Rick Perry recommends taxpayer subsidy for coal fired power plants to compete with renewable energy

The U.S. power grid could become less reliable if too much electricity comes from renewable energy and natural gas, according to a study from the Department of Energy.

But not everyone is buying it. Environmentalists suspect the Trump administration is just trying to prop up an ailing coal industry.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry called for the study in the spring. The report doesn't say there is a grid reliability problem now — only that one could develop if more coal and nuclear power plants shut down.

Those plants are having trouble competing with cheaper natural gas and renewable energy at a time when the country is using less electricity.

The Energy Department study points out that coal and nuclear generate power whenever it's needed, while solar and wind can be less predictable.

This echoes an argument that traditional utilities and power generators have made for years.

"The most reliable and resilient grid is the type that will balance traditional base load sources of power with renewable power," says Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council.

Segal says renewable forms of electricity got a lot of focus during the Obama administration, but now he thinks it's time for the pendulum to swing back.

The Sierra Club's Mark Kresowik sees something else entirely in the Energy Department's report.

"Coal and nuclear interests are making a last-ditch attempt to try and preserve their market share, that is being taken up by fast-growing, clean, reliable, affordable resources like wind and solar," he says.

Kresowik and other renewable energy advocates believe the Trump administration is laying the groundwork to justify subsidies for coal and nuclear power plants.

npr.org/2017/08/24/545722857/coal-nuclear-power-would-benefit-from-energy-departments-power-grid-study

Other urls found in this thread:

greentechmedia.com/articles/read/why-the-new-massachusetts-energy-storage-report-is-such-a-big-deal
mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/state-of-charge-report.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

"It will cost consumers more, and ultimately we will all be paying the price — whether in increased electricity costs or by breathing dirtier air," Kresowik says.

Nuclear plant operators already have won subsidies in some states, and coal companies have lobbied the Trump administration for help.

But Segal says, "Any real bold policy changes require major regulatory change or legislation or both."

Is this a literal fucking bot

Hahaha oh wow

First it was
>we need a carbon tax to raise money for the renewable energy bullshit because its not as cheap as coal

i may be a bot but republicans are still third world tier corrupt

the carbon tax made sense in the context of mitigating risk from climate change.

this is just naked corruption for the largest corporate lobby.

of course, what did anyone expect from trump's administration.

>Segal says renewable forms of electricity got a lot of focus during the Obama administration, but now he thinks it's time for the pendulum to swing back

lol

Yet when poor people living in the ghettos want government handouts, they get to eat shit.

But more government handouts for Mr Schlomo so he can buy his 13th yacht? Go for it, there's a fat $500,000 job on an 'energy review board' where you don't do shit waiting for you when you leave office

go cry in Sup Forums retard, this is off board shit

Wind and solar are highly disruptive to the electrical grid. When a cloud passes over a multi megawatt solar installation and output drops by 60% in a few seconds you need to have gas turbines pick up that load.

That's very expensive because those turbines are not making their capital costs back by running in a semi predictable manner. This makes solar and wind even more expensive because they force the most expensive type of conventional thermal power into a higher demand situation.

The reason we should while maybe not subsidize coal, but at least protect them from having to subsidize solar and wind is that the current glut of natural gas might dry up faster than estimated. While coal reserves are much more predictable. Coal does predictable grid load following better than most Gen 2 Light Water nuclear reactors, so having a mix of nuclear and coal to backstop the grid is desirable.

Pic related is why even if solar was free it costs more than cheap natural gas or clean coal.
Whenever subsidies for wind and solar go away the wind and solar industry crashes, or outright fails. The optimal government intervention would be at the technological end, by helping develop new tech, not on the operations side propping up non viable industry.

>the carbon tax made sense in the context of mitigating risk from climate change.
Not in any possible measure of temperature raise reduction. You might want to read up on why Australia gave up on their carbon tax given the costs and how pitiful the estimated reduction in temperature raise was.

It's almost as if investment into energy storage to buffer the variable energy production is needed, rather than investing in energy production that has to run all the time to be cost effective.

There's some problems with the logic in this summary.

Natural gas and coal are just as predictable, in both cases you're just burning fuel.

Why you'd burn coal when you can build more nuclear power-plants is a good question.

Subsidies have absolutely no place in a free market. If you're going to do anything then you could fine/place a tax on one particular sector that you want to go away (carbon tax on coal for example) if it does harm to the environment or others.

Interestingly, there's a few types of energy nobody seems to talk about. Those are hydro and wave generators. This requires streams and an ocean.

>Subsidies have absolutely no place in a free market
Luckily we realised free markets don't work in the early 20th century and used government subsidies to level out the dramatic instability of a real free market.

in MA we require our utilities to built battery facilities

>It's almost as if investment into energy storage to buffer the variable energy production is needed, rather than investing in energy production that has to run all the time to be cost effective.
That's a black hole which has no currently projected tech that might help. Even the hot battery idea that got a TED talk is still massively more expensive than even out most expensive generating options.

You can't just say we need this tech to fix the problem, and then keep going down the path hoping for a fix. Taking a rational view of our current resources and abilities and selecting viable solutions is good planning. Pinning your hopes on a revolution is a path of failure. Furthermore any storage tech that makes solar or wind more viable, would be batter matched against our current nuclear or even coal fired power plants. If you can get cheap storage for power we can build more terrible LWR that will move past base load demand, but will still run like base load demand because they are storing power during low demand periods.

>in MA we require our utilities to built battery facilities
That's stupid for a gang of reasons but mostly because even the cheapest option for grid storage is about 10 times more expensive than moderately priced coal/natural gas.

You might run 2 to 8 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity. The cheapest storage solution other than hydro pumped storage is running 60 cents, while more reasonable prices are in the $1.10 range.

Where is MA? That might be any number of locations around the world.

Personally I think nuclear plants would be great, but coal is stupid.

greentechmedia.com/articles/read/why-the-new-massachusetts-energy-storage-report-is-such-a-big-deal

>The government of Massachusetts released a study last Friday that lays out the costs and benefits of energy storage, setting the stage for a storage mandate that is yet to be determined.

>The report concludes that 600 megawatts of storage capacity installed by 2025 would save the state’s ratepayers $800 million in system costs. Not only that, but if storage is properly located and market and policy barriers are removed, a deployment of 1,766 megawatts would optimize system benefits for ratepayers.

We can make clean coal (not carbon capture) that only adds abut 2 cents per kilowatt hour to generation and has stack emissions that are harmless even when coming from multi GW scale power plants.

The US doesn't have a full clean coal profile yet. For an example of a terrible non coal green heavy electrical system take a look at Ontario Canada that has more or less destroyed it's economy with overpriced electrical power. The nice upside is that they have lowered the cost of electricity in Michigan because solar and wind gets a to jump on the grid first with a premium while their massive cheap nuclear power providers have to dump power.

even with the most state-of-the-art carbon capture technology and the highest efficiency coal plants (which add significantly to cost), greenhouse gas emissions from coal fired electricity is much greater than even conventional natural gas plants without any modification.

Nuclear is great all around except massive initial pricetag. If there is going to be a national strategy to transition to nuclear, it will need to be a long-term, almost generational investment, initially very costly, would still upset lobbyists, and comes with a mighty stigma in the public conscious. So politically it appears almost totally unfeasible to pin hopes on.

>The report concludes that 600 megawatts
Okay that's not how you measure electrical storage. Or did they actually mean they can store 600MJ of power for a single second? Well I guess if reporters could pass a science class they wouldn't be reporters.

Anyway yeah if you could cheaply store electrical power it would be a huge massive cost savings. I even expressed that idea. However it's just too expensive with any tech we have other than pumped hydro, which even then is still generally more expensive than new generation.

mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/state-of-charge-report.pdf

On page 112 you can see the price for a lithium battery.
It has a capital cost of $600/kWh of capacity.
A life span of 10 years.
85% efficient.
O&M $10/kW-Year

That's not a good deal.