Natural gas is beating up on coal
Coal has always been cheap and dirty. And the dirty part was justifiable because it was so cheap. Now, gas prices are dropping, threatening coal’s dominance in the North American energy market. Which means gas could take over before coal gets a chance to clean up its act.
Natural gas dropped in price last week, trading at under $4 per million British thermal units-the unit used to measure energy output. The price is competitive with coal on a Btu basis, David L. Goldwyn of the U.S. Department of State announced last week.
Coal is still cheaper at $2.25 per million Btu in 2010, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Even so, the coal market is starting to feel the burn from gas on its heels.
Coal stocks are down, across the board. Bloomberg recently reported that the largest U.S. coal producer, Peabody Energy Corp., fell 5.2%, to $40.96. The second biggest producer, Arch Coal Inc., fell 5.9 % to $21.08. Massey Energy Co., the largest Central Appalachia coal producer, plunged $1.40, or 4.6 percent, to $28.75.
In both new projects and business expansions, power producers have also already started choosing gas over coal. A company called American Municipal Power Inc. planned to build a coal-fired plant on the Ohio River last year. In early August, the company announced that it would build a 600-megawatt gas-fired plant in that location instead. NRG Energy (NRG, Fortune 500) signed a $1.9 billion deal to buy five power plants in California from the Blackstone Group. Four out of the five plants will burn gas.
Also, the Tennessee Valley Authority announced last week that it was going to idle nine coal-fired generating units at three plants, starting in 2011. The TVA plans to build natural gas generators to replace several of the coal-fired units.
Solar Roadways Giving More Details About Their Road-Embedded Solar Cells Technology
Scott Brusaw, an electrical engineer in Idaho, also the founder of Solar Roadways, (that we’ve written about earlier this month) has come up with an interesting idea that might just catch up if some key issues will be solved: making roads out of solar cells that would produce electricity and pay for themselves.
Usually implemented on rooftops and specially-designed areas, the solar panels can theoretically be put anywhere there is sunlight. Having in mind that electric cars evolve every year and there will be plenty of them in a short time, the need for electric charging spots along highways will be increasing steadily.
According to an article in the New Scientist, citing some numbers from the American Geophysical Union, highways and open-air parking lots in the lower 48 US states make up for more than 100,000 square kilometers of surface area.
If implemented in that amount of space, 15 percent efficient (considered moderate) solar cells having 3.7 square meters each would produce 7.6 kilowatt-hours of energy a day. This figure is calculated using an average of 4 hours of sunlight per day. Brusaw proposed 3.7 square meters because that’s the US interstate highway standard lane width.
PV cells are usually fragile devices, shattering at the smallest mechanical forces. Making them withstand the weight of cars and trucks really is a challenge that could be solved by lying thin film PV material onto flexible plastic and laminate it onto glass toughened by borrowing tricks used to make it bullet and blast-proof.
Buy China Solar Stocks on Economy `Shift,’ Avoid Developers, Elegant Says
Investors should favor shares of Chinese solar companies and avoid developers as the government promotes cleaner forms of energy and maintains property curbs to restrain prices, Shanghai Elegant Investment Co. said.
“China’s shift away from energy-intensive and polluting industries to a low-carbon economy is one of the key investment opportunities in the next three years,” Shi Bo, who oversees about $400 million as general manager of Shanghai Elegant, said in a phone interview today. He declined to say if he’s buying or selling stocks.
China, the world’s biggest polluter, is striving to reduce its reliance on growth driven by energy-intensive industries and avert asset bubbles after stimulus spending and record loans last year fueled a jump in property prices. The nation may spend about 5 trillion yuan ($738 billion) in the next decade developing cleaner sources of energy, Jiang Bing, head of the National Energy Administration’s planning and development department, said in July.
Friends of the Earth urges end to ‘land grab’ for biofuels
European Union countries must drop their biofuels targets or else risk plunging more Africans into hunger and raising carbon emissions, according to Friends of the Earth (FoE).
In a campaign launching today, the charity accuses European companies of land-grabbing throughout Africa to grow biofuel crops that directly compete with food crops. Biofuel companies counter that they consult with local governments, bring investment and jobs, and often produce fuels for the local market.
FoE has added its voice to an NGO lobby that claims local communities are not properly consulted and that forests are being cleared in a pattern that echoes decades of exploitation of other natural resources in Africa.
In its report “Africa: Up for Grabs”, the group says that the key to halting the land-grab is for EU countries to drop a goal to produce 10% of all transport fuels from biofuels by 2020.
Chevron spends $3.9 million for lobbying in 2Q
A subsidiary of Chevron Corp. spent $3.9 million in the second quarter to lobby the federal government on climate change, oil industry taxes and other issues, according to a disclosure report.
That is far less than the $6 million Chevron U.S.A. Inc. spent during the same quarter last year, but it is an increase over the $3.1 million Chevron spent in first quarter, according to the report filed on July 20.
In the April-to-June period the San Ramon, Calif., oil giant lobbied Congress, the White House, the National Security Council, the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the EPA, the Office of Management and Budget, and the departments of the interior, state, commerce, energy and treasury.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
On the solar roadways thing, forgive me for suggesting the avoidance of massively difficult technical challenges (read the full article, it does not sound promising), but how about just mounting regular panels at the far side of the breakdown lane on the south-facing side of the road? Make ‘em tall enough and you get shade for the roadway, too.
It is long past time to change our language when reporting about the costs of coal. Lets respect accounting a little more.
The UPFRONT cost of coal may be low.
The total cost of using coal makes it undoubtedly the HIGHEST cost fuel.
The delivery portion of the fuel involves a low exchange of money. The post combustion phase of coal has real impacts and tremendous costs that remain uncalculated.
Money is just a way of keeping score. Lets look at the longer term costs.
If implemented in that amount of space, 15 percent efficient (considered moderate) solar cells having 3.7 square meters each would produce 7.6 kilowatt-hours of energy a day.
Something is wrong here. 15% efficient cells means a nominal power of 150 W per sq m. 3.7 sq m would then yield 555 W. Depending on the location, that will generate roughly 500 kWh per year (accounting for their non-optimal flat orientation, dirt and shading by cars and vegetation), or max 1.5 kWh per day, not 7.6.
Replacing heat-absorbing pavement with energy-producing solar panels sounds like a winner, in theory. In practice, I foresee many problems, including:
1) Our existing roadway surfaces are being destroyed by trucks. How can any solar solution withstand that pounding?
2) Traction. It seems to me that almost any treatment that would provide sufficient traction would also tend to scatter sunlight, reducing production. And what about rain, when you no longer have a permeable surface?
3) Dirt, rubber and oil reducing output.
4) Probably increased cost and difficulty of road maintenance.
5) Decreased production because the cells are shaded by vehicles and roadside vegetation and structures.
6) Cost. It’s gotta be cheaper to just put up panels on ground mounts alongside the highway, or on shade structures over the highway.
I’m all for putting solar any place it makes sense. I doubt that road surfaces are among those places.
Concerning the above mentioned oiligarchy:
The second American Revolution will establish democratic representation law: No person shall lobby government who is paid to do so.
Plutocracy is not democracy. It is corruption of American principles. Money is a traded symbol of socially agreed upon political power (and the supreme court of the land has just exercised theirs in the ironically named Citizens United case).
Anne, no. 3: You left out in your rough calculation the average of four hours of sun per day through the year.
This scheme does seem a bit far fetched in comparison with already existing roof surfaces across the country. All that is needed is some moderate shifts in policy, such as for financing solar, and the market will become mainstream for most sunny buildings. Based on Ecological Economics, solar is least cost in comparison to many utility suppliers NOW.
EIA shows that the US generated 4100 billion kWh of electricity in 2008. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=12
Even though the daily production varies, just for an exercise, I assumed that this could be represented as roughly 11 billion kWh produced per day.
If you use the 7.6 kWh per day figure for the solar cells mentioned in this article for the Solar Roadways, you only have to cover about 5% of the 100,000 square kilometers of US roads to produce all of this.
If we take the less optimistic number of 1.5 kWh per day from Anne, we would have to cover 27% of all roads to produce this much energy.
I completely agree that there are some obstacles to overcome, but nothing compared to what was needed to get to the moon or produce nuclear energy. We’re talking about trying to figure out how to make shatterproof glass that you can drive on and efficient batteries. Why isn’t this worth investing a few 100 billion dollars into?
This idea of turning highways into solar collectors surfaces from time to time. It continues to make little sense to me.
First, there are the reasons listed by others above.
Then there are the transmission problems. Best to put panels close to where the power will be needed, not out in the hinterlands. Put the panels on roof tops and use them to shade parking lots. Hookup costs will be comparatively cheap, the grid is only feet away.
We should be careful about celebrating the victory of gas over coal. 40-50% of coal’s emissions is still way too much. Better to leapfrog to truly clean energy by charging for gas emissions too.
Natural gas is a winner, as a transition method. (Fracking issues aside, I still haven’t found out if fracking is a major/minor problem.)
In addition to reducing carbon emissions ~50% over coal, gas turbines are dispatchable. They won’t have to run all night long when demand is low and the grid is well-supplied by wind. In those conditions carbon emissions fall to zero.
Then as more solar comes on line those turbines will sit idle. More zero emission hours.
Finally as more storage comes to the grid the turbines will run less and less.
We’d have to build a 24/365 renewable harvesting and storage system before we could shut down coal burning plants otherwise. This way we can shut them down quicker and have good backup sitting idle if we need it.
I second what mike roddy says (#9). It isn’t the rate that we emit CO2 that matters, it is the total amount of CO2. Building long-lasting new fossil-fueled infrastructure these days is just wrong.
We have to leave most fossil fuels in the ground period and that includes all the new unconventional natural gas supplies.
There is a dangerous meme that we can solve climate cooking by powering our society on unconventional fossil fuels as long as they are not “coal”. Wrong. As Hansen points out, we have to leave most of the remaining coal AND unconventional fossil fuels in the ground.
We have the technology and know-how to replace coal power with efficiency, conservation and renewables without suffering any economic losses.
But it is the rate.
The goal is to get back to the rate of emission we had a couple of decades ago.
If we could move all coal generation to NG generation that would be a 50% drop in rate.
Then if we build enough wind generation to take NG turbines off line one third of the day we cut the rate to 34% of what it would be with coal.
If we could drop our electricity-related carbon by 2/3rds we’d be in great shape.
I agree that we ‘could’ replace coal with renewables right now, but that idea will not fly with well-entrenched utility companies. They are not yet ‘believers’.
They are willing to build gas turbines and shut down coal plants. Let’s support them in that endeavor. Gas plants get built very quickly. That gets us a 50% decrease very quickly. Rate reductions right now are much more valuable than rate reductions later on.
“Why isn’t this worth investing a few 100 billion dollars into?”
How much electricity could we produce by spending those few 100 billion dollars on getting more rooftop solar installed?
The money that we’re now spending helping homeowners and businesses install solar, isn’t that measured in the millions and not in the hundreds of billions? What if we used only a few billion to sweeten the existing solar pot?
Yep biofuels do have issues that most people would like to ignore. Most of the crops used today require land, water, and fertilizer, and then we just burn it. After investing all those important resources the crop is converted (requiring even more valuable resources) into fuel and just burned. And Europe is doing this in Africa where many of the worlds starving people live. Of course the African countries could simply refuse to lease the land but they are so poor that farm land is one of their only marketable recourses.
Even when biofuel is all produced from algae the question becomes how much water will we divert from agriculture, industry, and home use to supply this burgeoning new enterprise? I hope we will require this industry to use sea water, waste water, or brackish ground water and not have it compete directly with domestic water supplies.
Obama’s Ex-Im Bank BOD unanimously approved extending loan guarantee financing to the Sasan 4GW coal-fired plant in India.
we cant even upkeep the asphalt roads we have now, and someone wants to embed solars cells in them?
Black Coal is down but not out … yet! Congress bows to the multinational corporate dole that is the biggest problem to Democracy that we have ever seen. It ranks right along side of AGW. They will inhibit the transition to Clean Energy any way they can. James Newberry [#5] gets it right! The likes of Jim Inhofe will stop at nothing to corrupt the smart move to Clean Energy. If you desire a stomach churning experience go to Inhofe’s website to see him defend his Oil buddies! It is time to write a ‘pen and paper’ letter to congress!
Greenwashing biotech
Now, the biotech industry is regrouping and re-branding itself, but the PR message looks very familiar. Food and climate change – two urgent global crises – are the context for a second major public relations push for genetic engineering. This time, however, there is an added twist: biofuels and the promise that biotechnology can fuel the world as well as feed it. http://www.commonground.ca/iss/230/cg230_biotech.shtml
GMO contamination is the biggest long term threat to all humans AFTER CC.
Municipal trash-to-ethanol plant opens in Canada
Canadian company Enerkem broke ground on a facility on Tuesday that will convert 100 tons of household trash a year into ethanol.
The $75 million plant in Edmonton, Alberta is expected to be completed in late 2011. By 2013, the city will be able to divert 90 percent of its residential waste, mayor Stephen Mandel said in a statement.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20015203-54.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=GreenTech#ixzz0yDDzoVlw
We need this kind of BECCS everywhere.
Sim on taking action with Greenpeace
who is currently suspended 15 metres above the icy Arctic waters – talks about how he got into Greenpeace and taking direct action http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3YXoyNQcf4
“we cant even upkeep the asphalt roads we have now, and someone wants to embed solars cells in them?”
I guess embedded solar generates the cash for repairs along the road.
“Obama’s Ex-Im Bank BOD unanimously approved extending loan guarantee financing to the Sasan 4GW coal-fired plant in India.”
This is the wrong way.
A rare triple threat in the Western Pacific
Over in the Western Pacific, we have an unusual triple feature–three named storms all within 700 miles of each other. A 3-way interaction between these storms is occurring, making for a very tough forecast situation. The storm of most concern is Typhoon Kompasu, which hit Okinawa today as a Category 2 typhoon. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1595
Sudden Spread of ‘Rock Snot’ Algae in Waters a Science Mystery http://www.sej.org/headlines/sudden-spread-rock-snot-algae-waters-science-mystery
River metals linked to tar sand extraction
Researchers find that pollutants in Canada’s Athabasca River are not from natural sources.
Oil-mining operations in Canada’s main tar sands region are releasing a range of heavy and toxic metals — including mercury, arsenic and lead — into a nearby river http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100831/full/news.2010.439.html
California Legislature passes energy storage bill
California legislators have passed the nation’s first energy storage bill, a move that require the state’s utilities to bank a portion of the electricity they generate.
Assembly Bill 2514 (AB 2514) now heads to the desk of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), who has made climate change and green technology his political legacy as his final term winds down. http://www.grist.org/article/california-legislature-passes-energy-storage-bill/
James Newberry August 31, 2010 at 12:21 pm
My calculation is correct, I did leave nothing out. The yield of ~1000 kWh per year for each rated kW of solar panel is real world data. The actual figure varies from 700 (Scandinavia) to 2000 (Sahara). 1000 is a reasonable average.
Why not engineer the infrared solar panels mentioned here the other day, to be used in the lowest levels of the roadbeds? Around here the asphalt gets plenty hot when the sun shines on it, so if that heat could generate electric power we’d have something useful. By converting some of the heat directly into electricity, the roadway itself would protect the panels from the stresses of traffic.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100823-energy-electric-power-from-heat/
Joe — I saw a succession of pro-Meg Whitman ads on this page; given her stance on California’s AB 32, I guess you might want to look into that with the ad provider.
I haven’t seen much of an idea to add a surtax to the STOCK DIVIDENDS of corporations working in certain industries. Fossil fuel corporations and Banks come to mind for being early adopters. Such a tax (10 -20%) would reduce the desirability of such stock, lessening the value and power of these corporations. Reduce their access to new capital. Cut off these bastards at the knees. The money raised could reduce the national debt.
An immoral tax to limit immoral powers.
Six Volcanoes Erupt Simultaneously in Russia
… as the planet warms up, the resulting melted ice won’t just raise sea levels, they will also un-cap volcanoes. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/279526
3:
I think something was lost in transciption. Since most reporters don’t have a physics background like Joe, it is to be expected. If I assume they meant 3.7 meters squared (ie, a square that is 3.7 meters on a side). If I do that 3.7*3.7*.15*4 yields 8.2 KWhours per day, which is close enough to conclude it was the probable intent.
I really doubt PV in roadways makes sense. Its a tougher environment than putting them on say roofs etc. so the cost per watt ought to be higher. Some have proposed low grade solar heat from roadways, by embedding water pipes in the roadway. This sounds like it just might be low tech enough to work.
Natural gas is cheap enough to compete today. But, can shale gas make a profits at the current price? If not, expect drilling to slack off until the price rises. IMHO the shale gas thing has been seriously overhyped (mainly in a effort to attract investors). I don’t think we can assume natural gas will be abundant and cheap in the future. It is an attractive stepping stone if we do it as follows:
(1) Natural gas to displace coal for baseline use.
(2) Add in solar and wind to conserve the natural gas for those periods when wind/solar can’t provide enough.
We need near term rates (of emissions) to go down in order to get buy in from India and China. Natural gas allows us to do that at minimal cost. Since US voters are notorious cheapskates, that may be the only feasible near term path.
The Inter-Academy Council report on the processes and governance of the IPCC is now available. It appears mostly sensible and has a lot of useful things to say about improving IPCC processes – from suggesting a new Executive to be able to speak for IPCC in-between reports, a new communications strategy, better consistency among working groups and ideas for how to reduce the burden on lead authors in responding to rapidly increasing review comments. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/ipcc-report-card/
We’ve entered our Solar Roadways project in the Ecomagination Challenge, which could provide up to $200M in funding for the next big idea in renewable energy and Smart Grid technology. We could really use your votes to get the funding that we need to make the Solar Roadways project a reality.
http://www.solarroadways.com/vote.shtml
Thank you very much!