Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Coal boom declines as global warming boosts natural gas and renewable power

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 04:41 PM
Original message
Coal boom declines as global warming boosts natural gas and renewable power
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=348

New Fuels

Coal boom declines as global warming boosts natural gas and renewable power

Sam Orez March 12th 2008

Some 45 coal-fired power plants were either cancelled or delayed in the past 12 months, according to a report by the US Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory. The trend reverses the utility industry’s craving for coal plants with some 150 such facilities in development.

Indeed, natural-gas and renewable projects have now outpaced coal plants, according to Global Energy Decisions, an energy information supplier. Non coal plans total more than 70,000 megawatts while coal has dropped to just 66,000 megawatts in the pipeline.

Investors have become cautious which is taking a toll on coal development plans. "You turn off the money spigot, you've turned off those plants," said Robert Linden, a senior oil and gas analyst at Pace Global in New York.

About 28 coal-fired power plants already under construction are moving forward, as are plant expansions. But for six other facilities "near construction," their fate has become unknown. Another 80 plants “in development” may be cancelled outright. Last year, Texas utility TXU alone canceled eight of its planned 11 coal-fired power plants.

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. It sort of begs the question of what happens after the NG peaks.
And it doesn't look like we'll have to wait long before we find out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Coal or nuclear
until renewables come home to roost...if ever.

Which would you choose?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Me? I would choose nuclear.
(To the surprise of nobody, I'm sure)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. coal
the carbon dioxide will dissipate; the mountains will heal

nuclear waste goes on forever


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Coal will kill more people faster.
There are some environmental benefits to that, perhaps.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. possibly
but a nuke meltdown will take out a LOT more people than a coal plant would ever kill

I'm not a big fan of either form but if I had to choose between the two I'd have to go with coal

especially since I live in California-I'm terrified to think of a nuke plant built anywhere close to a fault line
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Over 1 million people die each year from coal power already
You really can't get much worse than a coal-fired plant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. I'd like to see a link that backs up your figure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Ask and ye shall recieve
Edited on Thu Mar-13-08 02:02 PM by NickB79
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html

"The sulfur dioxide produced in coal combustion poses an immediate threat to the health of China's citizens, contributing to about 400,000 premature deaths a year."

This is JUST in China, and just from the sulfur dioxide emissions associated with burning coal. The myriad other emissions and particulate matter add thousands more deaths each year from lung and heart diseases. Then there are thousands of deaths associated with actually mining the coal.

Now, extrapolate that globally. Even taking into consideration the more efficient, "cleaner"-burning plants built in the US and Western Europe, it would be relatively easy to top 750,000 deaths per year from coal.

For example, even with scrubbers on US coal plants:

"In fact, particle pollution from power plants in the U.S. leads to over 30,000 deaths each year"

http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Well... according to the article...
...

Numerous renewable alternative sources will augment natural gas power plants. Texas is now the country’s number one state for wind-power with Kansas not far behind. Indeed, the Kansas wind power industry is growing so fast, companies there cannot find enough qualified workers. California is deriving a significant amount of energy from geo-thermal. Thin-film solar strips are rapidly taking up roof space. Moreover, co-generation has become an increasingly popular concept as heat emission from machines are captured and sent back into the grid or other users. Hence, alternative sources are slowly but surely burning into the power industry’s desire for the dirty, health hazardous fuel that is coal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Mmm Hmmm. So I've been told.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Your undying cynicism is inspiring
http://www.machaon.ru/pooh/chap6.html
"Good morning, Pooh Bear," said Eeyore gloomily. "If it is a good morning," he said. "Which I doubt," said he.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I bet you're not surprised to hear Eeyore is my favorite.
(Roo is 2nd)

If you'll excuse me, it looks like earthquake weather.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I believe he was Milne's favorite as well
In Christopher Milne's book, he suggests out that while almost all of the places in the stories had their basis in the real world, Eyeore's boggy place had none he knew of; except perhaps his father's study.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. That I did not know. It reminds me of this recent bit:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 06:59 AM
Response to Original message
15. Sure hasn't seemed to affect the demand (or price) of coal coming out of Newcastle
"UBS this week predicted the thermal coal price would rise to $US130 ($140) a tonne from $US56 a tonne last year, and hard coking coal would sell for $US225 a tonne compared with $US98 a tonne last year. Credit Suisse said demand was so strong it forecast thermal coal prices of $US120 this year and $US100 a tonne in 2009 and 2010.

Although the prices are high in part due to infrastructure constraints in NSW and Queensland, producers are trying to address the problem.

The Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group, which includes miners such as BHP and Centennial, has started building a $1 billion third coal terminal at the Newcastle Port. But as the project director for the group, Rob Yeates, told the Sydney Mining Club yesterday, the extra 30 million tonnes of capacity will not be fully available until 2011."

http://business.smh.com.au/coal-deals-on-slow-burn/20080306-1xmq.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC