Any Coal miners on Sup Forums?

Lmao why did you choose such a shitty irrelevant profession ? You do realize you faggots should be installing solar panels instead ?

Other urls found in this thread:

iea.org/textbase/npsum/ElecCostSUM.pdf
iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/ElecCost2015.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>implying solar isn't a meme
>implying Big Solar isn't just out to kike you

I always find it interesting that people think that solar is as easy as "Just do it, faggot."

The fact is if we switched to renewable are economy would be destroyed. You would be imposing povery on 10s to 100s of millions in the USA alone.. To put it in liberal speak: "Renewable energy disproportionately hurts poor people and minorities".

Our economic success and the high standard of living we enjoy largely depends on cheap energy. Renewable aren't cheap. They aren't even profitable. They are heavily subsidized. They are not only less expensive, they are essentially a negative for society.

watch the documentary 'blood in the mountain'. it's a doc on netflix about coal mining.

They're probably from bumfuckville Appalachia

please define "coal miner" more specifically. /pol has advice for anyone burning coal or shoveling coal.

Solar panels are still too expensive to install everywhere and they don't meet the energy demands of the US

Solar is for sidewalk lamps and for slapping on the upper middle class' roofs, it's not viable for providing a large portion of our power needs

I have family in rural Pennsylvania who are still very reliant on mining and trucking coal. Shit's not easy and it needs to be done.

"trucking coal". you pervert.

Burning coal is good geoforming. More CO2 means plants grow fast which means more food to eat. Or you Solar dickheads prefer a glasshouse with CO2 atmospheric control for hyrdroponics? Morons.

HOLY SHIT HAHAH

Like come on sweeties this is all that is needed to power the usa completely with solar. COAL IS DEAD

You're right that switching 100% of our energy to renewables is a terrible idea, but you're wrong about everything else. When you're buying at the utility plant scale, the price of solar is on par with natural gas and coal, and wind is cheaper than all of those.

From Lazard's LCOE analysis 2016

Unsubsidized solar: 49 $/MWh LCOE, 1300 $/kW capex
Natural gas: 48 $/MWh LCOE, 1000 $/kW capex
Coal (without Obama era regulations): 60 $/MWh LCOE, 3000 $/kW capex
Unsubsidized Wind: 32 $/MWh LCOE, 1250 $/kW capex

No sensible person would suggest running 100% of your energy off renewables, but pairing renewables in tandem with a natural gas plant is the cheapest energy solution right now. With historic weather data and forecasting, you can get a highly accurate prediction of what amount of energy your renewable system will produce at what time of day, and adjust your natural gas plant around that. Since you're getting these predictions 2-3 days in advance, there's no guesswork over how much energy you will be getting or when the conventional fuel source will need to ramp up/down. Natural gas plants are especially suited to this because they can ramp up and down on a dime. Also if you're doing renewables on a utility scale rather than distributed, you don't need to worry about grid stability issues. And since your main power source is natural gas you don't need to worry about storage.

>pairing renewables in tandem with a natural gas plant is the cheapest energy solution
Bullshit. NG + renewables is far more expensive than NG alone.

>Lmao why did you choose such a shitty irrelevant profession ?

Shitty profession?

Miners in Canada earn six figure incomes.

Ha get a load of this idiot. Wind turbines only take 20 years to turn a profit. Best investment i've ever made.

How long does it take a nuclear plant to turn a profit? How about a coal plant? I'm interested.

Just look at the numbers I have there. And when you consider existing subsidies the LCOE values for wind and solar drop to 14 $/MWh and 36 $/MWh respectively. If you're in an area with the right geography for solar or wind, there's no reason not to.

I love when liberals cannot fathom a job doing actual work paying better than the life of an office drone

...

I don't have figures on years to profit (those would also depend on the rate of return you're looking for), but I can point you to the LCOE values I posted here: Those values are based on the cost per MWh of energy a plant needs to sell energy at to break even over a 20 year lifetime. So to break even after 20 years, coal needs to sell energy at 60 $/MWh, natural gas 48 $/MWh, solar 49 $/MWh, wind 32 $/MWh, nuclear 97 $/MWh.

Yeah I used to dig coal with a boy called Raylan Givens until he went all federal and became a Marshall.

Legit, compensated sperm donor here. AMA

>blood in the mountaino on the cuck network called Netflix. I'm a cuck. I have (((Netflix))) - Kosher-approved television for the goy.

Coal is mined by machines now. There are no coal "miners" only machine operators and they get pretty good money to do it.

Those LCOE values for wind and solar don't tell how wind and solar destabilize grids and drive up the cost of the conventional power that does all the actual work of balancing supply.

>coalminers
>on Sup Forums

>inb4 solar provides more jobs

>Lazard's LCOE
Use independent studies instead you fag
iea.org/textbase/npsum/ElecCostSUM.pdf

As I explained in the other post you replied to, grid destabilization is only an issue for distributed systems. When you build renewables as utility blocks, you don't run into destabilization issues since you're getting a highly predictable amount of energy from a single source.

Renewables driving up the cost of conventional power is also only an issue for distributed systems. The cost increase comes from the need to constantly ramp up or down production from distributed variable sources. When you build utility scale renewable systems, you have a highly accurate prediction of generation several days out from historic weather data and forecasting, which allows plant ramping to be predictive rather than reactive. This model also works extremely well with natural gas plants, which can easily ramp up and down production. There's still a nonzero increase in plant operation cost from this, but it is much smaller than the fuel savings provided by renewables.

Another thing to note is that startup costs are only significant when you're jumping from very low production to very high production, which only happens when renewable production is at a similar level to total demand. If you scale your renewable systems so that they only produce 40-60% of demand during peak production, you don't run into full scale startup situations.

Thanks based energy user.

>install solar panels in coal country

Do they even teach anything other then feminism in uni these days?

Femisnist geography isn't geography

>you have a highly accurate prediction of generation several days out from historic weather data and forecasting
I could already tell you were an autist because of the shillposting but now you've reached a new level. Also the fact that you don't understand that they make power systems based on worst case scenarios proves that you're just a keyboard warrior who probably just wrote a report on this for highschool.

>er then

there is no cleaner energy than coal. not even oil.

that's why, uneducated, ignorant OP fagglet

You should read the actual study, and get the 2015 version (latest year available).

iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/ElecCost2015.pdf

Your link doesn't specify, since it's just the executive summary, but by the numbers it looks like the 2010 edition. The 2015 edition has numbers more similar to the 2016 Lazard's numbers I'm using. You would also expect the 2010 analysis to show solar being much more expensive, since at that point the price of solar panels was just peeking under 1 $/kW.

Lazard $/MWh:
Utility solar: 49-61
Coal: 60-143
Natural gas: 48-78

IEA/NEA $/MWh at 3% discount:
Utility solar: 55-140
Coal: 65-95
Natural gas: 60-130

The exact values differ between the studies due to methodology, but the low end trend is the same. IEA/NEA will also inflate the high end of renewables since they consider countries with suboptimum generation, rather than just looking at the US.

I think you're still misunderstanding the fact that renewables are nothing more than an addendum to a main natural gas plant. The natural gas plant is sized to function independently of renewables, and modulates output based on a known amount of renewable generation.

Any non centralized energy source is a fucking meme and you're basically a retard for not seeing this. Engineering 101.

>coal: 65-95
>utility solar: 55-140
enough said

which means that you have to account for the lowest possible output that solar would have; which begs the question, why not just build only the gas plant?

you realize solar panels are dependent on the same petroleum you faggots are raging so hard to get off of right? and you wonder why they push it..... wouldnt want you going with wind and having your own generator and never having to pay any kikes again right.... nahhh lets just be france and pass laws that say you have to install them and keep that ol oil industry flowing.... keep being brainwashed by bill nye and nigger tyson and the rest of the "scientists" lying to you.....