solar farm is also priced at $26.51/MWh and comes with with 25 MW / 100 MWh of storage.
6. Cypress Creek’s 101 MW Battle Mountain Solar project also includes 25 MW / 100 MWh of storage, and is priced at a flat price of $26.50/MWh.

pv-magazine-usa.com...


More...:


India cancels plans for huge coal power stations as solar energy prices hit record low

India has cancelled plans to build nearly 14 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations – about the same as the total amount in the UK – with the price for solar electricity “free falling” to levels once considered impossible.

www.independent.co.uk... O_HgiYsAZuX9kujTBtAq301JcxPsM72SvsRoVhkT6LBhGcjxI&utm_source=reddit.com


My opinion, the best case for coal is that coal declines in North America and Europe which will be offset by increases in India and China. Overall coal consumption approximately plateaus. Natural Gas and Renewables take off. You're right though, coal will be one part of the energy mix for several decades and the entire energy mix will include many different technologies.


I can tell by your posts that you are more than likely about 20 or more years younger than me. I have seen people saying the same things you are saying going back at least that many years ago. Since when the internet started. How old were you in 1996? Well whatever that age is, I heard people claiming renewable energy should be forced on the population to save the planet. Similar to what you are saying now. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. When I start seeing renewable technology that actually works as good as a coal plant in energy production then I will accept it - but until then I will watch people like you claim the impossible.


Sure, I probably am 20 years younger than you. I was young in 1996. However please understand that I used to have a view similar to yours. This was a thread I created one decade ago, I'll even quote parts of it:


"Green" energy is expensive, does not avert climate change.

I really don't understand some peoples love stories with Wind and Solar.

  • They statistically generate power most often when clients need it the least.
  • They are located far away from the grid and thus require long and expensive transmission lines.
  • They are enormously expensive. While all forms of energy require subsidies wind and solar take the cake for getting the highest per kilowatt hour of energy generated, far more than the much talked about Nuclear.
  • They have extremely low capacity factors simply because the sun doesn't shine all the time, and the wind doesn't blow all the time. A 1000 kilowatt Wind Mill will on average generates 300 kilowatts of energy. This means they need enormous amounts of space, are unreliable, need backups and are expensive.
  • They supply poor quality energy due to fluctuations in wind speed, therefore most often are limited to a maximum of 20% of the grid, and usually require dirty natural gas generators in order to smooth out these fluctuations. Without subsidies, some energy companies have to be payed to accept wind energy into the grid.
  • Coal power stations cannot change energy outputs quickly. If wind is used to replace Coal, then the coal power stations have to be ran in "hot-standby" as a backup. This means they are burning the Coal anyway and bypassing steam from the turbines.
  • They cannot provide base load power, like coal, for example, can.
  • Spreading out the generating capacity of a large geographical area to get rid of the aforementioned problems is enormously expensive as it requires a massive, complex grid, and has never been demonstrated.
  • Energy storage designed to fix the aforementioned problems is enormously expensive, but does not help the capacity factor.
  • Wind and Solar need enormous amounts of physical recourses (concrete, steel), to build. Storage makes this significantly worse.
  • The cleanest countries are Nuclear, Hydro, or Geothermal, the worst are ones attempting to implement wind.
  • In some countries, Nuclear PROFITS are paying to subsidize WIND because it is so expensive.
  • Per unit of electricity generated, Wind kills as many people as Coal (not including air pollution related deaths). This is far worse than Nuclear.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Of course, ElectricUniverse agreed, which is hilarious looking back.

Continued in the next post.



posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 11:54 PM
link   
All the dot points I made in that thread from 2009 have turned out to be completely baseless. What changed?

Solar and Wind have dramatically came down in price to the point where they are competitive with fossil fuels even without subsidies, this is a trend which will not stop. The functionality and performance that energy storage, especially lithium ion batteries, has in firming renewables and providing grid ancillary services has been proven to be invaluable. Lithium Ion batteries too have come down in price and increased in performance in a way that has exceeded what most thought was possible. At the same time, efforts to build new nuclear power stations have failed spectacularly and Fukushima happened. Natural Gas, which integrates well with wind and solar owing to its flexibility has become abundant and cheap. For me, I am now an EE, know exactly how the grid works, have hands on experience with most of this technology and work in the energy industry, and obsess over getting stuff like this right. None of this is fringe stuff.

I will respond a bit more and talk about the purpose of this thread.
edit on 13/1/19 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 08:06 AM
link   
continued...

a reply to: Fools


If you would take the time to see what your original retort to me was, it was NPR and Slate links that you used. If you used other resources that is fine by me, but it does seem to me that you pick and choose sources that accept your claims.

Okay, I am not going to defend those sources as I prefer primary sources not opinion articles.


Well whatever that age is, I heard people claiming renewable energy should be forced on the population to save the planet.


What I don't think should be forced on the population is global warming, water pollution, or air pollution. Those affect everyone else, not just the coal power station owner, coal power station employees, or electricity consumers. I hate it that to live in modern society I have to use a dirty electricity grid, because not using electricity is not an option. I am stuck with air pollution that kills thousands of people in my country, I am stuck with water pollution, and stuck using dirty electricity. This is what I mean when the consequences of coal electricity are socialized. And, in this world, there is no choice, no freedom, and it is a kind of emergent authoritarianism from unbridled capitalism.

As far as renewable energy goes, well you're welcome to use whatever means necessary to not pollute my air. There's a range of ways to reduce pollution including nuclear energy or just not using electricity at all. However, it just so happens there's a massive fusion reactor in the sky and the methods to capture that energy will soon cost 2c/kWh with a few hours of storage.

Nothing I have described so far in this post is really against a conservative worldview and indeed there are actually conservative approaches to this issue. Please for the love of god watch these two videos, they are excellent, but I don't ideologically agree with the author. There are conservative approaches and socialist approaches to pollution and climate change. Here is a conservative viewpoint:





As for the purpose of this thread and what I think, it was that capitalism does not care about your welfare and certainly not the welfare of coal industry workers. I've established that due to trends such as increased competition from natural gas and renewables, increased environmental protection regulations, and increased automation the amount of coal industry employers can only go down. This is terrible, because it means that entire families and communities built around coal will undergo hardship or will disappear entirely.

I can relate, I've been working for about half a decade now. Within two years and during the conservative government which claimed that Australia was "open for business", I quit one employer because I thought I was going to be made redundant because they were closing down (found a new job before it happened), then was made redundant again because they were closing down, then was made redundant again because they ran out of investment. Triple Whammy. Note that every time this happens, scared that I will be unable to find a new employer, instead of taking my accumulated leave I get it paid out, which means that until recently I had not taken a proper break in three years. Mental health? haha, good one, what mental health? Now for the nth time I've managed to find a new job, I'm earning less than I did when I started, and there is no question in my mind that my labor is being exploited, but I can't quit, because then that will screw up my future prospects at finding another employer from jumping around too much.

Instead I work 50-60 hour weeks and for what? So a coal industry worker trying to support his family who I've never met will eventually lose his job? So the owners get richer when they're already millionaires? I have more in common with that coal industry worker than not, even though they are the "competition". Anyway, I'm really close to quitting at this point in time, cutting all expenses as far as practicable, flipping burgers for all I care.

Once again, the notion that this is meritocracy or freedom can only be summarized as complete bull# and a delusion. It is slavery.

Note that I don't even have it bad. What if I had a kids to support? Do they then get poor healthcare and a poor education and then grow up poor? What if I had health issues? Do I keel over and die? What if I lived in a country where I had a huge student loan? What if I had a mortgage? What if the economy was so poor that I couldn't get another job? In my opinion, doubling down on neoliberalism (extremist free-market ideology) is only going to entrench these issues and make them worse, noting that it is also to blame for these environmental issues, noting that twice I've lamented the lack of choice and lack of freedom that this brings. No wonder people don't want to have kids these days and countries often need to rely on immigration to keep economic "growth" occurring, quality of life be damned.

This is why I am Democratic Socialist and why AOC, I think, makes a lot of sense.

Lastly, if these issues are left unchecked (class stratification, unemployment, environmental collapse) then what might emerge is fascism or an attempt at communism, which is not in your interest or my interest.


You appropriated the term "snowflake". We all know that was a term first applied to socialist and SJW types by the hard and vicious right.
My username means that we are all fools. Including yourself and me.


I've had the term snowflake used against me too many times, I might as well use it back. Also, I just used Obama to get views and provoke discussion, I suppose the disadvantage of that approach is that even mentioning Obama gets kneejerk reactionary response, although triggering conservatives is pretty enjoyable. Vengeance I suppose, and to prove that this sort of thing doesn't only go one way.

I am also reapproriating the term "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" because "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!", these are serious issues and it is only logical to be emotional.
edit on 13/1/19 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 13/1/19 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 13/1/19 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)







 
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join