Worldwide Energy Crisis

[SeaKingTacco]

This is incorrect. The government absolutely did the right thing here. The main reasons they paused were lack of transmission capacity and frequency issues.

If you look at the AESO website for the last few weeks you will see the cost of constraint on some days was well over $100,000 to either pay the already heavily subsidized wind and solar producers not to produce or pay for transmission line losses. These charges get added to all electric bills. This is because the so called 'renewables' are mostly built in the southern part of the province and on days when there is significant wind and solar production the transmission lines to the middle part of the province can't handle the power.

Also noted on the AESO website - frequency excursion issues are becoming more common due increased wind power production. One of the windmill's little secrets is they produce very dirty, erratic power. Any time there is more than 10% wind power in the grid the grid controllers start having issues. Gaining or loosing .5Hz on a 60 Hz system doesn't sound like much but it can have really bad consequences. When you have significant frequency issues you start to run the risk of tripping the steam, cogen and combined cycle plants. If you were to trip a couple of them it would likely cascade to a large number of the other plants leading to rolling brownouts/blackouts and that wouldn't be good. The customers would be very upset.

As for replacing existing products with something better the so called renewables are garbage power. If it wasn't for subsidies no one would build this unreliable trash and no one in their right mind would try to replace solid reliable coal/nat gas/nuclear with it unless of course the goal was to have no reliable power at all. Maybe you are ok with unreliable power, I and most of the rest of AB are not.

Finally, a realistic take on Wind power.

I do not get/understand the cultish love for it.

Wind power, at scale, does not work.

If we want realistic, low/carbon electrical power, hydro or nuclear are the options that we have with today’s tech.

 

[QV]

Because it isn't about the environment at all. It's about wrecking the last major industry that keeps one province a "have" province and not totally reliant on handouts from the federal government. The federal LPC wants Alberta to be like the Maritimes, much easier to control that way.

 

[KevinB]

Finally, a realistic take on Wind power.

I do not get/understand the cultish love for it.

Wind power, at scale, does not work.

If we want realistic, low/carbon electrical power, hydro or nuclear are the options that we have with today’s tech.

Unfortunately no one likes a realist these days

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Unfortunately no one likes a realist these days

Well, reality has punched Canada in the face at least twice this week, so I would say…tough shit.

Reality eats fantasy for breakfast.

 

[KevinB]

Well, reality has punched Canada in the face at least twice this week, so I would say…tough shit.

Reality eats fantasy for breakfast.

One day we can also hope that Reality may actually garner votes too.
Which saddens me that it really doesn't currently.

 

[Good2Golf]

Referencing my previous - one of the reasons for the abysmal efficiency of the nuclear plants was NIMBY.

‘Abysmal?’

Mid-30% efficiency is the generally-accepted standard for nuclear power plant efficiency, similar to, but slightly higher than coal or NG-fired power plants. It has little to do with the actual origin of the heat generation source (be it nuclear, hydrocarbon, etc.), but rather the temperature that the closed-cycle steam system operates at in order to convert heat energy from the core, via steam, into electrical energy. Developments of large-scale higher efficiency reactors, so-called ‘Gen 4/Gen IV’ reactors, continues, with thermal-electrical conversion goals of 45% and greater. (Ref.)

When one uses an adjective as ‘abysmal’, I’d expect efficiencies in the single-digit range. Hardly something achieved by today’s nuclear generation plants.

 

[Kirkhill]

Finally, a realistic take on Wind power.

I do not get/understand the cultish love for it.

Wind power, at scale, does not work.

If we want realistic, low/carbon electrical power, hydro or nuclear are the options that we have with today’s tech.

And the EU seems to being dragged to that position - at least temporarily

How war in Ukraine sank Europe’s net zero plans​

European politicians are reconsidering climate change action as they fear being punished by voters facing surging food and energy prices

ByJames Crisp, EUROPE EDITOR26 September 2023 • 11:26am


Rishi Sunak is not the only European leader watering down his net zero ambitions in the face of a cost of living crisis caused by the war in Ukraine.

Putin’s illegal invasion sharply reduced economic growth and “considerably” pushed up inflation across the Continent, the Swiss National Bank said on Friday before warning worse was to come.

The British prime minister delayed a ban on petrol engines by five years to 2035, slowing the switch to expensive electric cars, and gave homeowners more time to swap their fossil fuel boilers for initially costly heat pumps last week.

EU countries have less freedom to chop and change green rules because the bloc has agreed a binding 2035 internal combustion engine ban, as well as emissions reductions targets of at least 55 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2050.

Politicians fear being punished by voters who are feeling the pinch of surging food and energy prices.

UK government said it would issue hundreds of new oil and gas licences in the North Sea to secure energy reserves while still aiming for net zero CREDIT: ANDY BUCHANAN/AFP

“There is certainly a trend of some European politicians backtracking on climate action,” said Mats Engström, Senior Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations think tank.
“Energy prices have been high and recent decisions on climate targets now have to be implemented in difficult sectors such as housing and transport,” said Mr Engström.
“We are fully aware of calls for a slowing down of the green agenda and demands to avoid additional burdens on citizens and businesses,” Katja Rosenbohm, the head of communications at the EU’s European Environment Agency, told the Telegraph from Copenhagen.
“The war in Ukraine and the cost of living and energy crises brought new pressing challenges to the top of the political agenda, but we cannot talk about these challenges without talking about the existential threats posed by climate change, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse.”

Silvia Pastorelli, Greenpeace EU climate campaigner said, “We’re seeing a pattern of dishonesty from politicians across the EU and UK about who benefits from rolling back climate solutions and who pays the costs.
“The real winners from keeping our homes draughty and cars burning oil are the fossil fuel giants already making billions from this crisis.”
But the war in Ukraine has also accelerated the transition to renewable energy from Russian gas in Europe, as the continent moved to wean itself off Kremlin-controlled fossil fuels after the invasion.
“There’s rhetoric and then there’s reality,” said Peter Chalkley, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit.
“The pace towards net zero in Europe has sped up in the past couple of years due to pure economics, with renewables now cheaper, and energy security concerns sparked by Russian gas dependence helping to push sales of electric heat pumps through the roof.”
He added, “Coal is below pre-Covid levels and that combined with wind and solar generating more electricity than gas for the first time last year means emissions are falling.”
Even so, politicians across Europe are reconsidering their net zero plans in a way that seemed unthinkable before the unprovoked Russian attack on Ukraine.

France​

Emmanuel Macron was president of France during the UN summit which led to the Paris climate change agreement in 2015.
Ever since, he has worn his green credentials on his sleeve as a point of pride.
But even Mr Macron is not immune to the backlash against green regulations since the war in Ukraine.

French activists holding inverted portraits of Emmanuel Macron during a climate change protest in front of the Eiffel Tower CREDIT: BENOIT TESSIER/REUTERS

On Sunday, he announced that France would not be banning gas boilers in homes because it would be unfair on people in rural areas.
He said the French “love their car, and I do too,” and announced a subsidy scheme to lease European-made electric cars for about 100 euros per month
However, his failure to give a date for phasing out fossil fuels, with the exception of coal, was branded “underwhelming” by environmental groups.

Germany​

Berlin passed a watered down oil and gas “boiler ban” after months of outcry over the cost of new greener heating systems.
Germany’s best-selling newspaper Bild had campaigned against what it branded “the heating hammer”.
The law sparked bitter infighting among Olaf Scholz’s SPD-led ruling coalition and coincided with a record rise in support for the hard-Right AFD party.
The legislation was so heavily amended that the bill will now only cut about three quarters of the polluting emissions it had targeted as part of Berlin’s push for net zero by 2045.

European Union​

The EU’s Green Deal is a package of laws agreed in 2020 that aims to make Europe carbon neutral by 2050. But its policies have come under increasingly ferocious attack before European Parliament elections next year.
In a crucial July vote, the European Parliament defeated an attempt by the centre-Right European People’s Party (EPP) to veto a law to rewild a fifth of the EU’s land and sea habitats from 2030 .
The EPP has called for a pause on environmental legislation to prioritise economic growth and jobs, despite the Green Deal being a flagship policy for EU members and Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president.
The party has demanded Europe’s farmers be spared burdensome red tape and called for strict protections for resurgent wolves to be relaxed, which Brussels has said it will consider.
“We are not changing in any way the ambitions at the heart of the Green Deal, or the targets that have been set,” a European Commission spokesman told the Telegraph.
Pieter de Pous, of climate change think tank E3G, said there was “an emerging trend across Europe” of politicians jumping at the “first opportunity to roll back” green measures they never really wanted to adopt in the first place.
He said they targeted areas that “easily lend themselves for outrage like farming, cars or housing” and often in “tacit cooperation with an emboldened far-Right”.

A worker checks metal label on a valve at the Dashava natural gas facility in Ukraine, a transit station along the natural gas pipelines linking to western Europe CREDIT: Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Earlier this month, Roberta Metsola, the European Parliament’s president, warned climate regulations were fuelling support for populist politicians ahead of the elections.
She called for a “proportionality test” and cost assessment of climate regulations before an election where climate change and green regulation is already a battleground.
Meanwhile, a number of European Union member states are pushing for new emission rules to be eased before the bloc’s ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars enters into force.
France, Italy and the Czech Republic are among a group of EU nations calling for the new emissions limits to be weakened.

Spain, which holds the EU’s rotating presidency, proposed a delay to the so-called “Euro 7” rules, which place an upper limit on CO₂ emission levels for new cars sold in Europe.
Under Madrid’s compromise, carmakers would be given an extra 24 months to comply, while 48 months would be given to manufacturers of buses and trucks over 3.5 tonnes.
The fudge agreed on Monday among EU governments, however, does not weaken the rules.
“Despite some of its members being poorer than the UK, the EU is not backing down on its phase-out of combustion engines,” said Julia Poliscanova, senior director for vehicles at Transport & Environment, which campaigns for zero emission mobility.

Italy​

Giorgia Meloni’s Right-wing government claims local businesses cannot afford to reach the EU green targets.
Rome has called on the EU to water down rules to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, arguing that it “risks damaging Italy” and needed a “gradual approach” rather than a decade-long target.
Italy has also pressed the EU to change its plans to phase out petrol and diesel engines.

Giorgia Meloni has denied the government, which was voted in last year, was made up of ‘dangerous climate change deniers’ CREDIT: GUGLIELMO MANGIAPANE/REUTERS

In March, Ms Meloni denied the government, which was voted in last year, was made up of “dangerous climate change deniers”.
“We believe that, in respecting the international commitments made on the reduction of climate-changing emissions, a pragmatic approach should be taken, not an ideological one,” she said.
“Environmental sustainability must not be separated from economic and social sustainability.”

Sweden​

Sweden, the homeland of Greta Thunberg, the climate activist, has admitted it will miss its 2030 emission reduction targets after cutting tax on polluting petrol and diesel.
It will also cut funding for climate measures next year by £19 million. The government also plans to abolish a tax on plastic bags designed to reduce waste.

A worker in a power plant repairs damage after a Russian attack in central Ukraine CREDIT: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

The minority-run coalition is propped up by the hard-Right Sweden Democrats, which has been described as the most anti-Green Deal party in the EU.
On Friday, demonstrators took to the streets of Stockholm after the movement started by Ms Thunberg, described the new government budget as a “big betrayal”.

Poland​

Poland has filed legal challenges against three of the EU’s main climate change policies, including the law to ban the sale of new petrol engine cars from 2035.
Warsaw argues that the laws represent an “excessive burden” on poorer people, a threat to energy security and that they put coal mining jobs at risk.
Poland has, until a very recent spat over grain imports, been one of Kyiv’s staunchest supporters and welcomed more than 1.6 million Ukrainian refugees, despite its economy slowing because of the war.

Netherlands​

Dutch government plans to meet EU nitrogen emissions reduction targets with compulsory farm buyouts led to a drubbing in regional elections earlier this year.

Caroline Van Der Plas of BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB), the Farmers-Citizen Movement CREDIT: BSR Agency/Getty Images

The Farmers-Citizen Movement (BBB) came from nowhere to become the largest party in all 12 Dutch provinces in a vote dominated by tractor protests against green laws.
Since then, the coalition government collapsed which means a general election in November that could prove crucial for the future of green laws in the country.
The election will be fought by, among others, the BBB, and Frans Timmermans, the former EU climate chief who left Brussels to contest the vote.

Politicians and bureaucrats discovering that people matter and that diktats from the pulpit don't guarantee compliance.

 

[KJK]

My cousin works as a windfarm mechanic. One of the issues they don’t tell the public is the windmills don’t have a particularly long lifespan (average 15-20 years).

They are miserable to maintain, require maintenance at least every 6 months, and decommissioning costs are high just as construction costs are high.

Its like electric cars, everyone believes they are ‘green’ because they have been told they are. In reality what is ‘green’ about them? The batteries? The electricity used to power them?

Your average car has a 180,000 mile lifespan. Your average electric car when you do a cradle to grave study on it only beats the gas car after 120,000 miles for being more ‘green’. This is due to the much higher environmental impact of making a electric car, specifically the batteries. If you have to change out the battery once in the life span of that electric car it no longer is more environmentally friendly and is now a net negative.

So why do we push them so hard if we can prove they aren’t as effective unless there is underlying political reasons? Just some food for thought.

This is very true. If you want some pictures of the future of the areas where there are currently wind farms simply google abandoned Hawaii and California wind farms. They got on the wind train in the 80s and 90s, now there are literally 1000s of broken and falling down wind mills scattered all over those states. As soon as the subsidies ended or in some cases like the one in PEI where they can't seem to get them to work the owners declared bankruptcy and left them there. The one advantage for them is those turbines are mostly tiny compared to the monsters they are currently building in AB. I expect that a lot of these companies will do the same here and that land will be too dangerous for anyone to set foot on until they are removed at taxpayer's expense.

 

[KJK]

‘Abysmal?’

Mid-30% efficiency is the generally-accepted standard for nuclear power plant efficiency, similar to, but slightly higher than coal or NG-fired power plants. It has little to do with the actual origin of the heat generation source (be it nuclear, hydrocarbon, etc.), but rather the temperature that the closed-cycle steam system operates at in order to convert heat energy from the core, via steam, into electrical energy. Developments of large-scale higher efficiency reactors, so-called ‘Gen 4/Gen IV’ reactors, continues, with thermal-electrical conversion goals of 45% and greater. (Ref.)

When one uses an adjective as ‘abysmal’, I’d expect efficiencies in the single-digit range. Hardly something achieved by today’s nuclear generation plants.

One of the problems with trying to get high efficiency from nuclear power is that nukes generally don't produce high enough steam temps to get into the 40% range. Compare that to the last 2 big coal units that were built in AB, they are 'supercritical' units with extremely high temps and pressures. Their efficiencies reach into the low 40% range. Combined cycle nat gas units can be designed to be in the 60% range and some Cogen units reach into the high 70s/low 80s. I never asked our engineers what efficiency our Cogen runs at. Since we are running relatively low pressure I would guess in the 60s somewhere.

 

[Kirkhill]

‘Abysmal?’

Mid-30% efficiency is the generally-accepted standard for nuclear power plant efficiency, similar to, but slightly higher than coal or NG-fired power plants. It has little to do with the actual origin of the heat generation source (be it nuclear, hydrocarbon, etc.), but rather the temperature that the closed-cycle steam system operates at in order to convert heat energy from the core, via steam, into electrical energy. Developments of large-scale higher efficiency reactors, so-called ‘Gen 4/Gen IV’ reactors, continues, with thermal-electrical conversion goals of 45% and greater. (Ref.)

When one uses an adjective as ‘abysmal’, I’d expect efficiencies in the single-digit range. Hardly something achieved by today’s nuclear generation plants.

Fair comment

And 30-40% is pretty much the norm for any thermal cycle. And the high end for wind turbines at 20-40%. Hydro is a glorious 90% which is in line with motor efficiencies which seems appropriate given that they are essentially motors run backwards with a steady and consistent fuel supply in the form of water.

My point was that if I brought fuel into my home then I have the capability of securing 100% of its energy for my benefit. The efficiency depends on the design of the fireplace or stove or generator and the chimney. Efficiencies up to 90% for a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant are possible.

Conversely, if I bring fuel to a remote site to generate electricity and transmit it over long distances, I will be lucky to receive 10-20% of that total fuel's benefits.

The distance prevents me taking advantage of the lower grade heat which I could harvest at home. And the long distance transmission eats up power that is generated. Not to mention the energy consumed in the manufacture of the wires and pylons to carry the energy.

My preferred solution is local natural gas CHPs. Large ones with district heating for subdivisions and villages. Small, individual ones for remote properties, possibly fueled with propane instead.

Then you could use the power locally generated for e-scooters and golf carts to run around the neighbourhood.


Use hydro where possible locally. Where hydro and natural gas aren't available competitively then local nuclear is the best bet.

Transportation, especially, long haul - diesel-electric for cars, trucks, trains and ships.

If I were doing the king thing I would ditch the Carbon mandates and promote efficiency with a goal to end up in the 80 to 95% range.

 

[Kirkhill]

The average efficiency of fossil-fueled power plants in the United States is 36 percent. This means that 64 percent of the energy used to produce electricity at most power plants in the United States is wasted in the form of heat discharged to the atmosphere.

Most facilities produce heat with natural gas boilers, which are generally 75–85 percent efficient at converting fuel to thermal energy. Overall, separate heat and grid power is 50–55 percent fuel-efficient.

By recovering and using heat from on-site electricity production, CHP systems typically achieve total system efficiencies of 65 to 80 percent. Some systems achieve efficiencies approaching 90 percent.

https://www.epa.gov/chp/chp-benefits

 

[Kirkhill]

This is very true. If you want some pictures of the future of the areas where there are currently wind farms simply google abandoned Hawaii and California wind farms. They got on the wind train in the 80s and 90s, now there are literally 1000s of broken and falling down wind mills scattered all over those states. As soon as the subsidies ended or in some cases like the one in PEI where they can't seem to get them to work the owners declared bankruptcy and left them there. The one advantage for them is those turbines are mostly tiny compared to the monsters they are currently building in AB. I expect that a lot of these companies will do the same here and that land will be too dangerous for anyone to set foot on until they are removed at taxpayer's expense.

Which costs more to clean up?

Abandoned wells or abandoned windfarms? Solar arrays?

Generally, solar panels have a warranty of 25-30 years, but rooftop solar systems can last longer, depending on the quality of the components, the design, and maintenance. On average, a quality solar panel degradation rate is 0.5-3% annually during its entire lifespan

https://roofit.solar/why-do-solar-panels-degrade/#:~:text=Generally%2C%20solar%20panels%20have%20a,annually%20during%20its%20entire%20lifespan.

Wind blown sand does a real job on flat surfaces up here on the prairies.

And apparently wind on its own can be problematic.

The Environmental Disaster of Solar Energy

Solar energy is terrible for the environment in a number of ways, including the fact that large land areas must be devoted to it. At Forbes, Michael Shellenberger highlights another problem with solar energy: it produces vast quantities of hazardous waste, which are not being adequately dealt...

www.americanexperiment.org

The rest of Canada gets wind warnings at 70 km/h. Here in Southern Alberta that is about half the year. Our warnings start at 80 km/h with gusts to 100 km/h. That is about the speed when they shut down the wind farms.

Criteria for public weather alerts - Canada.ca

Environment Canada issues alert bulletins for the following weather hazards.

www.canada.ca

 

[KJK]

Which costs more to clean up?

Abandoned wells or abandoned windfarms? Solar arrays?

https://roofit.solar/why-do-solar-panels-degrade/#:~:text=Generally%2C%20solar%20panels%20have%20a,annually%20during%20its%20entire%20lifespan.

Wind blown sand does a real job on flat surfaces up here on the prairies.

And apparently wind on its own can be problematic.

View attachment 80293

The Environmental Disaster of Solar Energy

Solar energy is terrible for the environment in a number of ways, including the fact that large land areas must be devoted to it. At Forbes, Michael Shellenberger highlights another problem with solar energy: it produces vast quantities of hazardous waste, which are not being adequately dealt...

www.americanexperiment.org

The rest of Canada gets wind warnings at 70 km/h. Here in Southern Alberta that is about half the year. Our warnings start at 80 km/h with gusts to 100 km/h. That is about the speed when they shut down the wind farms.

Criteria for public weather alerts - Canada.ca

Environment Canada issues alert bulletins for the following weather hazards.

www.canada.ca

I would guess the wells would be much cheaper to decommission. Bring in a service rig and cement the casing and you are done. With wind turbines what you see is only part of the problem. The massive concrete bases that weigh 100s to 1000s of tonnes are another problem. Also at least you can use the land with abandoned wells on it. Not so with wind turbines.

This isn't to say I agree with any companies abandoning wells/windmills/ solar arrays. Some are easier to fix than others and some industries pay a deposit when they start up(mines) or as they go(O&G). To the best of my knowledge the wind and solar companies pay nothing and are very heavily subsidized.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Upgrading existing facilities also helps. As I recall this project was hoping for a 10% increase in generated electricity.

Expanding into the Future: GM Shrum Station Service Rehab

To ensure continued performance of its 2,830-MW GM Shrum Generating Station, BC Hydro embarked on a multi-year project to upgrade the plant that involved replacing the station service with smart technology for integration into a new SCADA system and installing arc flash protection for the...

www.hydroreview.com

 

[Kirkhill]

The harsh reality is that while we in the UK have drastically cut coal use in recent decades, it remains one of the main sources of energy worldwide, comprising 27 per cent of total world energy consumption in 2022. This is behind oil at 32 per cent, but ahead of natural gas at 24 per cent. Because it is particularly carbon-intensive, coal is responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions than the other fossil fuels.

And despite the somewhat bizarre decision of Germany to close its zero carbon nuclear power stations in favour of using more coal, Europe is responsible for just over six percent of global coal consumption (with the UK’s share being a barely measurable 0.1 percent). More broadly, the UK is only responsible for 1 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector.

The hysteria over green energy delays is absurd. One Indian village shows why

Solar plus batteries project site now used as a cattle shed

www.telegraph.co.uk

India’s love affair with coal is going nowhere. There are 27 gigawatts of coal-based power plants currently under construction and another 24 gigawatts in various pre-construction stages. Coal’s share of the country’s electricity mix may well decline, but is still likely to account for the majority of electricity generated as we move into the next decade, despite aspirations to build 500 gigawatts of renewable generation by 2030. It’s important to remember that renewable powerplant delivers a much lower proportion of its rated capacity over time than thermal plant does.

India is only the second largest user of coal globally. In first place is China, with by far the world’s largest amount of coal-fired electricity generating capacity: over one thousand gigawatts in 2022. Next was India with 233 gigawatts followed by the United States with 218 gigawatts. Germany had the most coal power in Europe at 38 gigawatts. Britain had a paltry four gigawatts, since halved to just two.

And China is racing to build more coal, with new coal plant permits reaching their highest level last year since 2015. The total amount of new coal power stations starting construction in China last year – 50 gigawatts - was six times that of the rest of the world combined, and 106 gigawatts of new coal power projects were permitted, the equivalent of two large coal power plants per week. In fact, there are concerns China may be building more coal power stations than it needs, creating economic challenges that might see coal used instead of available cleaner alternatives.

One aspect of coal that gets forgotten is that it is a solid.
You can pick up a lump of energy and carry it.
You can put it in a sack and hump it over your shoulder.
You can put it in a wheelbarrow or a bullock cart.
You can shovel it.

You don't need pipelines and tankers like you do for oil.
You don't need pressure vessels like you do for natural gas.
You don't need refrigeration plants and insulated balls like you do for LNG and will need for Hydrogen.
You don't need pylons and wires like you do for electricity.
You don't need mountains and water like you do for hydro.
You don't need the technology, space and maintenance necessary for wind and solar power.
You don't need all the safety measures like you need for uranium.

Coal is stable. It is intrinsically safe. It is portable. It is dense.

And burning it efficiently while scrubbing flue gases is still less costly than most, if not all, of the other energy sources I listed.

Canada generates 149 GW of electricity.
4.5 GW of that comes from coal.
Another 12.5 GW comes from natural gas.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I was reviewing a bunch of small coal fired plants when the government of the day decided to shut them all down. One plant up towards Chetwyand would have been beside the coal seam and 5 km from existing power transmission lines. As they would pulverise the coal and inject it under pressure, the temperatures would be high leading to a good burn rate and modern scrubbers meant that emissions would be quite low. Can't recall the output but the whole plant seemed like a good idea. Sadly died because of the government edict.

 

[QV]

I was reviewing a bunch of small coal fired plants when the government of the day decided to shut them all down. One plant up towards Chetwyand would have been beside the coal seam and 5 km from existing power transmission lines. As they would pulverise the coal and inject it under pressure, the temperatures would be high leading to a good burn rate and modern scrubbers meant that emissions would be quite low. Can't recall the output but the whole plant seemed like a good idea. Sadly died because of the government edict.

How is it possible that examples like this are allowed to die and examples like the wind farms are allowed to grow? Surely we have enough science and smart people in this country that we can produce energy with low enviro impact and high energy output.

How is this failing?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

How is it possible that examples like this are allowed to die and examples like the wind farms are allowed to grow? Surely we have enough science and smart people in this country that we can produce energy with low enviro impact and high energy output.

How is this failing?

Not fadish enough and people like the 'National Observer" would rail on about dirty coal plants, comparing it to one built in the mid 20th century.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ultimately this is all about "stuff"

Stuff, like coal and like gold, is physical. It exists. It exists in a time and a place.
Some people, some countries, have stuff. Others don't.
Those that don't have it want it.
Those that do have it want to keep it.

Europe's great wars of the Industrial Revolution were fought over stuff. Specifically coal. After three wars, 1870 - 1914 - 1939, France and Germany couldn't decide how to divide the coal that largely existed on Belgian soil. So they decided that neither one of them could have the stuff.
So they put it beyond use and decided that neither of them could have it.

But.

They needed energy to keep up with the Brits and Yanks and so they chose the miracle fuel - Uranium - and created Euratom.

But.

Uranium had its own problems, not least of which was they had none of that either. So they looked for another miracle solution. And settled on the wind and the sun as universal power supplies that everybody has access to.

Except they don't. Some places have more of that stuff than others.

And it is still cheaper to haul stuff out of the ground than it is to manufacture it from the air.



Curiously people feel the need to keep warm and will ultimately secure whatever energy they can to do that.


The Donbas is a major coal producing area.

Russia still wants stuff. So, apparently, do India and China.

 

[QV]

Not fadish enough and people like the 'National Observer" would rail on about dirty coal plants, comparing it to one built in the mid 20th century.

There should be a new category of criminal code offences. "Crimes against the integrity of democracy", or some such title. And this would include disinformation peddled by media outlets, public agents, elected officials, that impact public opinion.