. . . or $2 or $5, who will? That’s the number that and independent analysis by the Citi Group has found that a ton of coal would increase as a result of the CPRS being introduced. Now, 5 bucks a ton sounds pretty severe when you look at it on a cost/ton basis. My current look at energy prices suggest that this average rise of $5 would raise the average price for a ton of coal from $45 to $50. That’s an 11% increase! If I was selling coal, I would want to make a huge issue out of that sort of rise that I would undoubtedly have to pass on to my customers. But, let’s look a little closer at how that cost rise plays out on the basis of the measure used throughout the energy industry in dollars per kilowatt hour ($/kWh). The results may surprise you a little. When converted to cost per amount of power delivered, some sources of energy break down like this:
Coal: $0.007/kWh
Gas: $.0.03/ kWh
Oil: $0.05/ kWh
Solar: $0.38/ kWh
Nuclear: $0.006/ kWh
So, if you look at it on this basis, that 5 bucks a ton only converts to only 1 tenth of 1 cent a kilowatt hour (or a cost of $0.008/kwh). That means what is an absolutely screaming deal on a cost basis becomes only an incredibly good deal, or only a third the price of gas rather than a quarter. Damn, I think we better subsidise those lost profits right away rather than risk any coal companies cutting jobs, huh?
Finally, when examining the numbers, the other thing to keep in mind is that it is not all about cost, is it? Because if it were, we wouldn’t be worried about making coal more expensive in relation to say, solar power. Instead, we would be working on plans to locate a lot more nuclear plants much closer to the users of the power in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, wouldn’t we? I’m sure we are all on board with that, right?
Right?
Is this thing even on?
#1 by Otto on November 25th, 2009
The generation of electricity from fossil fuels is a major contributor to the emission of CO2 and it is imperative that those emissions be significantly reduced. For the time being there are only a few realistic options for reducing these emissions:
• Increase the efficiency in electrical generation and use
• Expand the use of renewable sources of energy
• The capture of CO2 emissions
• Increased use of nuclear energy
I am of the opinion that it would be foolish to exclude any of these options from a carbon emissions management strategy. So I don’t understand your comment “I’m sure we are all on board with that, right?” regarding the location of nuclear power plants. Maybe I misunderstood your comment but are you opposed to building nuclear power plants, if so, why? Admittedly nuclear power presents some unique problems to overcome, specifically cost, safety, proliferation and waste along with a nasty image problem thanks to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
While considerable, these “challenges” are not insurmountable and when viewed through the prism of continued coal and gas usage and the resulting green house gas emissions, the “nuclear option” is virtually the only one that can meet our insatiable demand for electricity. Let’s face it; consumption is unlikely to drop. As long as we keep breeding the demand for electricity will continue to rise. Nor can we deny China and India the energy they need to support their burgeoning societies. I don’t have all the answers, heck I don’t even have any papers that say I know some stuff. But I do know this, if it hasn’t been reached yet, the tipping point is near and we should be aggressively pursuing all sources of energy that are low in CO2 emissions and it is my understanding nuclear energy is one of the lowest.
#2 by Sgt Hulka on November 26th, 2009
An excellent point well made Otto, and I am glad that we need not argue the basic science of the causation of climate change.
Your first point is spot on, and it surprised me when I began to examine the issue, that the vast majority of what we need to do to have a positive affect on the causes of climate change is in boring old energy efficiency, using technologies that have been around for decades. However, that won’t do it all, and it won’t leave any room for us to grow in population as much as we will anyway. So, we have to have some good, high power, energy sources.
It may actually surprise several of my green friends out there that you are correct nuclear cannot, and should not, be off the table as an option in addressing the new environment as climate change takes hold. Off the top of my head, for preference to generate electricity for the grid, I guess I would have to pick solar, hot rocks, wave, wind, then burning natural gas and other waste gases, then burning all the liquid fossil fuels and derivatives, then nuclear, then burning all the solid and liquid hydrocarbon fuels, my enemies, then coal and then finish with solid hazardous waste (that I might otherwise have to burn anyway to minimise the volume of persistent toxic organics I otherwise have to store for a very long time). Possibly there are others. Slot a few in yourself.
Nuclear power actually rates well in a couple of indices, overall cost and reliability as a base load carrier. However, my point in my previous post had to do with Australia’s aversion to using nuclear power as a source so far, other than our singular reactor at Lucas Height’s where nuclear medicines and scientific studies are carried out. It has been government policy for a long time that Australia will sell uranium to others for nuclear power, but we will not use it much here at home. See, we, like America, were lucky enough to be sitting on these huge seams of magic dirt you could just dig up and burn as fuel.
The problem with nuclear, and why it sits lower on my list of bridging fuels is overall risk. With issues like proliferation, and secure storage of waste indefinitely, plus the highly acute and chronic toxicity of the substances. And remember, nuclear is just a bridging fuel, until we are beaming high quality reliable solar from platforms in space, or they discover the gravity particle in that accelerator over in Europe and we can harness gravity waves to generate usable energy, or some shit like that. We will always generate some nuclear for science and medicine, plus weapons, but I don’t see it being a significant energy source into the mid-term, as it carries so much inherent risk with it.
Anyway, thanks for your comment, and hope to see you hang around and provide your input. And if I claim to know everything, you should shoot me.