Posted on 08/01/2017 4:56:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
Quick: What was the No. 1 source of electricity production in the U.S. during the first half of 2017? If you answered renewable energy, you were wrong by a mile. If you answered natural gas, you were wrong by a tiny amount.
According to the Energy Information Administration, which tracks energy use in production on a monthly basis, the single largest source of electric power for the first half of 2017 was coal.
That's an amazing finding, because liberals, especially environmental groups, keep telling us that coal is a dead industry. They ridiculed Donald Trump and called him a liar when he said that he would revive the coal industry and the related jobs. "Coal Isn't Coming Back," a New York Times piece assured us a few weeks after the election. "Saving coal is one promise (Trump) won't be able to keep," the author predicted. The Financial Times was even more blunt in its headline last month: "Coal Is Dead; Long Live the Sun."
Let's see if the left issues a retraction. Don't hold your breath.
According to the EIA's July report, "EIA estimates that the share of total U.S. generation fueled by natural gas during the first half of this year averaged 29 percent. ... In contrast, coal's share of generation rose from 28 percent in the first half of 2016 to 30 percent in (the) first half of 2017." For the full year of 2017, EIA estimates that coal will generate 3.453 million kilowatts per day, while natural gas, because of a rise in its retail price this year, will generate a hair less, or 3.432 million kilowatts. Wind and solar remain niche sources of energy, providing about one-seventh as much power as coal and gas.
That's not all. The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis released reports on July 21, 2017, that "mining increased 21.6 percent. ... The first quarter growth primarily reflected increases in oil and gas extraction, as well as support activities for mining. This was the largest increase since the fourth quarter of 2014." No other major American industry had such gains, and across all industries output was up less than 2 percent.
Liberals complain that coal activity isn't a major producer of jobs because the industry is producing a lot more coal with a lot fewer workers. That is absolutely true. Ladies and gentlemen, that is called productivity. A new study by the Institute for Energy Research points out that it takes wind and solar at least 30 times more man-hours to produce a kilowatt of electricity than are required to produce that same energy from coal or oil. If you don't think this productivity advantage of fossil fuels is a good thing, then you probably think we should bring farm jobs back by abolishing tractors and modern farm equipment.
But coal jobs are not just tied to the actual mining of coal. Coal is tied to steel jobs, trucking jobs and manufacturing jobs. Using cheap and efficient energy makes every other American industry more productive and thus makes American employers far more competitive in global markets. Productivity creates higher-paying jobs in America; it doesn't destroy them.
We are not the only country that is using a lot more coal. The New York Times, of all places, reports: "Chinese companies are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that burn little or no coal." India is building hundreds more.
Does any of this sound like the last gasps of an industry that is "dead"?
So enlighten me. The cost of natural gas and of coal undergo a minor blip favorable to coal. Says nothing about the long-term trend for either. The determinative data is, as I said, what the plans are for new power plants of each fuel.
My home country back in Louisiana is very near the River Bend nuclear plant. It is also very near to the "Big Cajun" fossil fuel generating facility complex.
The first "Big Cajun" generating plant was fueled by natural gas. The second plant was fueled by coal, and was built when it appeared as though natgas would be in short supply (pre-fracking).
In 2015, the coal plant was converted to run on natural gas.
IMO, this is a microcosm of what is happening across the US.
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nrg-completes-conversion-of-4-coal-plants-to-burn-natural-gas/433026/
Working link:
King Coal.
We need to do what liberals do. Control the language.
Notice how Donald Trump NEVER says coal by itself, but rather he says “Clean Coal”.
It is like when he said “Crooked Hillary” every time he talked about her.
Words and label words have meaning.
The Left have taught a generation of school children that coal is dirty, smoky and hazardous to their health. They also taught these kids that coal is always strip-mined from Motha Erf leaving horrid scars that smoke and can be seen from space and the big, evil energy corporations exploit all the hapless, too-stupid-to-know-what's-good-for-them redneck miners who get black lung disease right after the evil corporation fires them to avoid paying for their health care.
Clean coal remedies these talking points.
Always use it when speaking of coal!
CLEAN COAL!!!
They prove this statement wrong; “For electricity generation, coal can simply no longer compete with natural gas in the US.”
Coal still produces cheaper electricity than gas in the US. The more gas generation put on the more that will be true.
What drives this fascination on Free Republic about coal??
A factor ignored in the coal to gas switch is the fact the price of coal electricity was artificially raised with draconian environmental regulations like Regional Haze and impending CPP. Trump killed CPP. Coal electricity, on a level playing field, is still by far the most cost effective.
Sorry, in the long term, no. Combined cycle (gas turbine/steam turbine) power plants fueled by natural gas are more efficient than coal. Natgas is simply a better fuel, both environmentally AND economically.
What do you mean “want to believe town hall”?
How are Trump and the GOP trying to “indemnify coal”?
Renewables are not baseload, they will never be baseload, they need 100% baseload backup. That is the fatal flaw of renewables, and something most don’t understand about the way US electrical grid actually works.
Read my posts on this thread for more information;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3571303/posts
Then why is MISO running gas up and down with the demand and not coal? I watch the MISO map every day at work.
Here’s the reason, coal is the cheapest, so it’s the baseload, not gas.
Combined cycle is more efficient in the BTU/MW conversion but still more $/MW.
The grid, as you know it, is going away, and will be replaced with a real grid. It has already begun.
Modern technology has not yet found a cost-effective way to burn coal without resulting pollution? Unbelievable!
Re: “For electricity generation, coal can simply no longer compete with natural gas in the US.”
True.
But the reason has nothing to do with competition or productivity.
The reason is massive government regulation, and the fear of massive, and utterly bogus, lawsuits.
Go, Trump!!
Would you please back up your statement in terms of cost/BTU?
Correct, since most electricity that could recharge an electric car comes from coal fueled power plants, add in the attendant transmission losses, battery inefficiencies, energy cost of producing the car itself, and its batteries. Even if you could in wind power and solar cells that add a miniscule amount of energy to the grid, those systems themselves require energy from coal powered plants in the main to be built. You can’t get away from fossil fuels.
“What drives this fascination on Free Republic about coal??”
For me, the argument is big government picking winners and losers based on political whim vs free market economies and the natural law of supply and demand.
Big government had decided to kill off the coal, gas and oil with global warming being their excuse.
I’m loving it that Trump is shoving that commie inspired anti-free market nonsense up their fat asses!
If gas is great, cool!
If coal is great, cool!
If the free market develops something greater in the future, cool beans!
Thanks for the link, KC_Lion!
Jevon’s Paradox—whenever cost of use of a resource drops, everyone piles on to use more of the resource. Demand eventually catches up to supply; and, the cost to meet demand increases. We still have an excess supply for now.
Chemical production plants requiring NG feed-stock are being built. NG liquids shipping is expanding to supply overseas markets. Electric generation plants burning NG are continuing to take share from coal fired plants. A matter of time only before NG prices reflect the market demand vs supply.
The CO2 produced by Allam power cycle turbines will be valuable for additional oil recovery in existing oilfields, due to solvent scouring properties, and the pressure added to the partially depleted formation. A ton CO2 injected should allow 1.5bbl to 3bbl of additional oil production. The return on investment depends upon cost per ton CO2. The information on Allam cycle economics usually quotes $20 ton for CO2 sales.
There is money to be made by power plants selling the CO2. With existing petroleum production fields there is a 35 year storage capacity for CO2, for all the CO2 produced by electrical power-plants if it is captured. The Allam process appears as a practical way to accomplish this mutually advantageous handling of CO2 for profit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.