Coal and Solar Power

[nwdiver]

Reality....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdHuB7Ovl2o

I'm thinking they were made with Chinese slave labor in China

Yes, China does use 'slave' labour... I thought we were a few years away from granting robots workers rights... did I miss the memo? My Roomba is so going to sue me... :scared:

 

[Mookuh]

It depends on the actual definition of the word "slave", but there is a large number of workers pushing 12 hour shifts (while being forbidden to speak), get a 30 minute break and have to walk 1 hour to and from their workplace (they live on the factory grounds) for a rather small wage. And those are the ones who're lucky.

Especially Apple has been getting bad press because this made the news. Saying "Robots do all the work" is ignoring the reality of millions of people in China, India and other countries.

Edit: However, Solar panels made in China with "dirty energy" still have a much better CO2 footprint than if you generate electricity here via coal. On most charts I've seen, Solar had about 10% of the CO2 footprint of coal energy. The manufacture, transport etc. are being factored into this.

 

[jerry33]

Not to worry. With the for-profit prison system, two-point-something million prisoners (up from 200,000 in the 1970s), and corporations being able to use prisoners as a cheap workforce, all we need to do is add a few more laws and this will be normal here too.

 

[iadbound]

That poster said US energy is oil-driven, not that US electricity is oil-driven. There's a difference between the two.

Yes. I realize that. In the context presented, the original post seemed to imply electricity and not energy.

 

[Ampster]

It depends on the actual definition of the word "slave", but there is a large number of workers pushing 12 hour shifts (while being forbidden to speak), get a 30 minute break and have to walk 1 hour to and from their workplace (they live on the factory grounds) for a rather small wage.......

No doubt the wages are small, but that would be a pretty large factory that would take an hour to walk through. Don't they ride bikes in China? LOL

 

[cschock]

maybe you should move to an area that doesn't use coal?

I think our local power all comes from burning hemp or at least that's what powers the locals :tongue:

I am pretty sure you are right about that... maybe wine power here a bit south of you!

 

[richkae]

The two charts make sense. In the EIA forecast of future periods, coal simply holds steady in the amount of terrawatt hour production while natural gas and other sources pick-up the new growth. Natural gas took a big bite out of coal in recent years due to the significant decrease in the price of natural gas, clean air regulations impacting coal-fired units, and the retirement of older units. However, coal has rebounded well, particularly in the mountain states, midwest and Texas where Powder River Basin coal displaces natural gas when gas get up above about $2.50 per mmbtu. One thing that may be confusing is that coal is on the bottom of my chart and middle of your chart, but otherwise, I don't seem them as particularly inconsistent.

In any event, I only put the chart up to clarify that electric production is not oil-driven as the earlier poster suggested.

No earlier poster suggested that electricity production is oil driven. Our energy usage is. The primary energy user is transportation and that is dominated by oil.

Here are the flaws I see in the EIA projection chart about electricity supply.
The historical data shows a steady decline in power from coal over the last 10 years. The EIA chart shows that trend stopping cold. That seems unlikely given the state of coal production, the continued low price of gas and the coal plants scheduled to close.

Wind power has been growing at over 25% per year over the last 5 years. Solar production has been growing at 159% per year. The entire renewable category has been growing at 7% per year ( slowed down by no growth in hydro, but both wind and solar can each pass hydro in less than 10 years and then the growth rate of the whole sector can pick up even faster )

Why does the EIA chart show a measly 1% growth per year in renewable energy projected forward to 2040? That makes no sense.

 

[Mookuh]

No doubt the wages are small, but that would be a pretty large factory that would take an hour to walk through. Don't they ride bikes in China? LOL

The largest of their factories has between 230.000 and 450.000 employees and is basically a city (with 12 hour shifts 6 days a week). I'm not sure if these people cannot afford bikes, if it takes that long to get there even with the bikes or if the source I was quoting (which is in German) was wrong. At any rate, the working conditions there are slave-like. They're even violating the Chinese worker rights, which I don't imagine to be very strict.
Also, apologies for derailing this somewhat.

 

[dhrivnak]

I read somewhere recently that, even if you charged your Tesla from 100% coal-fired power plants, you would still be emitting 50% less CO2 than a gasoline powered-car.

True if you run through the emissions numbers even if powered by mostly coal one sees a 50% reduction in pollution. And in my book 50% is significant. Then also remember oil does not magically appear at the gas station as there is a lot of energy to extract transport, refine, and transport more to get to your local station.

 

[Robert.Boston]

The EIA chart I posted recently in the Total Energy thread gives the following shares of total energy consumption:

Source	Quads In	Exports	Consumption	% Consumption
Coal	19.99		19.99	20%
Natural Gas	24.89		24.89	26%
NG Liquids	3.47		3.47	4%
Crude Oil	15.77		15.77	16%
Nuclear	8.27		8.27	8%
Renewable	9.3		9.3	10%
Petroleum Imports	21.09	7.19	13.9	14%
Other Imports	3.45	4.62	-1.17	-1%
Stock Change	3.12		3.12	3%

So, petroleum (=NG Liquids, Crude Oil, Petroleum) has a 34% total share.

 

[RichardC]

The EIA chart I posted recently in the Total Energy thread gives the following shares of total energy consumption:

Source	Quads In	Exports	Consumption	% Consumption
Coal	19.99		19.99	20%
Natural Gas	24.89		24.89	26%
NG Liquids	3.47		3.47	4%
Crude Oil	15.77		15.77	16%
Nuclear	8.27		8.27	8%
Renewable	9.3		9.3	10%
Petroleum Imports	21.09	7.19	13.9	14%
Other Imports	3.45	4.62	-1.17	-1%
Stock Change	3.12		3.12	3%

So, petroleum (=NG Liquids, Crude Oil, Petroleum) has a 34% total share.

For my information does NG Liquids refer to compressed Natural Gas which is liquefied for transport, or to a liquid petroleum fuel that is made from natural gas? I tend to think of the former as a transport vehicle for a gas, rather than a liquid petroleum fuel (comparable to gasoline or diesel).

 

[Robert.Boston]

For my information does NG Liquids refer to compressed Natural Gas which is liquefied for transport, or to a liquid petroleum fuel that is made from natural gas? I tend to think of the former as a transport vehicle for a gas, rather than a liquid petroleum fuel (comparable to gasoline or diesel).

Neither; NGLs are co-products of natural gas production; it's where we get most of our very light hydrocarbons, such as ethane, butane, and propane. What are natural gas liquids and how are they used? - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and Natural-gas processing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia are good references.

 

[derekt75]

True if you run through the emissions numbers even if powered by mostly coal one sees a 50% reduction in pollution. And in my book 50% is significant. Then also remember oil does not magically appear at the gas station as there is a lot of energy to extract transport, refine, and transport more to get to your local station.

I don't know about "pollution", but I think an EV running on coal isn't quite "a 50% reduction in" carbon dioxide.
Electric car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A 22 mpg car is 500 g/mi, while an EV in Denver is 330 g/mi. Denver's grid is dirty, but it's marginally better than pure coal. If you figure pure coal is more like 360 g/mi, then a pure coal EV is getting about 30 mpg. That's still better than an "average" vehicle, but a Leaf running on coal is noticeably worse than a Toyota Corolla burning gasoline. If you change your reference vehicle from a Corolla to a BMW M5, then, yeah, you can get close to 50% with your P85 Tesla.

In other words, it depends on what your gasoline powered car is.

 

[dhrivnak]

I don't know about "pollution", but I think an EV running on coal isn't quite "a 50% reduction in" carbon dioxide.
Electric car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A 22 mpg car is 500 g/mi, while an EV in Denver is 330 g/mi. Denver's grid is dirty, but it's marginally better than pure coal. If you figure pure coal is more like 360 g/mi, then a pure coal EV is getting about 30 mpg. That's still better than an "average" vehicle, but a Leaf running on coal is noticeably worse than a Toyota Corolla burning gasoline. If you change your reference vehicle from a Corolla to a BMW M5, then, yeah, you can get close to 50% with your P85 Tesla.

In other words, it depends on what your gasoline powered car is.

I also add in refining the oil. One cannot burn raw oil as you must go through an extensive refining process. The power companies are paid on the power delivered to your home.

 

[derekt75]

I also add in refining the oil. One cannot burn raw oil as you must go through an extensive refining process. The power companies are paid on the power delivered to your home.

Refining isn't as "extensive" as I might have guessed. They estimate that for a 22 mpg car, 400g/mi are emitted by your car, and 100g/mi are emitted turning oil in Saudi Arabia into gasoline in your car, for the total of 500g/mi that I quoted above.
Turning natural gas into electricity or compressed hydrogen is less efficient than turning oil into gasoline. Since "MPGe" ignores upstream consumption, the MPGe of BEVs and FCVs is unfairly high. I'm not saying that BEVs are dirty; I'm just saying that on a typical electric grid, they're not > 4X cleaner than a 22 mpg car, nor > 6X cleaner than a BMW M5. If you live in clean energy CA, you could probably claim that the MPGe of a BEV is probably about right (4X better than a 22 mpg car). but then the average emissions of the grid might not be fair, either: if my car uses more electricity, does that mean that CA is going to build more clean energy plants, or will it build more natural gas plants? i.e., what are the marginal carbon emissions of the grid?

 

[Skotty]

The old long tailpipe argument has been beaten to death. Burning gasoline is guaranteed to be dirty. Using electricity can be clean. Someone once said electricity is the currency of energy. It can be generated by anything and used for almost anything. Step in the right direction.

Yes, we need to clean up power production. As for clean coal, I'm all for the idea. But it's kind of like grandiose battery research claims. Tesla asks for a sample cell...crickets. Talk is big, but ask about demonstrations of clean coal...crickets. I'll believe it when it's not vaporware. I hope Musk gets involved more in clean energy production in the future, rather than doing something less useful (albeit still cool) like the hyperloop, as clean energy is a big need and Musk seems to be one of the few people on the planet capable of making good things happen.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Yes, we need to clean up power production. As for clean coal, I'm all for the idea. But it's kind of like grandiose battery research claims. Tesla asks for a sample cell...crickets. Talk is big, but ask about demonstrations of clean coal...crickets. I'll believe it when it's not vaporware.

Well, not quite crickets, but certainly not much yet. I'm aware of one project in Texas, run by NRG Energy: http://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Coal/major%20demonstrations/ccpi/FE0003311.pdf

I hope Musk gets involved more in clean energy production in the future, rather than doing something less useful (albeit still cool) like the hyperloop, as clean energy is a big need and Musk seems to be one of the few people on the planet capable of making good things happen.

Yeah, maybe Elon can start a solar-panel installation company or something.:wink:

 

[William13]

The comparison ICE for a Model S is always a Panamera +/-turbo or M5 as far as MPG/CO2 emissions. It is always unfair to compare it to a Prius, Leaf, etc. or a bicycle.

 

[Vger]

The comparison ICE for a Model S is always a Panamera +/-turbo or M5 as far as MPG/CO2 emissions. It is always unfair to compare it to a Prius, Leaf, etc. or a bicycle.

Indeed. Taking carrying capacity into account is also important! A Model S can replace an SUV for a lot of people; the Model X will replace not just full-size SUV's but minivans.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Interesting 1H14 news out of Germany this week that's not getting much press.

Renewable Energy Provided One-Third Of Germany’s Power In The First Half Of 2014
(inaccurate headline from a 'progressive' 'news' site of course)

Thanks to favorable weather and record production from solar and wind power, renewable energy accounted for approximately 31 percent of Germany’s electricity generation in the first half of 2014.
Non-hydro renewables made up 27 percent of the country’s power, up from 24 percent last year, according to new data released by the Fraunhofer Institute. And for the first time ever, renewable energy sources accounted for a larger portion of electricity production than brown coal.

Production of wind and solar in particular saw substantial gains over the same time last year. Solar grew by 28 percent in the first half of 2014 compared to 2013 and wind power grew by 19 percent over the same period last year. “Solar and wind alone made up a whopping 17 percent of power generation, up from around 12-13 percent in the past few years,” reported Renewables International.

The Fraunhofer Institute’s analysis found that brown coal generation is down four percent and the production of hard coal-fired power plants decreased 11 percent from 2013′s record levels. However, in the first half of 2014, brown coal production was still at the high level of 2012 and about five percent above the average of the last 10 years. Gas power plants saw the largest decline, with generation down 25 percent compared to the same period last year.

Looks like coal would have been down more sharply had they lowered the baseload. As it was they exported 18Twh of mixed source electricity, which is pretty impressive.

A one year 4-5% increase in share from solar/wind is just amazing. That is mostly weather related, but it's ridiculous to look at numbers like these and say it's not feasible for the US to get to 20% solar/wind in relatively short order. Germany is a massive economy with no sun and they're shifting entire percentage points of production to solar/wind every year.