Is there a war on coal, and is coal winning?

Our senator Kaine has asked for a 120-day comment period (vs. the usual 60) to allow adequate feedback. That's probably a good idea. I would like to see more clean coal (gasification vs. combustion).

 

...yes as a grandfather, I can say "grandfathering" was a bad idea. Too bad we can't call it something else!

 

How about "Grandmothering"?

DBCassidy

 

There are two questions:

Is there a "War on Coal?"
IMHO, yes.
There has been a GWOC for a while now, and the current administration has just launched a new spring offensive.

As for whether or not "Coal is winning" that's a moot inquiry.
Many times the eventual winner in a war gets four square yards of their tail kicked in the first half. How many battles did the Colonial Army win in the American Revolutionary War?

The real question can be answered ONLY by waiting and seeing how much coal we leave in the ground.

 

A little perspective is needed here. A 30% reduction of GHG sounds good, but the baseline is from 2005, not 1990 as most of the world uses. I'm not positive but 2005 is pretty close to peak emissions for the US. Since then a drop in NG prices and the recession has made a dent in GHG.

So from my perspective this initiative is 1 part real, 2 parts political grandstanding and 3 parts a gentle push to get people used to the idea of reforming the US energy landscape.

An no, it is not a 'war on coal.' It is the first skirmish on climate change. If 'clean coal' was not an oxymoron it could be a fuel. Repubs and their never ending whining and bit*ching. And when the Repubs finally take their collective heads out of their nether-regions they will realize this is just the beginning, and NG and wasteful use are the next targets. Then of course we will get another round of whining and bit*ching about "freedom."

 

You summed it up pretty well...it's 30% reduction off 2005, and we're already down ~14% without trying to hard, so they have until 2030 to do the rest or some other options. Coal was 45% of elec, now 40%, and this takes then takes it down to say ~35% by 2030.

 

I think the current initiative has two positive sides:

• 1. The US will look slightly less idiotic on the world stage; and
• 2. The power companies and financiers will think twice about building more dirty plants or keeping the old ones running with token pollution improvements.

 

...that was my first thought too but I did not want to get into trouble...

 

These plants will eventually go away. However, most of the populace that will appluad the closing of these coal plants, will b*tch and whine and moan about their electric rates going up, and in typical liberal fashion, will say "somebody needs to do something about this".... The government, of course. Forget inconveniencing their lifestyle in the least.

And yes, I heat my home with coal. I live in coal country and it's right under my feet.

 

Those of us "liberals" with solar panels on o ur houses aren't going to be complaining about our electricity costs going up...we will be glad we actually understood reality and acted!

Icarus

 

People will freeze to death being unable to pay an increase in heating costs with harsh winters coming for the next 30+ years.
Dead dont complain.

 

If it is because of rising electric rates making electric heat unaffordable, there is plenty of help and lots of incentives to improve home energy efficiency and convert electric resistance heat to heat pumps right now. I converted my space heat more than five years ago, and water heat last year.

As for harsh winters, they are less common now than they were during most of the 20th century. Maybe the Milankovitch cycles says they should be coming soon, but that pattern has been getting busted.

Sure glad I acted, just as a significant five year rate hike plan was being announced. Compared to a decade ago, my all-electric home has slashed its net grid energy consumption by 77% -- 43% through conservation, plus another 34% through PV generation. Next year, I hope to reach 'Net Zero', producing all the home's energy from solar PV.

I will still need to pay for a grid connection due to the diurnal and seasonal offset between production and consumption, but the dollar and carbon (locally) cost of that is comparatively small.

 

If you re resorting to heating your house with resistance electric heat, you are insane (unless you have very small heating loads)! Air source heat pumps in moderate climates, or ground source or ground water source heat pumps in severe climates are orders of magnitude more efficient than resistance elecric heat. Running a ground source het pump, coupled to solar primary radiant heat gets ridiculously efficient. So, I am not or worrying about people freezing to death in the "coming harsh winters". I'm worrying about the coming harsh summers (and falls, and springs)

Icarus

 

As a PS, Washington State has Crazy good incentive for PV now. Until 2020, if you use
Washington built PV and Washington built inverters the utility will pay you $.54/kw, PLUS net metering for power produced, leaving a total payback of ~$.66/kwh!

I just had a site eval done today. Cost of install just about $4/watt. This site can only fit 3 kw, for a gross cost of $12,000, 30% tax credit make that $8,000. With the $.66 the 3 kw system will produce about $1500-2000 worth of power per year, not factoring any price inflation, that makes the system pay off in about 4 years. It is really a no briner if you have the space for PV. It works out to close to 18% ROI. 4 year home equity loan at 5%, still leaves 13%!

Icarus

 

Much of the Pacific Northwest was built with electric resistance heat, back when it was cheap. Many of the region's rates are now at or close to national averages, but many dwelling still use electric, in whole or in part.

Heat pumps aren't 'orders or magnitude' more efficient, but 3X is quite reasonable. The heat pump water heaters have lower Northern Climate Spec ratings (1.8-2.0X) than their normal nationwide ratings (2.2-2.5X), but even that is a big improvement. The R744-type (CO2 refrigerant) units on the horizon should be much better. An imported unit tested near here last year achieved 3.2X under Northern conditions, above 4X on the normal scale.

 

True, order of magnitude was a figure of speach, no especially well used, sorry.

Icarus