Imagine being early on coal phaseout instead of late.
Be like Slovakia.
The UK is finally shutting down its last coal-fired power station in six months too (Ratcliffe-on-Soar).
Brilliant! I see Drax doesn’t burn coal any more. (Just rainforest…)
It’s expensive and dirty fuel. Can’t wait for it to be gone.
Yeah they love a bit of old growth Canadian forest burning in Drax.
It’s expensive and dirty fuel.
It’s definitely the dirtiest fuel by a good margin. But coal is actually the cheapest fuel. Which is the main reason it still gets used.
Uranium used to be cheaper than coal, but now that we all but stopped building nuclear power plants it’s gone up significantly.
Wind and solar are now cheaper than coal for electricity generation, if we can limit growth in energy demand to a rate lower than the growth in renewables, economics will eventually push all electricity generation off of coal.
We need to grow our renewables faster and optimizing our energy use. There is so much waste we can cut. We can also “load shift” to spread out our demand. There is so much we have barely started.
But coal is actually the cheapest fuel.
Says who? A quick bit of research shows that natural gas is cheaper, and it probably depends on the location and availability of each.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
We’re both correct.
LCOE is based on total operating costs of new electric power generation station over a 20+ year operation life. There are obviously a lot of assumptions in these sorts of analyses but Nat Gas is projected to become cheaper than Coal over the life of a new project, which some of that is expected to be due to carbon taxes.
LCOE has some flaws as a comparable number when comparing wind and solar to fossil fuels, but is good for understanding what will be cheapest to build of fuel based generation.
For current existing power stations, coal is cheapest of the fuels. The EIA numbers are here and here’s Statista research here on the historical cost of nat gas vs coal specifically which is frustratingly why coal phase outs have been so slow. Keeping existing coal plants operating is cheaper than building new almost anything.
And you are correct, price is specific to geography and availability of each. My blanket statement of “coal being the cheapest fuel” is over generalized and not universally correct.
For current existing power stations, coal is cheapest of the fuels. The EIA numbers are here and here’s Statista research here on the historical cost of nat gas vs coal specifically
Using USA-only statistics in a thread about Slovakia and the UK is disingenuous at best.
Still mining coal though.
Be like Slovakia.
Careful what you wish for.
You should really specify it more. You really don’t want to be like Slovakia right now.
What are they up to that’s bad atm
They elected fascists
I wouldn’t say SMER is fascist, Fico is a power hungry tool but I wouldn’t say he’s a fascist
the Progressive party also won a lot in the last election
He’s “not a fascist” just like Trump, Orban or Putin are not fascists. They might not fit your definition of fascism, but that doesn’t make them any better. They’re totalitarian mob bosses.
I’d say that he’s different as he isn’t really actively attacking the democratic institutions in the country… at least yet
<Germany looks around sheepishly>
Germany has drastically reduced their coal share, too. Just look at this Chart: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/384/bilder/3_abb_bruttostromerzeugung-et_2023-11-24.png
In 2023 the share of coal decreased to 26.1 % of all electricity – which is close to other nations like the US with 20 % coal. In fact, per kWh germany produces on average 380 g of CO2, while the US produces 389 g, which is half of Poland’s 690 g CO2 per kWh.
I know its a meme at this point to shit on the german electricity market, but the sucess in the last 5 years is something other countries should admire, especially countries like Poland who claim to heavily invest in nuclear power, while they are in fact do nothing at all – and except for maybe France. They are 2nd to none in terms of CO2 emissions, even though they pay a hefty price for that.
Germany retired a bunch of Nuclear reactors early that forced them to be dependent on Russian natural gas again. No countries should admire a luddite move of that magnitude, especially when one of their original green party advocates was found to be getting a lot of money from Russian oligarchs.
Thats straight up wrong.
-
They didn’t retire them early, but decided not to upgrade them. They where 40 years old and needed massive maintenance now.
-
Germany was highly dependent on russian gas with nuclear as well – even more, if you consider that Germany got its Uranium from Russia, too. Also Gas and Nuclear Energy fulfill a completly different function. Nuclear is not really flexible, so its a baseload source. Gas is highly flexible, which is the reason its a peak load source. Nuclear competes with renewables and a bit with coal, but not with gas.
-
No idea where you got this Fakenews, but no politican of the german greens was involved in any scandal with Russia – in fact its the opposite: they have been the most vocal anti-Russia party for years now and warned about dependence on Russia for the last decade already.
The US has routinely upgraded aging reactors - the condition of the facilities is a major factor but in most cases it costs a fraction of the cost vs. building one new. Powerplants are generally expensive and nuclear plants especially - these plants had a lot of life left in them. Think of scheduled retirement dates as a “best before” date on food - you should keep them in mind and double check food beyond the date but food is generally still good.
There are some incredibly valid renewables for surge demand - hydroelectric chief among these… in the US there are actually a few lakes that pump water into the reservoir during off hours and run their turbines during peak - having some surge power as lng/coal is wise but increasing baseload is always a good idea - especially if you implement demand based pricing so things like data centers can overcool and electric cars can charge during off hours.
Regarding #3 it isn’t fake news - one of the original advocates for denuclearization was Gerhard Schröder who has received very large sums of money from Russian companies. He, himself, was not a Greens member but did push for a lot of the original nuclear sunsetting. He’s since received millions of euros a year from Russian companies and been offered board positions on gazprom.
So its fake news because he isnt a member of the green party – and actually never was an advocate of the end of nuclear energy. He was vocal about increasing the run time of nuclear reactors in the public, actually. Also, all german parties – except for the far right – were part of the process and at one point or another confirmed it. There is just no majority in Germany for nuclear power. One of the reasons is the high price (see France, which needs to subsidize their energy prices with billions each year to stay competitive), but also the problem with nuclear waste, which no one wants. Its not like in the US, where we have lot of empty space where no one is bothered.
Still, the public debate is intense, even though nuclear power was only at 5–10 %. Meanwhile in the last year alone renewables producing 4 % of the energy demand were built. And each year lost by debating, more fossil fuels are burned.
-
Don’t talk about Germany! If you mention the environmental benefits of nuclear power around a german they’ll screech you into the ground.
That’s not limited to Germany.
What will the world become when they close all those cloud factories? (/s)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Slovenské elektrárne, the company that owns the plant, announced that all of the electricity generated in the Eastern European country will be free of direct CO2 as of June 2024.
Slovakia originally slated its coal phaseout for 2030 but has now expedited this to mid-2024, when it will join Belgium, Austria, Sweden and Portugal as a coal-free country.
Operator Slovenské elektrárne has been trialling waste and biomass incinerators but concluded that this alternative fuel supply is unreliable and insufficient.
The owners say this was due to the long-term fall in electricity prices and the high cost of C02 permits and coal.
Vojany owner Slovenské elektrárne intends to transform the closed power plant for more sustainable solutions.
The utility firm says it will clean up the onsite landfill and the sludge pond so they do not pose a risk to the environment.
The original article contains 307 words, the summary contains 141 words. Saved 54%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Fusion reactors when?
The UK’s last one is a few miles from my house. It’s scheduled to close this year, but that date was set before Russia began its latest bullshit in Ukraine, and I won’t be surprised if it’s delayed again.
