Fossil fuels blown away by wind in cost terms: study

Anyone hear a grinding sound, perhaps it is an axe?

Great news.... and with the divestment movement growing - the fossil fuel industry is finally going to be defeated.

Last week, New York commited itself to divest from fossil fuels.

Yesterday went for drive to a rural onsen in northern Miyagi.

Saw lots of small independent solar farms.

Many of them covered with snow.

There are still a few problems with renewable energy, but good to see the tide turning.

Gary

Sorry Trump, coal is on the way out.

Yes and no.

All predictions indicate significant demand in India & S.E Asia for the next 20-30 years at least. Although that probably precludes any new major coal development, it means existing mines still have a future for a couple of decades.

https://www.ft.com/content/dbc47eaa-f499-11e7-88f7-5465a6ce1a00

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asia-coal/southeast-asia-india-turn-to-coal-for-power-imports-expected-to-jump-idUSKBN1CV1GP

"Some 100 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired capacity is expected to be built in Southeast Asia by 2040, boosting the total installed capacity to 160 GW, the agency said. Forty percent of the new capacity will be in Indonesia, it said."

The predictions regarding Indonesia are interesting from Australia's point of view, but I never hear it mentioned which is odd.

Due to environmental concerns and the lack of development prices are increasing....

Australian coal with an energy content of 6,000 kcal/kg — benchmark for the vast Asia market — is trading at $103 a tonne, according to a price assessment from Argus Media. Six months ago it was just above $80 a tonne. On the supply side, big new thermal coal mines are not in the works and projects are becoming more difficult to finance as banks and investors fret about their environmental credentials. This has helped tighten the market and drive up prices.

In the interests of seeking a balance between getting a good return and keeping prices at affordable levels for customers you will probably see is expansion of existing mines approved by government as a way of slipping under the radar while massive projects like the Carmichael mine will be shelved.

The problem with wind of course is that there is frequently not enough of it when we need it most and sometimes there is too much which is currently wasted (Euan Mearns Sep 2017). Using batteries to provide base power on demand is estimated to be 6 times the cost of nuclear power, based on UK data comparing wind power+batteries to Hinkley Nuclear Power plant. A cheaper option was using wind-power to enable pumped hydro-storage, but the transmission infrastructure then becomes expensive. Some coal, gas and oil will still be used for a long time.

Well, hallelujah! The world seems to finally be waking up! The start up cost of these alternatives should be irrelevant! The long term costs of fossil fuel and nuclear energy are astoundingly ridiculous! The rising sea levels due to melting ice from CO2 production will cost gazillions of dollars to overcome. If the sea levels rise by 30cm in the next half a century (as predicted) it will displace a third of the world's population an render a third of coastal farmland will no longer be arable due to being inundated with salt water. This means a third of the world's population (specifically Asia) will starve because they can't grow rice. As for nuclear power, it does not produce CO2. It produces nuclear waste, which is far more dangerous and its storage costs over the thousand or so years it remains active are huge. Why is it taking so long for the world to wake up? I fear for my grandkids because their life is going to very different and difficult.