World's largest Coal company files for bankruptcy...President Trump will bring it back

[Vigilante]

Synchronicity...I believe so!

 

[OnePercenter]

Bail out a coal company?

Not even Trumpery is that dense and he'll never be elected anyway.

Hopefully other coal companies also go under.

Hope your energy costs go up 1000% and you have to choose between lights or food.

Hope your energy costs go up 1000% and you have to choose between lights or food.

Let's look at Nevada.

In the 80's, Republicans allowed Nevada Power to buy the non-profit/community owned power company. Result: Prices went up.

Then, in the 2000's Republicans allowed Nevada Energy to buy Nevada Power. Result: Prices went up.

Now, Republican appointees have allowed Nevada Energy to pay consumers that produce energy 1/3rd the price Nevada Energy pays their current suppliers, stating: 'Only the rich should have solar.'

Only the completely ignorant can't understand the problem.

 

[OnePercenter]

Natural gas costs less than coal.

This is all about Climate .change. It's not settled science so there is no reason to not include coal in our energy requirements.

This is all about Climate .change. It's not settled science so there is no reason to not include coal in our energy requirements.

It's about costs. Natural gas is cheaper.

 

[Nosmo King]

Crocodile tears from Conservatives. Where was all that sympathy when steel collapsed? Or were the dividends too large in your portfolios once steel wasn't made in Pittsburgh and Chicago and Birmingham?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Bail out a coal company?

Not even Trumpery is that dense and he'll never be elected anyway.

Hopefully other coal companies also go under.

are they and their soon to be out of work employees anti- american?...

Stoopid to bail out a buggy whip maker. Far better to teach new skills, pay a decent wage and have them doing work that won't kill them by age 40.

Trumpery is beholden to Big Business and will never do what's best for the US or for coal workers.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Bail out a coal company?

Not even Trumpery is that dense and he'll never be elected anyway.

Hopefully other coal companies also go under.

Hope your energy costs go up 1000% and you have to choose between lights or food.

Don't you just hate getting your butt kicked because you are such an ignorant fuck.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Now this was written over a year ago, and both wind and solar have come down in price since the article was written. So, even solar is now delivering electricity at less cost than coal. And far less cost than 'clean' coal. In the meantime, at least two big factories are starting to deliver grid scale batteries, which are also declining in price.

Funny how rates keep going up though

 

[Manonthestreet]

The demand for coal was been sluggish world-wide and natural gas is becoming a major source of power in this nation. Unless Trump has a time machine or plans on shutting down the Shale Boom there is very little that can be down about saving these jobs.

Hilly plans on shutting down shale...think the bernout does too

 

[Old Rocks]

Bail out a coal company?

Not even Trumpery is that dense and he'll never be elected anyway.

Hopefully other coal companies also go under.

Hope your energy costs go up 1000% and you have to choose between lights or food.

Don't you just hate getting your butt kicked because you are such an ignorant fuck.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Now this was written over a year ago, and both wind and solar have come down in price since the article was written. So, even solar is now delivering electricity at less cost than coal. And far less cost than 'clean' coal. In the meantime, at least two big factories are starting to deliver grid scale batteries, which are also declining in price.

So as is usually the case, the moment some left-winger starts blowing smoke in my face, I tend to run into some evidence directly contradicting them, and this was no exception.

Literally just a few hours after reading his post, I read this article from The Economist, which I consider to be more respected, and credible than the New York Times by far.... (I have a subscription to The Economist, so this link may not work for you)
http://www.economist.com/news/busin...energy-production-developing-world-follow-sun

In sunny places solar power is now “shoulder to shoulder” with gas, coal and wind, says Cédric Philibert of the International Energy Agency, a prominent forecaster. He notes that since November 2014, when Dubai awarded a project to build 200MW of solar power at less than $60 a megawatt hour (MWh), auctions have become increasingly competitive.​

Isn't that interesting. Only in sunny countries, are they saying Solar is competitive with conventional sources. However, a deeper investigation shows some problems....

Jenny Chase of BNEF says that in some cases “the model is being pushed to the absolute limit”. Indian firms, for example, are calculating development costs well below comparable global benchmarks. “I struggle to see how they will do this without cutting corners,” she says.

Jordan is a case in point. A Greek developer, Sunrise, last year agreed to charge $61 per MWh to build a 50MW solar plant north of Amman, which rival developers thought too cheap because of relatively high financing costs in Jordan. Last month Acwa Power bought the Jordanian unit in order to rescue the contract. Analysts say it is hard to see how Acwa will make money from it, but the gesture may help it win solar contracts in the future.
​

The claims of grand affordability are slightly over blown. The boom in Green-energy suppliers has resulted in cut rate deals, which may not be sustainable. Just like government pushing sub-primes, created a bubble, and then a burst, the Green-Energy boom may also be a bubble that bursts.

There are tons of impractical cheap Green-Energy contracts, and that can't possibly make money... it least not without cutting corners, which we've already seen.

China solar giant says president 'assisting' inquiries

Worlds largest solar panel maker, found to be selling defective and shoddy panels.

So all of this made me suspicious of the original New York Times article, because yeah the New York Times, is a biased pile of trash, but even they have some standards.

Sure enough, if you just read the next line, it all unravels....

Mr. Mir noted there were hidden costs that needed to be taken into account for both renewable energy and fossil fuels. Solar and wind farms, for example, produce power intermittently — when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing — and that requires utilities to have power available on call from other sources that can respond to fluctuations in demand.

Experts and executives caution that the low prices do not mean wind and solar farms can replace conventional power plants anytime soon.
​

And whoop there it is.

In just a few sentences, the entire argument completely obliterated.

This----- "Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents." --- Does not matter if this ---- "produce power intermittently — when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing — and that requires utilities to have power available on call from other sources" --- is true.

Do you understand the point? If they have to have a conventional coal, gas, nuclear power plant running at stand by..... the cost to have that power plant hot and read to go when the wind dies down and the clouds roll in.... is in addition to the cost of operating the solar panel and wind turbine.

This is why, no matter how much these people talk about how cheap solar and wind is, the price of electricity still goes up.

Well Andy, amazing that you are so confident that no one will read the article and see that you cherry picked a paragraph to say what the article did not say.

http://www.economist.com/news/busin...energy-production-developing-world-follow-sun

He is enraptured by the photovoltaic (PV) modules that shimmer in the desert sunshine. “It’s amazing. I love it. It’s good to see my country develop its own source of energy,” he says. “We have such good sun here. It’s free. Why don’t we use more of it?” In his enthusiasm, he has convinced his daughter to become one of the first Jordanian women to study for a solar-energy engineering degree.
The 160-megawatt (MW) solar park, which is scheduled to open this summer, will mark the launch of Jordan’s effort to reduce its fossil-fuel imports, which generated 96% of its energy last year and cost about 10% of GDP. In a restive neighbourhood, it has good reason to become more self-reliant. Its liking for solar intensified after Egypt temporarily cut natural-gas supplies during the Arab spring in 2011.

The small steps sanctioned by Jordan’s cautious bureaucracy pale in comparison with the growth of solar energy in some other countries. But they illustrate the allure of the technology, as well as some of its teething problems.

Across the developing world, solar power is hitting its stride. Rather than the rooftop panels popular in Germany, countries where solar irradiance is much stronger than northern Europe are creating vast parks with tens of thousands of flexible PV panels supplying power to their national grids. Some countries, such as China, provide generous subsidies (though these are sometimes years overdue). But in other countries solar PV is becoming competitive even without financial support.

 

[mdk]

The demand for coal was been sluggish world-wide and natural gas is becoming a major source of power in this nation. Unless Trump has a time machine or plans on shutting down the Shale Boom there is very little that can be down about saving these jobs.

Hilly plans on shutting down shale...think the bernout does too

That will not play very well in PA, Ohio, and,
West Virginia in the general election.

 

[Old Rocks]

Southern Company acquires another 120 MW solar project in Texas

Today Southern Company subsidiary Southern Power announced the purchase of second large solar PV project in Texas, the East Pecos Solar Facility. First Solar is building the 120 MW project, which will incorporate 1.2 million of its cadmium telluride thin film modules mounted on single-axis trackers.

The acquisition follows on the purchase of a controlling interest in the 157 MW Roserock Solar Facility in West Texas, as announced in November. In 2010 Southern Company bought its first utility-scale solar project, the 30 MW Cimarron, and has since acquired more than a dozen large utility-scale solar projects, mostly in California and the Southwestern United States.

This includes at least five projects developed by First Solar, including the Cimarron and Macho Springs PV projects in New Mexico and the 300 MW Desert Stateline facility in California. All told, Southern Power estimates that it owns more than 1.9 GW of solar, wind and biomass projects.

The municipal utility in Austin, Texas will buy the electricity generated by the East Pecos project under a 15-year power purchase agreement (PPA). This and another PPA totaling 288 MW with Hanwha Q Cells were approved by the Austin City Council last October, with prices reported at around $40 per megawatt-hour (MWh).

This made the two PPAs some of the cheapest signed, at least until pending PPA between developer Hecate Energy and the City of Palo Alto, California for under $37 per MWh was revealed in February.

Austin currently holds PPAs for 600 MW of solar projects, and an additional contract for the 30 MW Webberville plant brings the utility to 630 MW of utility-scale PV procured to date.



Read more: Southern Company acquires another 120 MW solar project in Texas

Solar Electricity Cost vs. Regular Electricity Cost

US Electricity Prices -

2015 Residential 12.67¢/Kwh

Commercial10.59¢/Kwh

Industrial6.89¢/Kwh

A kw is 1/1000th of a Mw , so you are paying $1267 for what the utility is paying $40 for. Of course that $40 is just the start. Maintaining a grid is expensive. However, suppose you are in the position to put in your own solar with storage batteries, as the price to the homeowner continues to come down, this will be an increasingly attractive option. So much so, some utilities have had state legislatures make it illegal to disconnect from the grid.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Bail out a coal company?

Not even Trumpery is that dense and he'll never be elected anyway.

Hopefully other coal companies also go under.

Hope your energy costs go up 1000% and you have to choose between lights or food.

Don't you just hate getting your butt kicked because you are such an ignorant fuck.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Now this was written over a year ago, and both wind and solar have come down in price since the article was written. So, even solar is now delivering electricity at less cost than coal. And far less cost than 'clean' coal. In the meantime, at least two big factories are starting to deliver grid scale batteries, which are also declining in price.

So as is usually the case, the moment some left-winger starts blowing smoke in my face, I tend to run into some evidence directly contradicting them, and this was no exception.

Literally just a few hours after reading his post, I read this article from The Economist, which I consider to be more respected, and credible than the New York Times by far.... (I have a subscription to The Economist, so this link may not work for you)
http://www.economist.com/news/busin...energy-production-developing-world-follow-sun

In sunny places solar power is now “shoulder to shoulder” with gas, coal and wind, says Cédric Philibert of the International Energy Agency, a prominent forecaster. He notes that since November 2014, when Dubai awarded a project to build 200MW of solar power at less than $60 a megawatt hour (MWh), auctions have become increasingly competitive.​

Isn't that interesting. Only in sunny countries, are they saying Solar is competitive with conventional sources. However, a deeper investigation shows some problems....

Jenny Chase of BNEF says that in some cases “the model is being pushed to the absolute limit”. Indian firms, for example, are calculating development costs well below comparable global benchmarks. “I struggle to see how they will do this without cutting corners,” she says.

Jordan is a case in point. A Greek developer, Sunrise, last year agreed to charge $61 per MWh to build a 50MW solar plant north of Amman, which rival developers thought too cheap because of relatively high financing costs in Jordan. Last month Acwa Power bought the Jordanian unit in order to rescue the contract. Analysts say it is hard to see how Acwa will make money from it, but the gesture may help it win solar contracts in the future.
​

The claims of grand affordability are slightly over blown. The boom in Green-energy suppliers has resulted in cut rate deals, which may not be sustainable. Just like government pushing sub-primes, created a bubble, and then a burst, the Green-Energy boom may also be a bubble that bursts.

There are tons of impractical cheap Green-Energy contracts, and that can't possibly make money... it least not without cutting corners, which we've already seen.

China solar giant says president 'assisting' inquiries

Worlds largest solar panel maker, found to be selling defective and shoddy panels.

So all of this made me suspicious of the original New York Times article, because yeah the New York Times, is a biased pile of trash, but even they have some standards.

Sure enough, if you just read the next line, it all unravels....

Mr. Mir noted there were hidden costs that needed to be taken into account for both renewable energy and fossil fuels. Solar and wind farms, for example, produce power intermittently — when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing — and that requires utilities to have power available on call from other sources that can respond to fluctuations in demand.

Experts and executives caution that the low prices do not mean wind and solar farms can replace conventional power plants anytime soon.
​

And whoop there it is.

In just a few sentences, the entire argument completely obliterated.

This----- "Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents." --- Does not matter if this ---- "produce power intermittently — when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing — and that requires utilities to have power available on call from other sources" --- is true.

Do you understand the point? If they have to have a conventional coal, gas, nuclear power plant running at stand by..... the cost to have that power plant hot and read to go when the wind dies down and the clouds roll in.... is in addition to the cost of operating the solar panel and wind turbine.

This is why, no matter how much these people talk about how cheap solar and wind is, the price of electricity still goes up.

We could get more megawatts out of cow-farts than from any solar power or wind turbines could produce. Old Rocks obviously has his head up some Greenie's ass telling him this bullshit.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Bail out a coal company?

Not even Trumpery is that dense and he'll never be elected anyway.

Hopefully other coal companies also go under.

are they and their soon to be out of work employees anti- american?...

Stoopid to bail out a buggy whip maker. Far better to teach new skills, pay a decent wage and have them doing work that won't kill them by age 40.

Trumpery is beholden to Big Business and will never do what's best for the US or for coal workers.

like the others are not beholden to some money source somewhere right?...

 

[rightwinger]

Crocodile tears from Conservatives. Where was all that sympathy when steel collapsed? Or were the dividends too large in your portfolios once steel wasn't made in Pittsburgh and Chicago and Birmingham?

They still celebrate every time a green energy company fails

 

[OnePercenter]

Bail out a coal company?

Not even Trumpery is that dense and he'll never be elected anyway.

Hopefully other coal companies also go under.

Hope your energy costs go up 1000% and you have to choose between lights or food.

Don't you just hate getting your butt kicked because you are such an ignorant fuck.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Now this was written over a year ago, and both wind and solar have come down in price since the article was written. So, even solar is now delivering electricity at less cost than coal. And far less cost than 'clean' coal. In the meantime, at least two big factories are starting to deliver grid scale batteries, which are also declining in price.

So as is usually the case, the moment some left-winger starts blowing smoke in my face, I tend to run into some evidence directly contradicting them, and this was no exception.

Literally just a few hours after reading his post, I read this article from The Economist, which I consider to be more respected, and credible than the New York Times by far.... (I have a subscription to The Economist, so this link may not work for you)
http://www.economist.com/news/busin...energy-production-developing-world-follow-sun

In sunny places solar power is now “shoulder to shoulder” with gas, coal and wind, says Cédric Philibert of the International Energy Agency, a prominent forecaster. He notes that since November 2014, when Dubai awarded a project to build 200MW of solar power at less than $60 a megawatt hour (MWh), auctions have become increasingly competitive.​

Isn't that interesting. Only in sunny countries, are they saying Solar is competitive with conventional sources. However, a deeper investigation shows some problems....

Jenny Chase of BNEF says that in some cases “the model is being pushed to the absolute limit”. Indian firms, for example, are calculating development costs well below comparable global benchmarks. “I struggle to see how they will do this without cutting corners,” she says.

Jordan is a case in point. A Greek developer, Sunrise, last year agreed to charge $61 per MWh to build a 50MW solar plant north of Amman, which rival developers thought too cheap because of relatively high financing costs in Jordan. Last month Acwa Power bought the Jordanian unit in order to rescue the contract. Analysts say it is hard to see how Acwa will make money from it, but the gesture may help it win solar contracts in the future.
​

The claims of grand affordability are slightly over blown. The boom in Green-energy suppliers has resulted in cut rate deals, which may not be sustainable. Just like government pushing sub-primes, created a bubble, and then a burst, the Green-Energy boom may also be a bubble that bursts.

There are tons of impractical cheap Green-Energy contracts, and that can't possibly make money... it least not without cutting corners, which we've already seen.

China solar giant says president 'assisting' inquiries

Worlds largest solar panel maker, found to be selling defective and shoddy panels.

So all of this made me suspicious of the original New York Times article, because yeah the New York Times, is a biased pile of trash, but even they have some standards.

Sure enough, if you just read the next line, it all unravels....

Mr. Mir noted there were hidden costs that needed to be taken into account for both renewable energy and fossil fuels. Solar and wind farms, for example, produce power intermittently — when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing — and that requires utilities to have power available on call from other sources that can respond to fluctuations in demand.

Experts and executives caution that the low prices do not mean wind and solar farms can replace conventional power plants anytime soon.
​

And whoop there it is.

In just a few sentences, the entire argument completely obliterated.

This----- "Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents." --- Does not matter if this ---- "produce power intermittently — when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing — and that requires utilities to have power available on call from other sources" --- is true.

Do you understand the point? If they have to have a conventional coal, gas, nuclear power plant running at stand by..... the cost to have that power plant hot and read to go when the wind dies down and the clouds roll in.... is in addition to the cost of operating the solar panel and wind turbine.

This is why, no matter how much these people talk about how cheap solar and wind is, the price of electricity still goes up.

We could get more megawatts out of cow-farts than from any solar power or wind turbines could produce. Old Rocks obviously has his head up some Greenie's ass telling him this bullshit.

We could get more megawatts out of cow-farts than from any solar power or wind turbines could produce. Old Rocks obviously has his head up some Greenie's ass telling him this bullshit.

Coming from someone that quotes scripture is fitting, what a fool believes. My property in Coronado has solar and a Tesla wall which provides 92% of the energy needs for a 10,000 sq/ft home.

 

[Andylusion]

Bail out a coal company?

Not even Trumpery is that dense and he'll never be elected anyway.

Hopefully other coal companies also go under.

Hope your energy costs go up 1000% and you have to choose between lights or food.

Hope your energy costs go up 1000% and you have to choose between lights or food.

Let's look at Nevada.

In the 80's, Republicans allowed Nevada Power to buy the non-profit/community owned power company. Result: Prices went up.

Then, in the 2000's Republicans allowed Nevada Energy to buy Nevada Power. Result: Prices went up.

Now, Republican appointees have allowed Nevada Energy to pay consumers that produce energy 1/3rd the price Nevada Energy pays their current suppliers, stating: 'Only the rich should have solar.'

Only the completely ignorant can't understand the problem.

I can't see any example of the reverse.

All you have in this argument is, correlation equals causation. Which if you went to middle school, you should have been taught this is a logical fallacy.

Have you done any reasonable investigation into WHY the prices went up, rather than simply saying X happened, and Y happened, therefore X caused Y. It was cloudy today here in Ohio. Obama was president today. Therefore Obama caused Ohio to have a cloudy day.

Two things happening, doesn't mean the same thing. Prices have gone up in nearly every State in the Union, with few exceptions. Did what you claim happened in Nevada, also happen in every state in the Union where prices went up?

Nope. So what real validity does your claim have? (other than it confirms your bias against anything private).