Rate:
Share
Views: 8422
Text Size:

Coal vs. Concentrating Solar

The Days of Cheap Coal are Over!

By Jeff Siegel
Friday, October 12th, 2007

This past Tuesday, American Electric Power Company agreed to a $4.6 billion settlement over pollution controls at its power plants. The company will also have to shell out $15 million in civil penalties and $60 million in cleanup and mitigation costs.

I don't know, folks. That seems like an awful lot of dough to clean up something that's just going to remain dirty anyway.

Of course, $4.6 billion isn't even close to what it's going to cost to continue operating these things in the future. Because the fact is...

The Days of Cheap Coal are Over!

You may remember a few months ago when Chris Nelder wrote an excellent piece on peak coal . That's right, peak coal!

According to his research, coal reserves have been overstated by as much as 90%, and the peak of world coal production is about 10 to 15 years away.

And as far as cheap?

Well, much like oil, those days are also coming to an end.

But not just because of the basic supply and demand issues attributed to coal's peak.

Thanks to CO2 mitigation initiatives and global warming legislation that--whether you like it or not IS happening--the cost of coal-fired generation is about to increase dramatically. And investors that prefer partisan loyalty and the fat belly laughs that come with mocking clean energy, instead of focusing on the logical evolution of energy markets, are going to miss out on loads of cash.

As it stands, we already have:

  • 22 states and the District of Columbia with renewable electricity standards, covering over 40% of U.S. electricity.
  • 13 states with global warming reduction targets
  • 6 regional climate change and alternative energy initiatives encompassing 28 states
  • Five of the nation's top 10 power companies supporting federal CO2 cap-and-trade legislation
  • Huge corporations, like Wal-Mart, GE and Google supporting CO2 limits

What does this all mean?

It means that energy generation that is not clean or sustainable will soon be hit with heavy carbon offset costs. And that's going to force coal-fired plant operators to pay a damage bill that, until now, they've been able to avoid like a bad case of herpes.

Now I realize I'm probably going to get a lot of hate mail over this. But before you start drafting that letter, let's at least put this into perspective before the name-calling begins.

As most of us learned at a very young age, if you make a mess, you are responsible for cleaning it up.

Advertisement

America's "Other" Energy Crisis

It is a potential future shortage of domestic enriched uranium. And if we're not careful, it could put us at the mercy of imports all over again -- just like oil.

But there is one company working hard to keep this nightmare scenario from becoming a reality. In fact, it's virtually a monopoly and its share price could easily double.

To learn more about this Nuclear Monopoly click here.


It is not the responsibility of anyone else, but you.

So if a coal-generating power plant spews billions of tons of CO2 into the air every year, is it not the responsibility of the operator of that plant to foot the damage bill?

Or should we expect the government, i.e.) the taxpayer, to pick up the tab for that too?

Why not? It seems like those guys in DC are doing a hell of job at throwing our tax dollars around like drunken rappers on a video shoot in the Caribbean.

Sarcasm aside, from day one, ALL costs should've been figured into the equation. And that includes things like CO2 emissions, mercury clean-up and loss of natural capital. What is the top of a mountain worth after you blow it up, anyway?

But in an effort to stay focused here, let's just concentrate on the one issue that we know is going to make life a lot harder for big coal, and a lot of money for those of us that know how to...

Exploit big coal's pain for Green Chip gains

For the same price American Electric Power had to pay for something they should've been paying for anyway, you could build 18.7 concentrating solar power plants, like the Nevada Solar One plant that went online earlier this year.

18.7 of those things could generate more than 1,196 megawatts, but without the additional carbon, natural capital and other pollution costs attributed to coal generation.

In fact, while a 1,600 MW coal-fired plant could run you about $2.9 billion upfront (based on the cost of Peabody Energy Corp's new coal-fired power plant in Southern Illinois), the CO2 bill for an estimated 40-year lifespan will run more than the initial construction costs.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a typical coal plant generates 3.7 million tons of CO2 per year. Based on the December, 2008 contract price on the Chicago Climate Exchange of $22.88 per ton of CO2, you're looking at a bill of $84,656,000 per year.

Multiply that by 40 years, and we can go ahead and tack on another $3,386,240,000 onto that original $2.9 billion price tag...giving us a new total of $6,286,240,000.

Folks, for $6,286,240,000, you can get either a dirty, 1,600MW coal-burning plant that will continue to be nickel and dimed for decades to come, or a 1,600MW concentrating solar power plant, 25 times the size of the most recent Nevada Solar One plant, in the middle of the desert, without NIMBY issues, but near transmission lines...and still have about $36,240,000 leftover.

And by the way, that $6.4 billion for the coal-fired plant is still being extremely generous.

There are a few more issues that still aren't being accounted for.

For instance, a typical 500MW coal plant:

  • Draws about 2.2 billion gallons of water each year from nearby lakes, rivers and oceans. (That's enough water to support a city of approximately 250,000 people)
  • Generates 170 pounds of mercury. And it only takes 1/70th of a teaspoon in a 25-acre lake to make fish unsafe to eat. Enjoy that freshly-caught trout on your next fly fishing trip!
  • Relies on the transportation of coal. A cost that will continue to increase as the price of oil increases. Funny how the two of these things can not only screw us, but each other as well.

Listen: We know that coal is not abundant. And we know that coal is not cheap. But most important, we know that by investing in the companies set to benefit from coal's lunch date with reality, we're going to make a ton of money.

The time to invest in this stuff is not after the fact. The time to invest in this stuff is now, while it's still cheap, and still under the radar.

Unless you're already incredibly wealthy and don't care about making anymore money, there's absolutely no reason not to load up in this sector.

And you can start right now with Green Chip Stocks .

Until next time...

jeff signature

Jeff Siegel






Rate this article:
 
     Current Rating:  
Article RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle Rating (23 votes)

Comment on this Article


Comments:

Comment by L H Blattie on 2007-10-13
Sorry guys but there is more coal under Montana and Wyoming than there is oil in the mid-east. Literally thousands and thousands of square miles with veins from 30 to over 100 ft deep and generally with less than 100 ft of overburden.
Comment by zukadu on 2007-10-13
You really hit the nail on the head with this one .... thats what we need to be doing with the money we are spending in IRAQ: solar power and wind power! Imagine if we provided that 500 billion dollars as tax credits for every single family home ... it would be enough to make each one a solar/wind factory .... democratize energy! What would be the price of gasoline then?
Comment by Steven Harkness on 2007-10-13
You forgot to mention in your article about new technoligies that make coal clean to burn such as coal gasification. Fact is coal is readily abundent here in the US and other parts of the world and even if oil goes to $300.00 a barrel who cares if we can have our cars running on gasified coal in the very ner future. This would make your so called Green Stocks all but worthless as they would be to damned expensive compared to the technology to make coal clean and do it at a lesser price than your solar stills
Comment by David Travis on 2007-10-13
You need to look at EESTech, Inc. (EESH). They have a dirty coal burning technology developed by CSIRO, one of the worlds leading think tank. They also have a water purification system that will bring in additional revenue. Have big joint venture going with China which could lead to billions in contracts and carbon credits. Lot to this story that has not come to light yet. The CEO is in Austarlia and traveling most of the time. If you would like to contact I can get that done.
Comment by Ed on 2007-10-14
I think your articles are excellent and only wish you could funnel them in to those guys and girls in Washington DC

Comment by G doney on 2007-10-14
Insitu coal gas may well be the answer or not?. Given the demise and Global catastrophe from other bio-fuel projects such as palm oil and it's effect of wiping out major rain forest tracts better use Yoda's wisdom and "Different Think " before leaping into any new waters?
Comment by Ward Thurman on 2007-10-15
Unfortunately, you are wrong on many fronts. The tree huggers have done as much to block solar, wind and other "clean" energy sources as they have done to stop new coal plants. The peak coal you speak of is crap - as a previous commentator noted, there are billions of tons of the low sulfur coal under Montana and Wyoming and China has more coal than the rest of the know world combined.
Thirdly, the amount of energy used to refine the various materials that go into a wind generator will not be recovered by the wind generator in it's useful life span.

I thought this was going to be a good newsletter, but now I doubt it.

Ward
Comment by doug on 2007-10-15
Jeff -- Too bad you let you left-leaning political feelings bulldoze their way into your writings. I think this is supposed to be about investing and making money, if I'm not mistaken. How about you keep the political comment out and stick to the investment writing?
Comment by DON HARDIN on 2007-10-17
"Draws about 2.2 billion gallons of water each year from nearby lakes, rivers and oceans. (That's enough water to support a city of approximately 250,000 people)"
What you are stating here is the amount of cooling water passed through the condensor to change the last vestiges of low energy
steam back to pure boiler water. That lake or river water is not used up or contaminated. It is raised in temperature by about 10 degrees by passing through cooling tubes that have steam flowing past the outer side of the tube. That lake or river water returns to the lake or river a little warmer ... that's all. So those 250,000 city people you make sound like would be deprived of all that water, will have access to it all minus a little that would be lost to evaporation.
Comment by Scot Chamberlain on 2007-10-17
Obviously you think you are talking to people who don't understand what energy is, which is probably most of the population. But some of us do, do you think the energy you get from the sun has no other purpose than to power your eggbeater. It is the power that we are now using, stored in fossil fuels, it is the energy that fuels life, it is the energy that powers o weather, what do you think will happen when we start using it to power a trillion eggbeaters. The sun produces a tremendious amount of energy, a minuscule amount falls on the earth, if we had any brains we would be looking at trying to collect and harness energy that is not native to this planet.
Comment by wayne d on 2007-10-17
I'm getting almost as tired hearing over-hyped language about solar energy as I am about corn ethanol. The only place large scale solar makes any sense is in the western and southweastern states where the sun shines for a decent amount of time through the year. But how do you distribute all of this energy to the rest of the country? You need hundreds of booster stations, which means nuclear or clean coal. The reflecting/receiving surfaces have to be kept clean. Dusty desert conditions mean high maintenace. Can you imagine what as single sand storm would do?

Solar shingle roofs don't make much sense to me. The installed cost of a solar roof is $5 per watt, or $300 to power a 60 watt light bulb. A 12 kw installation-barely enough to power a decent size home- would cost $60,000. At my present cost of electric power, that installation would take 50 years to break even. These installations are only guaranteed for 25-30 years! They have to be kept free of dirt, leaves, snow, etc., or efficiency drops like a rock. Not something I'm excited about. Incidently, a wind turbine to power my home (assuming I have decent wind, which I don't) would cost $82,000 with current Illinois tax breaks, and take 92 years to pay off. This is based on a turbine manufacturers calculations, and agrees with my own. Yes, there's money to be made here, but the investor better be fleet-of-foot.
Comment by Dennis on 2007-10-18
Greetings,
I have learned plenty from Energy and Capital emails sent to me.
Comment by Edward L Hombordy on 2007-10-20
The price of natural gas is low and conversion of plants using coal to natural gas is not a major conversion. Also wind energy is competive with coal in certain areas but requires more of an investment. We need jobs in the USA in order to support the dollar