IEA: Nuclear phase-outs threaten surge in coal emissions

[rondurrans]

"Any boost to renewable energy sparked by countries abandoning nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster is likely to be overshadowed by a massive increase in coal use that could have devastating consequences for the fight against climate change."


http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2139294/iea-nuclear-phase-outs-threaten-surge-coal-emissions

[dhaslam]

The growth in renewable  energy capacity  has greatly  exceeded nuclear in recent years, approximately by a factor of ten. Of course   capacity isn't the  whole picture because of intermittent output   but it  wouldn't be all that difficult to replace nuclear energy and still reduce  the use of fossil fuels.     

While Wikipedia is still working -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GlobalREPowerCapacity-exHydro-Eng.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nuclear_power_capacity_and_generation.png

[wookey]

Capacity is arguably a rather misleading picture, as in practice you get total output as if from conventional plant with about 1/3rd to 1/2 the capacity (handwave - but that's the sort of thing we are looking at). So that 300GW of RE is equivalent to something like 140GW of conventional plant (making some allowance for biomass and geothermal CF being high, solar being very low, wind being middling). That is nearly 1/3rd of the nuclear capacity (which also has a CF, varying from 70% to 90odd%), which is quite respectable, and, as you say, rising fast.

[pdf27]

"Any boost to renewable energy sparked by countries abandoning nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster is likely to be overshadowed by a massive increase in coal use that could have devastating consequences for the fight against climate change."

Not to mention the greatly increased emissions of radiation (coal is full of nasties like Uranium, Radium, etc., and that's before you even start on the Carbon-14 emissions)

[billi]

I thought gas is the way to go , not coal

I suppose  they (power companies ) just do what they want ,  and we let them do so    and swallow their propaganda

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9SA5A503.htm

[desperate]

I thought low carbon was the way to go??

From the link you posted billi,

But Apt cautions that the trend could stall because the basics of supply and demand mean that if too many plants embrace cheap gas, it won't stay cheap.

"The surest route to $6 or $8 gas is for everybody to plan on $4 gas," Apt said, and if prices do rise, coal will again be the most cost-effective fuel. Natural gas is priced per million BTU.

Apt noted that there was a "huge building boom" in natural gas plants from the late 1990s to 2004, because utilities thought they would get rich from the combination of cheap fuel and plants that were highly efficient and relatively cheap to build. There were predictions that prices would stay low over the long term, too.

But natural gas prices spiked, and the new gas-fired plants around the nation stayed idle much of the time. That trend was also driven by another irony: The gas-fired plants are easier to start and stop compared with coal or nuclear, so many utilities used them just for peak electric demand periods.

Still, history may not repeat itself because of the huge surge in supply from Marcellus Shale gas drilling. Vast gas deposits that previously couldn't be extracted economically are now being tapped using new technologies. Instead of drilling straight down, companies can drill horizontally and follow seams of gas for a mile or more deep underground. Then the drillers use hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," to free the gas from the relatively dense shale rock.

That's led to environmental concerns from some residents, scientists and regulators who feel there are too many unknowns in the process, along with an undisputed boom in production that's brought great wealth to some landowners, and a surge of jobs.

Some companies clearly believe the switch to natural gas plants makes long-term sense.

Sunbury Generation LP in central Pennsylvania plans to close five of its six coal-fired generators and replace them with two natural gas-fired turbines by 2015, the Daily Item reported last month.

But some companies are deciding not to switch fuels.

The owners of the Homer City Generating Station in western Pennsylvania, the state's second-largest coal plant, plan to add $700 million in pollution control equipment to keep the 40-year-old plant running and in compliance with clean air laws.


Sounds like they may be banking on a bit of fracking there, doesn't sound  good to me.

Desp

[billi]

I thought low carbon was the way to go??

Sure ,  but  as far as i can tell the plan is for example in Germany to get high efficient and cleaner   Gas powered  stations in place   for the  transition  time

And that coal burning argument  is an old shoe

[desperate]

Yeah agreed there billi, but as your link points out, what'll happen when gas becomes more expensive? the frackers will get busy. Then whichever way you look at it gas wont be a clean option. Just got to hope that the transition time is not too long.

Desp