Welcome to Hogville!      Do Not Sell My Personal Information

RIP for the Coal Industry?

Started by HawgWild, August 04, 2015, 11:43:41 am

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HawgWild

The POTUS puts a bulls eye on the coal industry. No way they go down without a fight with Mitch as Senate majority leader but they are going down. NG is now the primary fuel for generating electricity and will only grow. I'd read months back that dual fuel power plants find it cheaper to burn NG when it's price is $3.25 or lower per MMBTU.

So, where's the love for the NG industry. How long before those stocks turn around?

hawgbawb

Quote from: HawgWild on August 04, 2015, 11:43:41 am
The POTUS puts a bulls eye on the coal industry. No way they go down without a fight with Mitch as Senate majority leader but they are going down. NG is now the primary fuel for generating electricity and will only grow. I'd read months back that dual fuel power plants find it cheaper to burn NG when it's price is $3.25 or lower per MMBTU.

So, where's the love for the NG industry. How long before those stocks turn around?
Natural gas is a relatively short term bridge fuel to renewables. It burns much cleaner than coal, but way too much GHG is released into the atmosphere during it's harvesting and transmission.
I post, therefor I am.
John Highsmith Adams rocks.

 

HawgWild

That's what I'm wanting to see, a "bridge fuel" bounce!

hog.goblin


ricepig

Quote from: hog.goblin on August 04, 2015, 09:53:09 pm
we need more nuclear plants

No kidding, but that would make too much sense.

Old Tusk

Nuclear this too expensive. The plants we have now receive government subsidies.
The Democrats are the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller and get the crabgrass out of our lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it....P.J. O'Rourke

hawgbawb

Quote from: Old Tusk on August 05, 2015, 09:29:00 am
Nuclear this too expensive. The plants we have now receive government subsidies.
True, nuclear is typically the most subsidized of all.
I post, therefor I am.
John Highsmith Adams rocks.

HawgWild

IMO there'll never be another coal fired power plant built. Yes, NG is a bridge fuel but that's a long bridge and it'll take many years for alternative power to produce significant amounts of electricity. What companies are going to end up holding the leases to the NG reserves once the smaller drillers go belly up?

ricepig

Quote from: hawgbawb on August 05, 2015, 10:18:29 am
True, nuclear is typically the most subsidized of all.

On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:

Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

hawgbawb

Quote from: ricepig on August 05, 2015, 01:30:49 pm
On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:

Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

The problem with the picture that paints is that:

a. there are almost zero nuclear plants currently under construction (Plant Vogtle in Georgia the only onr I know of, and it is experiencing big cost overruns, as is typically the case). It is during that phase that the big subsidies come into play (loan guarantees, etc.). And of course the utilcos are guaranteed not to lose money with their gubmint-regulated rate structure.

b. Fossil fuels use funny money accounting when they count subsidies.  For instance, they don't count the fact that we let them pollute for free. As long as you can't see it with your eyes, it doesn't exist. Right? ;-)
I post, therefor I am.
John Highsmith Adams rocks.

ricepig

Quote from: hawgbawb on August 05, 2015, 03:12:26 pm
The problem with the picture that paints is that:

a. there are almost zero nuclear plants currently under construction (Plant Vogtle in Georgia the only onr I know of, and it is experiencing big cost overruns, as is typically the case). It is during that phase that the big subsidies come into play (loan guarantees, etc.). And of course the utilcos are guaranteed not to lose money with their gubmint-regulated rate structure.

b. Fossil fuels use funny money accounting when they count subsidies.  For instance, they don't count the fact that we let them pollute for free. As long as you can't see it with your eyes, it doesn't exist. Right? ;-)
.

Keep moving your line in the sand. I'm fully aware that we won't ever have another nuclear power plant built, just pointing out the facts from the CBO.

hawgbawb

Quote from: ricepig on August 05, 2015, 03:26:07 pm
.

Keep moving your line in the sand. I'm fully aware that we won't ever have another nuclear power plant built, just pointing out the facts from the CBO.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/05/19/imf-report-on-5-3-trillion-in-energy-subsidies-careful-its-not-quite-what-you-think/

A key point is that we have let the fossil fuel industries pollute for free for about a century now, and they have thoroughly screwed the proverbial pooch known as Mother Earth. 

But hey, since they've been screwing that pooch for 100 years, it must be OK, huh? The pooch probably likes it and the kids are accustomed to it now anyway.

Also, keep in mind that subsidies to consumers which favor one type of energy over another are de facto subsidies to the producer.
I post, therefor I am.
John Highsmith Adams rocks.

ricepig

Quote from: hawgbawb on August 05, 2015, 04:35:12 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/05/19/imf-report-on-5-3-trillion-in-energy-subsidies-careful-its-not-quite-what-you-think/

A key point is that we have let the fossil fuel industries pollute for free for about a century now, and they have thoroughly screwed the proverbial pooch known as Mother Earth. 

But hey, since they've been screwing that pooch for 100 years, it must be OK, huh? The pooch probably likes it and the kids are accustomed to it now anyway.

Also, keep in mind that subsidies to consumers which favor one type of energy over another are de facto subsidies to the producer.

Blah blah blah. You paint your picture, i'll paint mine. I'm sure that any subsidies that favor your chosen energy choice is just fine, lol.

 

hawgbawb

Quote from: ricepig on August 05, 2015, 05:01:45 pm
Blah blah blah. You paint your picture, i'll paint mine. I'm sure that any subsidies that favor your chosen energy choice is just fine, lol.
Despite The Obama Administration's bold move, it is not nearly enough.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obamas-climate-policy-practically-worthless-says-expert

"But for some who study climate change the only shame is this: Obama's plan does not go nearly far enough. It's meek and dangerously self-congratulatory, sapping the movement of urgency while doing almost nothing to maintain the future habitability of the earth.

"The actions are practically worthless," said James Hansen, a climate researcher who headed NASA's Goddard's Institute for Space Studies for over 30 years and first warned congress of global warming in 1988. "They do nothing to attack the fundamental problem."

"You've got to be kidding," he wrote, when asked if the plan would make continued climate activism unnecessary. Obama's plan, and for that matter the proposed plan Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, he continued, "is like the fellow who walks to work instead of driving, and thinks he is saving the world."
I post, therefor I am.
John Highsmith Adams rocks.

majestic

We are building the wrong kind of nuclear plants, for one thing.
Voluntary epidemiologist - Voted for W in 08

Dumb ole famrboy

Quote from: hawgbawb on August 05, 2015, 04:35:12 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/05/19/imf-report-on-5-3-trillion-in-energy-subsidies-careful-its-not-quite-what-you-think/

A key point is that we have let the fossil fuel industries pollute for free for about a century now, and they have thoroughly screwed the proverbial pooch known as Mother Earth. 

But hey, since they've been screwing that pooch for 100 years, it must be OK, huh? The pooch probably likes it and the kids are accustomed to it now anyway.

Also, keep in mind that subsidies to consumers which favor one type of energy over another are de facto subsidies to the producer.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22612

DeltaBoy

Funny that back in the 1980's ARKLA claimed they had found enough NG in LA to heat and make electricity for the Nation for the next 100 years.
If the South should lose, it means that the history of the heroic struggle will be written by the enemy, that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers, will be impressed by all of the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.
-- Major General Patrick Cleburne
The Confederacy had no better soldiers
than the Arkansans--fearless, brave, and oftentimes courageous beyond
prudence. Dickart History of Kershaws Brigade.

HawgWild

Well, I guess the coal industry is not dead. Life support maybe? Zombie? NG is below $3 MM/BTU so it's still cheaper to burn.

Vantage 8 dude

Quote from: HawgWild on October 10, 2017, 12:58:20 pm
Well, I guess the coal industry is not dead. Life support maybe? Zombie? NG is below $3 MM/BTU so it's still cheaper to burn.
Sorry to inform anyone who actually believe that like America coal will be "great again" had better put down the glue and clear their noggins. While the coal industry might not be totally comatose, it is most certainly on major life support. There are far too many emerging fuel alternatives such as wind and solar whose future growth will NOT be reversed. And of course I haven't mentioned the usual suspects of oil and natural gas. The hand writing is clearly on the wall and the inevitable trend is not going to be stopped.

One thing interesting I did read recently pointed out that one of the major coal companies-and and at the moment I can't which-is converting at least one of its facilities to manufacturing solar panels. I suppose it's a clear case of "if you can't beat 'em join em".


HawgWild

They gotta find something for all those former coal miners to do.

Vantage 8 dude

Quote from: HawgWild on October 10, 2017, 01:54:50 pm
They gotta find something for all those former coal miners to do.
How about growing weed where legalized ???

Hogwop

Pigga what?!
Quote from: PonderinHog on April 16, 2018, 10:27:02 amAn emoji is worth a hundred words.
9-07-1958 - 12-2-2011 R.I.P Mom, I will always miss you and love you.

Vantage 8 dude

Quote from: Hogwop on October 10, 2017, 04:11:28 pm
Bring it on
Intersting that concerning a power plant, not nuclear, did anyone else see where it was recently decided that a court ruling is sticking a good portion of Mississippi Power customers with a huge bill to decommission a recently opened oil fired power plant down there ??? ::) If I recall the cost of the plant was something like $600-700 MILLION; nice and efficient use of the company's (and rate payers money). Next Mississippi Power will likely follow the recent brilliant IRS move and hire Equifax to safeguard all the relevant and sensitive financial and consumer data ;) >:(

HawgWild

Back in the 1980s Arkansas Entergy users were stuck with paying a portion of a Louisiana nuclear plant from which they would receive no power. That went on for 20 years.

 

Vantage 8 dude

Quote from: HawgWild on October 10, 2017, 06:57:52 pm
Back in the 1980s Arkansas Entergy users were stuck with paying a portion of a Louisiana nuclear plant from which they would receive no power. That went on for 20 years.
Remember that very well.

ricepig

Quote from: HawgWild on October 10, 2017, 06:57:52 pm
Back in the 1980s Arkansas Entergy users were stuck with paying a portion of a Louisiana nuclear plant from which they would receive no power. That went on for 20 years.

So thankful to be on CWL here in Jonesboro, some of the cheapest rates anywhere. I remember those good ole days on AP&L, glad I left them in the late 80's. We(CW&L) own part of a couple of coal plants, so it's still a concern, but they bought from gas plants during the summer when it was cheaper than using their power from the coal plants. They generally have excess power to sell and make millions a year by selling their own nat gas produced electricity. I hope it stays this way.