Each watt generated by natgas vs coal is at least a 60% reduction in carbon emissions.
Since that technology is mature and inexpensive...
Since that technology is compatible with a baseload system...
Since that technology *also* functionally meets the sliding need for dispatchable power as variable renewable penetration increases its penetration...
And since that technology can remain economically viable as it's level of used decreases proportionate to increased renewable penetration....
It is idiotic to argue that, displacing coal with natural gas is a bad step at this point and time.
******************************************
China Is About to Bury Elon Musk in Batteries
Factories are adding enough capacity to power the equivalent of nearly 1.5 million Model S vehicles
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-28/china-is-about-to-bury-elon-musk-in-batteries
*******************************************
South Korea scraps plants, signals shift from nuclear energy
South Korea, one of the world's largest nuclear electricity producers, will scrap plans to add nuclear power plants, its president said Monday, signaling a shift in decades of reliance on nuclear energy.
President Moon Jae-in said South Korea will move away from nuclear energy and will not seek to extend the life of existing plants.
He also vowed to cut South Korea's reliance on coal. South Korea will shut 10 old coal power plants and stop building more coal power plants.
"So far South Korea's energy policy pursued cheap prices and efficiency. Cheap production prices were considered the priority while the public's life and safety took a backseat," Moon said at a ceremony marking the shutdown of the country's oldest power plant, Kori 1, in Busan, home to South Korea's largest cluster of nuclear power plants.
"But it's time for a change."
...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/south-korea-scrap-building-nuclear-power-plants-48124775
**********************************
Hinkley Point C: watchdog confirms fears of political vanity project
NAO report condemns ‘risky and expensive’ nuclear project that went ahead despite the economic case crumbling
he National Audit Office does not use excitable phrases like “utter shambles.” But the spending watchdog’s verdict on Hinkley Point C, the nuclear power plant in Somerset that is supposedly inevitable, amounts to the same thing. The government “has locked consumers into a risky and expensive project with uncertain strategic and economic benefits”.
The 80-page report confirms one’s worst fears about how ministers fell in love with Hinkley. First, they wedded themselves to an inflexible financial model. Then they agreed commercial terms with developer EDF in 2013, when energy prices were sky-high, and ploughed on regardless when the economic case for Hinkley started to crumble.
The first error is the easier to understand. Ministers followed a standard model in which the developer bears the construction risks in return for a state guarantee on the price of the electricity eventually produced. But Hinkley, scheduled to provide 7% of the nation’s electricity, was never a normal project. It is bigger than anything ever seen before and the price guarantee – to be funded via consumers’ bills – extends over 35 years....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/nils-pratley-on-finance/2017/jun/23/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-energy-risky-expensive-national-audit-office
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
