Welcome to the Persian Gulf: Where Coal(!) Is King
New coal plants are being built in Abu Dhabi, Oman, Dubai. Even oil rich Russia is building 30 new coal plants within the next 2-3 years. China commissions a new coal plant every week to week and a half. What is going on?
In the US, the Congress and environmental regulations/lobbies have made it almost impossible to generate power from any source whatsoever. Whatever compromises the Pelosi/Boxer Congress eventually reaches, you can be sure it will cost consumers and taxpayers at least double or triple what it should have cost. The joys of nanny state government--cradle to grave mismanagement.
H/T istockanalyst
They have opted for coal for a single compelling reason: cost.So even in the oil-saturated Persian Gulf, the economics of energy production favours coal over oil and gas--significantly. Of course, the fuel for a megawatt-hour of nuclear fission energy will cost you around $8 or so. So really, if you have your nuclear plant already built, nuclear is the way to go.They can produce a megawatt-hour of electricity using Australian coal, Der Spiegel calculates, for $17.49 (U.S.). Using natural gas, the cost rises to $41.34. Using oil, the cost rises further to $79.50. At the same time, they can sell their oil on the global market for something approaching (or occasionally exceeding) $140 a barrel. _GlobeandMail
In the US, the Congress and environmental regulations/lobbies have made it almost impossible to generate power from any source whatsoever. Whatever compromises the Pelosi/Boxer Congress eventually reaches, you can be sure it will cost consumers and taxpayers at least double or triple what it should have cost. The joys of nanny state government--cradle to grave mismanagement.
H/T istockanalyst
Labels: energy
posted by al fin at 2:55 pm
10 Comments:
Since the Emirate's cited are presumably beyond the reach of Pelosi, et al; there shouldn't be the legislative roadblocks in place to jack-up the cost of a nuclear power plant installation. That being so, Sec. Rice has an opportunity to negotiate a trade agreement between these oil-rich countries and the US. They pay the US to build and operate the plant(s) and agree to sell us oil discounted by the end-user cost of the energy generated by their "leased" power plant. Assuming all that results in the final kwh cost to be triple the projected $8, that would still bring the discounted oil proce to the region of $100/bbl at current prices. The classic win/win, yes?
Read this and reconsider. There is a lot more going on that impacts on the price of oil than what the news media typically talks about.
We need the oil now, but supply and demand will eventually break through the current inflationary price siege.
By reading the tone of the post, one is left with the impression that the writer is in complete disgust with the inane (and insane) recommendations that the gov should put back coal and substitute it with less hazardous and pollutant fuels.
It gives the impression that it is all-the-money-or-nothing approach, as if we live our lives thinking only in terms of money, as if we don't like to have our houses clean of dirt, and our urban/rural environment clean of dirty smogs and toxic gases. As if we like to work for jobs that costs us lives and health.
Is this such the case of Al Fin?
I understand the reality-tone of the face-the-reality news coverage, but I don't agree with the condescending tone regarding democratic-driven conclusions as in "let's dump coal because it is bad for the environment, bad for health, and though it may seem cheap, it is only so if we disregard health and environmental consequences".
So, are the chinese, russian and arabs going full steam (pun intended) on coal? Well, if GW isn't as dangerous as it has been said, then the harm is concentrated on those regions. Ask the chinese urbanites if they enjoy the fresh air they are breathing. I really believe that such yellow-inspiring breeze shall give them divine inspiration for their jobs. The rotten lungs they will acquire are just cherry on top.
Coal is unfairly demonized. Years back I worked for a firm that designed and built power plants as a college intern. Even back then, the technology was there to burn coal clean (i.e. circulating fluidized bed). We had sulfur removal rates of over 95% and very lower NOx emissions (lower than gas turbines).
The problems were:
1. Public fear of coal
2. At the time, natural gas was cheap and building a natural gas plant was cheaper. Plus, natural gas had higher thermal efficiencies due to burning the gas in a turbine then converting the waste heat to steam.
Now natural gas is not so cheap. There are now improved technologies to make the coal thermal cycle more efficient (supercritical boilers, pressurized fluid beds, etc.).
When we sold plants to China, they had us strip off every pollution control device to save on the initial purchase price. I remember the senior engineers commenting that China was going to poison itself. Fifteen years later, their predictions are coming true.
Sheesh. I drive by a coal-fired generating station every day. The skies are crystal clear; the only visible emissions are water vapor from the cooling tower.
Apparently the people that are most against the coal-fired generating stations are people that do not have one.
Coal can be as clean or as dirty as the owners and operators of the plant want it to be. It costs money to clean up the emissions, but like S.W. says, they do it all the time.
In fact, the CO2 from coal plants will soon become a valuable commodity in the growing of algae for biofuels. In addition, research proves that many valuable plants grow better with raised CO2 levels.
Any green house operator will tell you that the level of CO2 that is ideal for plant growth is around 1,000ppm. The current level in the atmosphere is 380ppm. We have room to increase this by 3X to reach optimium levels.
is there an upper limit where CO2 actually inhibits plant growth?
The USA must be governed by a bunch of saps. America has the greatest supply of coal in the world, so it buys oil from the oil producers, which cost 4 times as much per megawatt, and probably exports coal, instead of using it. This is a great deal for them, but I don't know exactly what it does for the US.
Per greenhouse operators, plant growth will stop/slow drastically when CO2 levels are at/below @ 250 ppm of CO2 Not much of a cushion there.
Post a Comment
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell
<< Home