Energy from Coal — Some Bad News
Here’s some bad news: the use of coal to provide energy is on the rise, and shows no sign of retreat.
Yet there’s specious reasoning in the report, i.e, that renewable energy cannot provide baseload. That’s completely untrue of geothermal, biomass, and ocean thermal, and mostly untrue of hydro. It’s even untrue of solar and wind as well. Yes, they are variable resources, but:
• New data modeling tools are enabling far higher percentage integration than was previously deemed possible.
• The expansion of wind into new geographies and the advancement of high-voltage transmission will smooth out the variabilities.
and
• Storage in variable forms, e.g., molten salt and batteries, is making terrific progress.
Further, as expressed here, the demand for baseload energy in the future is over-estimated.
Still, this planet is in for a “rough go” if we can’t make some international agreements on emissions – especially from coal.
Craig,
I’m afraid you’re off base here in several points.
Coal is on the rise in the 3rd world because of costs, pure and simple… coal is cheaper than virtually all other options, and the 3rd world doesn’t have much cash to spend. For that same reason, baseload is critically important to the 3rd world… because manufacturing centers are expensive, and in a world of excess labor time-shifting to round-the-clock operations is cheaper than building more facilities that operate during daylight.
Hydropower is being expanded as rapidly as possible, with virtually every single dammable river in the industrializing world having plans drawn to erect a dam and produce energy… but that will not produce enough energy for the industrializing 3rd world… more is demanded, more must be supplied. Hydro can sort-of run as baseload, but it’s so much less expensive than natural gas that it’s better for the 3rd world to uprate the dams and cycle them for predominately peak and load following needs, allowing night-time energy recovery only as needed by the river ecology and river transport systems.
Biomass will not work for overall energy needs. Europe denuded itself when it had >>1% of its current demand for energy and was trying to satisfy that need via biomass. Most 3rd world countries have a greater population density than Europe does… biomass won’t even scratch the surface.
Finally, we have the consideration of geothermal, wind, and solar. These are based heavily on geography. India experiences 100+ inches of rain per year and is largely a class 1 wind zone, and the region is not geologically “hot”… you have to drill deep to find moderate heat. None of these common renewable options are viable for a cash-strapped country.
The only way we can help them is to help them set up modern nuclear parks. THAT would serve as baseload energy without heavy pollution. But of course, many environmentalists resist that.
In America, we can (and should) explore some renewable options, because we can spend a little more on energy to help the future deal with less burdens. But the third world is trying to survive today, and they don’t have the same options we have. If we want to stop them from using coal, our only option is to help defray the costs on a real option that is not coal. Thus far, no-one is offering a solution along those lines, so I don’t expect one.
On a different front, U.S. coal usage is up ~7% this year. It’s still all about costs here as well, which I believe to be more deserving of criticism, as we have sufficient wealth to pursue better options.