Global demand for coal falls in 2016 for second year in a row

[apdst]

Well I got you, and then I got all those other more enlightened opinions.

I like to go with facts.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dail...rk-says-wind-energy-has-become-too-expensive/

 

[Cardinal]

You posted a picture of an (one) electric truck.

What's the retail going to be?

The truck driving I do now makes civilized life possible. :lamo

Without the truck driving we do now, there wouldn't be any future generations to worry about it.

For a glimpse into the future of your career, I suggest watching Logan, and perhaps learning a new trade.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I like to go with facts.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dail...rk-says-wind-energy-has-become-too-expensive/

We know, alternative facts.

 

[apdst]

We know, alternative facts.

Yeah...the Danes are lying. Probably in cahoots with the Russians.

 

[apdst]

For a glimpse into the future of your career, I suggest watching Logan, and perhaps learning a new trade.

Hollywood? :lamo

 

[Deuce]

I like to go with facts.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dail...rk-says-wind-energy-has-become-too-expensive/

Me too.

 

[apdst]

Me too.

Those aren't wind turbines.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Yeah...the Danes are lying. Probably in cahoots with the Russians.

I don't know the Danes, I do know the Daily Caller.

Actually:

https://futurism.com/sunny-days-sola...w-electricity/

Wind is cheap and solar is getting cheaper | Fortune.com

Cheap Solar Power Is Fueling Global Renewable Energy Growth: Report | HuffPost

6 charts that show renewable energy is getting cheaper | Grist

Goldman Sachs | Our Thinking - The Renewables Story in Asia

 

[fmw]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...and-falls-2016-second-year-in-row-fossil-fuel



Several thoughts:
Is it possible the increasingly cheaper cost of renewable energy will push coal and other fossil fuels out of the market?
A related thought - if all regulation and subsidies were removed, what energy production method would be cheapest, taking all of them into account?

Sure, it's possible. I believe natural gas is the cheapest.

What might this mean for Trump's goals to bring coal jobs back? Related - what caused the reduced demand?

I doubt he cares about bringing coal back. He cares about bringing jobs back including those that mine coal.

 

[Cardinal]

Hollywood? :lamo

Driverless vehicles are expected to come onto the market in 2020, and 1.7 million truckers will be replaced within the next decade. The creators of Logan weren't predicting the future so much as showing what it will look like. So if you want to know what the future will look like, just watch Logan.

I know if I were in your position, I would get a head start by looking into trades that aren't expected to be replaced by automation any time soon.

 

[longview]

Those aren't wind turbines.

Wind is simply not as good as solar, I compared the two in another thread.

I found this site which goes into the size and capacities of wind farms,
Area Used by Wind Power Facilities [AWErg]
I will hedge the numbers a bit and say the average is 50 acres per MW instead of the articles 60 acres per MW.
I also hear that the newer output factors are closer to 50%, up from the earlier 25 to 35%.
1 MW X 24 hours X 365 days= 8760 Mwh X 50%= 4380 Mwh per year for 50 acres, or 4.380 Gwh
Solar claims 2.8 acres per Gwh per year, so 50/2.8=17.857 Gwh per year per 50 acres.
So wind power is .0876 Gwh per acre per year,
and solar is .3571 Gwh per acre per year.
It looks like for energy density solar is about 4 times better than wind, but there would still be a question
of how useful the land under the panels would be compared to the land under the windmills.

So per land area Solar produces about 4 times more power than wind.
That said, there are studies that show wind is a good compliment to solar,
as they tend to generate power at different times.

 

[apdst]

Driverless vehicles are expected to come onto the market in 2020, and 1.7 million truckers will be replaced within the next decade. The creators of Logan weren't predicting the future so much as showing what it will look like. So if you want to know what the future will look like, just watch Logan.

I know if I were in your position, I would get a head start by looking into trades that aren't expected to be replaced by automation any time soon.

Driverless vehicles will go tits up within a year.

Why is it that every solution Liberals come up with means putting people out of work?

 

[fmw]

Solar is the future, not coal. I am troubled by the GOP's inability to lead on alternative energy. This story is just more evidence that leaving the Paris Accord was poorly thought out.

I think most conservatives, including this one, believe in market forces guiding the economy, not government decrees. I, for one, think it is great that we can get energy directly from the sun in real time. When it becomes economically sensible to replace fossil fuels with solar energy, the private sector will see it through with no requirement for any government action. People like me don't want the government to lead in alternative energy. We want government to leave it alone and let it happen naturally. I believe it will happen naturally.

 

[Cardinal]

Driverless vehicles will go tits up within a year.

Why is it that every solution Liberals come up with means putting people out of work?

Did liberals put farriers out of work?

 

[longview]

Driverless vehicles are expected to come onto the market in 2020, and 1.7 million truckers will be replaced within the next decade. The creators of Logan weren't predicting the future so much as showing what it will look like. So if you want to know what the future will look like, just watch Logan.

I know if I were in your position, I would get a head start by looking into trades that aren't expected to be replaced by automation any time soon.

I suspect the first generation will be long haul only, with city drop offs and pick up still using drivers.
Think of it like a port pilots, who guide ships in local port, but gets off when the ship is in safe water.

 

[Cardinal]

I suspect the first generation will be long haul only, with city drop offs and pick up still using drivers.
Think of it like a port pilots, who guide ships in local port, but gets off when the ship is in safe water.

You're probably right.

 

[Deuce]

Those aren't wind turbines.

I'm aware.

The graph for wind power is quite similar, if you cared about such things.

 

[Deuce]

I suspect the first generation will be long haul only, with city drop offs and pick up still using drivers.
Think of it like a port pilots, who guide ships in local port, but gets off when the ship is in safe water.

That seems likely.

 

[Visbek]

Driverless vehicles will go tits up within a year.

Not if it reduces costs for trucking companies.

Why is it that every solution Liberals come up with means putting people out of work?

"Liberals" did not come up with driverless cars, or automation, or ruthlessly cutting costs.

In fact, most of the corporate decisions that are killing jobs are based on market and shareholder pressures. The goal is to reduce costs as much as possible, especially in the short term, to enhance shareholder value. That includes reducing the costs of labor as much as possible... sometimes even more than is advisable.

That's going to happen no matter how many regulations are imposed by governments.

So yes, you might want to think about the future....

 

[Threegoofs]

You posted a picture of an (one) electric truck.

What's the retail going to be?

The truck driving I do now makes civilized life possible. :lamo

Without the truck driving we do now, there wouldn't be any future generations to worry about it.

You mean I posted a picture of the thing you said didnt exist?

And now you're whining about price, when you might be able to drive these with solar roofs, which may make the fuel costs negligible?

 

[Deuce]

Driverless vehicles will go tits up within a year.

Why is it that every solution Liberals come up with means putting people out of work?

Says a guy who will smug it up in every thread about McDonald's replacing people with ordering kiosks. I guess you react differently when it's your job on the chopping block. Maybe you should just take a pay cut.

I have some news for you: a business cutting costs isn't a "liberal solution." It's just how businesses function. If a robot can do your job, odds are you're not going to keep your job for long. Machines don't sleep, don't eat, don't draw a salary, and don't need health insurance. Not to mention all those horrible, horrible taxes you pay to employ them. You're more expensive to maintain, apdst. You're in the same boat as those McDonald's employees, only yours is sailing a bit slower. They're already more expensive than the ordering kiosks. (hint: an ipad, some power cables, and some software does not cost $10,000) In fact, those kiosks are already there in every McDonald's: they're just turned around facing the cashier. The hurdle for them is more cultural than financial/technical at this point, customers are slower and resistant to the new concept of pushing buttons to order their food instead of telling a person.

You? Your job's hurdles are still technical. Self-driving trucks are going to take a while to test and refine in order to be reliable enough for the public, and the DOT, to accept them. But once they do? Yeah, a little computer box and some sensors are going to be less expensive than you real quick. Plus, the robot will be vastly more productive than you. They can drive essentially 24/7/365. You can't.

My own situation is similar. Flying planes is already something a computer can do. Automating aircraft is actually easier than automating cars and trucks. The environment is controlled better, and there isn't so much stuff to hit. Most pilots will grudgingly admit that the autopilot is way better at our jobs than we are. We're here because the public is terrified of the idea of us not being there when something goes wrong. But a generation that grows up with driverless cars? Yeah, they're going to wonder why they need two human beings up front of an airplane.

Pretty sure I'll be retired or dead by then, though.

 

[Deuce]

You mean I posted a picture of the thing you said didnt exist?

And now you're whining about price, when you might be able to drive these with solar roofs, which may make the fuel costs negligible?

Solar roofs on trucks isn't going to put a dent in heavy trucking fuel costs because physics.

 

[Threegoofs]

Solar roofs on trucks isn't going to put a dent in heavy trucking fuel costs because physics.

True- but it will help extend range, which already looks considerable.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

True- but it will help extend range, which already looks considerable.

In Sweden there are also trials with electrificity powered highways.

"The new part is hybrid technology for the truck, which makes it possible for them to seamlessly change power source during operation, as well as tech making it possible for the electric current collector to find and attach to the overhead lines even while driving at full speed, without the driver thinking about it," he added.

So unlike trams or trolleybuses, the vehicles using the electric highway can also run without being attached to its power lines. The idea is that the time spent attached to it is used to charge batteries which will then power other stretches of the journey, meaning an entire road network of overhead lines wouldn't be necessary.

https://www.thelocal.se/20170120/ha...e-how-the-worlds-first-electric-highway-works

There are also a study from Standford that predicts the end of petrol cars.

A Stanford economist, Tony Seba, thinks that the global oil business will end as soon as 2030. In a study released recently, Tony talks about the revolutionary changes soon to be wrought by electrification of the transportation. The study published by Stanford University says that fossil-fueled cars will vanish within eight years and the people who want to buy cars will have no choice but to invest in electric vehicles or vehicles working on similar technologies. Tony says that this is because the cost of the electric vehicles; which includes cars, buses and even trucks will decrease and this will result in the collapse of the petroleum industry.

https://auto.ndtv.com/news/petrol-and-diesel-cars-will-vanish-in-8-years-study-1696406

 

[JasperL]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...and-falls-2016-second-year-in-row-fossil-fuel

Several thoughts:
Is it possible the increasingly cheaper cost of renewable energy will push coal and other fossil fuels out of the market?
A related thought - if all regulation and subsidies were removed, what energy production method would be cheapest, taking all of them into account?

What might this mean for Trump's goals to bring coal jobs back? Related - what caused the reduced demand?

The problem with your question is illustrated perfectly with coal. If there are no EPA or other regs, coal burning plants offload a huge amount of the costs of burning coal onto the public through dirty air and the problems, including early death, associated with that. So somehow the price of coal has to reflect those negative externalities. If not, "deregulating" coal is to subsidize coal by forcing all of us to pay for the costs of pollution.

And if you've been to China, the cause of the reduced demand there is obvious - air so filthy it kills reportedly up to 500,000 Chinese per year. During our visit, there were times coal produced smog reduced visibility during "clear" days to a quarter mile or less. Pretty incredible to see in person.