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 ****.
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.
