Wind farms - ugly truths

Macha

Birdnuts wrote: »

Care to dispute any of the facts in the links below??

http://www.tumbit.com/news/articles/8642-spain-announces-details-of-green-energy-subsidy-cuts.html

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304851104579361103986679382

http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2013/10/25/renewables_costing_germany__denmark_billions_107305.html


http://theenergycollective.com/lindsay-wilson/279126/average-electricity-prices-around-world-kwh

http://theenergycollective.com/maxluke/274041/trash-trees-and-taxes

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/338781/high-renewable-energy-costs-damage-germanys-economy

[mod]Right, now you're really starting to annoy me. Either debate properly, making arguments and backing them up as you go along, or stop posting. Posting a ton of links that you expect other posters to read through is not proper debating. [/mod]

fclauson

Looking at the numbers

so

1. we see 7% increase in C02 when generating via fossil fuel
2. a 15% improvement in intensity due to renewables

we see a saving in CO2

As fossil-fuel generators can take several hours to warm up and come on-line, the system operator must decide in advance, with the aid of forecasts of wind output and electricity demand, what units are required to meet net load.

So forecasting of wind is critical

A saving of €297M in fuel costs but no clear cost to achieving this.
Winds portion was €177 + €11 = €188M

We know from earlier posts its around €1M to €1.5M per Wind Mw and with a fleet of 1642Mw of wind = €1642M to €2493M to install and at 3% to maintain gives €39M to €74M gives a very very rough (not interest costs, no inflation, no infrastructure) between 12 and 22 years to pay for themselves (just in fuel).

Have I summed this up right?

ted1

We know for a fact that wind does not lower energy prices
http://www.seai.ie/News_Events/Press_Releases/2011/Wind_generation_not_increasing_wholesale_electricity_prices.html

http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Energy_Modelling_Group/Energy_Modelling_Group_Publications/Impact_of_Wind_Generation_on_Wholesale_Electricity_Costs_in_2011.pdf

So CO2 "might" be the only benefit, it certainly doesn't add to out energy security.

fclauson

Agree Ted1 - all information points towards all this spend for a fairly small C02 saving

This comes back to the NREP argument - no true costing was done. For example as I posted earlier the big spike in demand is lunch time and evening time - there is then a blip around 11pm when night storage comes on line.

If we spent more of our time trying to smooth that or if we paid that 1.6Billion into retrofit and charged house owners over the 15 to 20 year pay back a charge for energy saved (e.g. pay as you save type model) would we be in a better C02 position than what wind farms produce.

Add to that the MASSIVE social and community impacts wind farms have then perhaps we have made the wrong choice chasing wind as a the answer to energy demand

So back to my opening post after 305 comments - is this the UGLY TRUTH ABOUT WIND FARMS ?

BrenCooney

With regard to Birdnuts post 287, renewables is much much, more than simple initial costs. This is also about literally saving our planet. If it wasn't why would we do it? Also your mixing up total co2 which includes transport, etc) against the co2 from electrical generation. Wind reduced co2 from electrical generation, fact!!
With regard to communities, if the turbines are such an impact on people, how is it always the case that once they have a economic ownership in them the problems always "disappear"?

Old diesel

BrenCooney wrote: »

With regard to Birdnuts post 287, renewables is much much, more than simple initial costs. This is also about literally saving our planet. If it wasn't why would we do it? Also your mixing up total co2 which includes transport, etc) against the co2 from electrical generation. Wind reduced co2 from electrical generation, fact!!
With regard to communities, if the turbines are such an impact on people, how is it always the case that once they have a economic ownership in them the problems always "disappear"?

How do you mean economic ownership - you mean community wind farms

If so - theres a big difference between communities developing a windfarm - or working in PARTNERSHIP with a developer to develop a windfarm.

And the normal Irish model where a community has wind turbines forced on them - with no though whatsoever given to their community.

Their community - in the 2nd scenario is just seen as a place to put turbines - and the windfarms planned accordingly

I mean imagine if you planned for communities in the way this town is doing

http://neilstonwindfarm.org/regen.html

That's the problem here in Ireland - the only plan is - get turbines in - that's very NEGATIVE planning in my view and not conducive to having community support.

Planning for positive community futures on the other hand is

Greensleeves

Macha wrote: »

Yes, they're all across Europe!

And there are anti-wind groups opposing them all accross Europe.

What's different about Ireland? We have lots of people who in recent years have moved to live in the countryside but their livelihoods aren't actually connected to the countryside. They moved for the 'view' and will oppose anything that they perceive as negatively impacting on that view.

Evidence? I know quite a few people who are actively opposing wind farms in Ireland who have lived all their lives in the affected area.

Capt'n Midnight

That wind farms cost money is hardly news.

When it's said without explaining that ALL forms of electricity generators also cost money it's kinda cheating.


Biomass would be one solution as it's dispatchable and relatively CO2 neutral.

If you believed the anti-wind spin you could replace intermediate wind farms with biomass farms. Except that wind farms don't block other types of farming, so you could have both on the same site. Yes I'd like to see more native forestry but that would destroy people's line of sight and block views and only the landowner would get paid, the neighbours wouldn't :eek:


Onshore wind has a long way to go.

But if someone figures out a cheaper way to build pontoons / artificial islands / monopiles / power transmission to reduce the cost of offshore relative to onshore then it would be easier to develop all the East Coast sites.

Bio fuels are a completely different story since they rely so heavily on fossil fuel inputs.

Greensleeves

BrenCooney wrote: »

With regard to communities, if the turbines are such an impact on people, how is it always the case that once they have a economic ownership in them the problems always "disappear"?

It isn't always the case. Wind turbine hosts in the USA have filed a lawsuit against the wind farm developers arguing the companies built wind turbines on their properties that created “nuisances.”

http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_8d68bfaa-886e-11e3-8dc2-001a4bcf6878.html

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

Looking at the numbers

....
So forecasting of wind is critical

A saving of €297M in fuel costs but no clear cost to achieving this.
Winds portion was €177 + €11 = €188M

We know from earlier posts its around €1M to €1.5M per Wind Mw and with a fleet of 1642Mw of wind = €1642M to €2493M to install and at 3% to maintain gives €39M to €74M gives a very very rough (not interest costs, no inflation, no infrastructure) between 12 and 22 years to pay for themselves (just in fuel).

Have I summed this up right?

Forecasting is critical , there's a graph in the report about how accurate the forecast is 24 hours out. Bearing in mind that some fossil fuel generators get paid a premium price to provide spinning reserve to meet 75% of any short fall within 15 seconds and 100% within one minute, 24 hours notice is way loads. Also every decade weather forecasting improves by about 24 hours , massive computing power has uses.


Read your post again.
You are saying that wind can pay for itself within as little as 12 years, based ONLY on fuel savings.

Like any other generator they also get paid for the electricity they supply. So the pay back time is obviously shorter. And of course if the price of fuel goes up the pay back time reduces.

Interesting since that's less than the time it would take to construct a new nuclear power plant in Western Europe.

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Isn't this all about significantly lowering Irelands emissions and cheaper electricity - wind has failed badly on both counts as it has across the EU. SEAI used a particular dispatch model in this analysis that does not cover all the CO2 emissions from a wind based system. Saying wind powered a certain number of homes is also ridiculous given the fact that for extended periods of time wind was contributing figures below 1% of its installed capacity.

I agree that the SEAI document isn't great. But at least it gives numbers. And those numbers are similar to the UK ones which I'd consider more rigorous.

Mentioning that wind gives low power on occasions is like pointing out that we have less hydro in drier months or trying to explain why cyclists can't freewheel while peddling to the top of a hill.

Weather forecasts and the spinning reserve that's needed to backup fossil fuel and transformer outages covers this.

While wind won't blow on demand, the 24hr forecasts are as accurate as for fossil fuel when take into account unplanned outages. UK figures show that each MW / MWh of Wind uses about the same MW / MWh of reserve that fossil fuel and nuclear use.


Nuclear in the US is a joke, AFAIK for commercial reasons they don't have to announce all "planned outages" in advance for competition reasons. It's another invisible subsidy they get.

fclauson

BrenCooney wrote: »

With regard to Birdnuts post 287, renewables is much much, more than simple initial costs. This is also about literally saving our planet. If it wasn't why would we do it? Also your mixing up total co2 which includes transport, etc) against the co2 from electrical generation. Wind reduced co2 from electrical generation, fact!!

agree that its fact - but if I was spending x Billion on saving C02 is building a wind farm the right way of doing it or are there better ways (e.g. retrofit and insulate or move the cooking spike away from 6pm each evening)

With regard to communities, if the turbines are such an impact on people, how is it always the case that once they have a economic ownership in them the problems always "disappear"?

If you had invested what some of these owners had invested you could never complain about them - but I know a number of families (in your own county) who "if we only knew before we started" would not have started. They are now lumbered with a 20 year loan plus a change of use on their land to commercial (which knackers inheritance tax planning) and a droning/wack thump noise which they were told would never be heard.

fclauson

I wanted to pick up on the energy usage in a separate post on building control (slightly off topic - but stick with me)

Read http://passivehouseplus.ie/news/government/two-thirds-of-new-homes-fail-energy-efficiency-rules.html

Less than a third of new Irish homes meet energy efficiency and carbon emissions regulations, according to new figures. The number of new homes meeting the rules has also declined dramatically since 2005, according to data released by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland.

If we had built buildings to the regs then this would have had a massive impact on the use of energy and more importantly on fuel and C02

Macha

fclauson wrote: »

I wanted to pick up on the energy usage in a separate post on building control (slightly off topic - but stick with me)

Read http://passivehouseplus.ie/news/government/two-thirds-of-new-homes-fail-energy-efficiency-rules.html

Less than a third of new Irish homes meet energy efficiency and carbon emissions regulations, according to new figures. The number of new homes meeting the rules has also declined dramatically since 2005, according to data released by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland.

If we had built buildings to the regs then this would have had a massive impact on the use of energy and more importantly on fuel and C02

Ah, this thread is wandering all around the place anyway.

This is really insane. As much as I defend renewables, it's bonkers to build more than we need. We need to maximise efficiency, especially in the housing sector, to make sure we don't 'overengineer' our energy supply system i.e.., build too much of everything (power lines, wind turbines, storage, etc).

There should be serious fines for not meeting any part of the building regs, including part L.

fclauson

Macha wrote: »

Ah, this thread is wandering all around the place anyway.

This is really insane. As much as I defend renewables, it's bonkers to build more than we need. We need to maximise efficiency, especially in the housing sector, to make sure we don't 'overengineer' our energy supply system i.e.., build too much of everything (power lines, wind turbines, storage, etc).

There should be serious fines for not meeting any part of the building regs, including part L.

thanks - my thread - thanks for permitting a little wander but its all in the same cause.

My house failed to pass Part L/BER rating when initially built - madness - its a Passive House & uses circa €400 per annum heating and hot water of electric and sits at 21C all year round - why the method of calculation of need and usage was all wrong and screws up on low energy homes.

Wind - lets build lots of wind farms - it saves C02 output - and its more environmentally friendly - same madness we are addressing the problem from the wrong end. Have one coal fire power station producing 2000Kw into a highly managed low demand smart grid enabled grid or a mish mash of technology with varying degrees of benefit, value and capability into a highly unmanaged high demand dum grid.

Back to my OP - Wind investment contains ugly truths, does not make sense at the scale we are intending on doing it - the money would be better spent doing more sensible things.

The_Captain

.

Macha

fclauson wrote: »

thanks - my thread - thanks for permitting a little wander but its all in the same cause.

My house failed to pass Part L/BER rating when initially built - madness - its a Passive House & uses circa €400 per annum heating and hot water of electric and sits at 21C all year round - why the method of calculation of need and usage was all wrong and screws up on low energy homes.

Wind - lets build lots of wind farms - it saves C02 output - and its more environmentally friendly - same madness we are addressing the problem from the wrong end. Have one coal fire power station producing 2000Kw into a highly managed low demand smart grid enabled grid or a mish mash of technology with varying degrees of benefit, value and capability into a highly unmanaged high demand dum grid.

Back to my OP - Wind investment contains ugly truths, does not make sense at the scale we are intending on doing it - the money would be better spent doing more sensible things.

Why are you supporting coal as an option? It's not - economically, environmentally or socially. Do you know what goes into coal mining? You'd choose to send men down coal mines rather than look at a wind turbine? Charming.

Is this one of the 'more sensible things' you're alluding to above? Having one single unit of supply on the grid is definitely not an option. That's not how electricity systems work. What happens when it trips off line or needs maintenance? Do people realise that fossil fuel plants also need back up? Has that been factored into calculations about reduced CO2 output comparisons?

fclauson

Macha wrote: »

Why are you supporting coal as an option? It's not - economically, environmentally or socially. Do you know what goes into coal mining? You'd choose to send men down coal mines rather than look at a wind turbine? Charming.

Is this one of the 'more sensible things' you're alluding to above? Having one single unit of supply on the grid is definitely not an option. That's not how electricity systems work. What happens when it trips off line or needs maintenance? Do people realise that fossil fuel plants also need back up? Has that been factored into calculations about reduced CO2 output comparisons?

No sorry - this I probably got out of context a bit - typed too late at night

My point was a few (strategically placed) well managed plants - with a well managed grid makes more sense than a mish mash of different units which seems to be where we are headed.

Those plants can be powered by whatever you like (gas probably makes most sense)- but if your drop the overall grid demand to a point where there is little day/night or morning/evening variation then you are better placed to control it. Doing this levelling process will take investment and this seems a better investment than the wind farm at any cost route.

It comes back to what is the best value option for achieving what we are trying to achieve (lowering C02) and I say again - I do not think the current approach is driving value for the Irish electrical customer or for the ecologist who wants to save the environment.

Macha

fclauson wrote: »

No sorry - this I probably got out of context a bit - typed too late at night

My point was a few (strategically placed) well managed plants - with a well managed grid makes more sense than a mish mash of different units which seems to be where we are headed.

Those plants can be powered by whatever you like (gas probably makes most sense)- but if your drop the overall grid demand to a point where there is little day/night or morning/evening variation then you are better placed to control it. Doing this levelling process will take investment and this seems a better investment than the wind farm at any cost route.

It comes back to what is the best value option for achieving what we are trying to achieve (lowering C02) and I say again - I do not think the current approach is driving value for the Irish electrical customer or for the ecologist who wants to save the environment.

I'm afraid gas is also a no go after 2030 if we want to hit our climate targets. Despite what the industry claims, it isn't a low-carbon fuel, it's just a lower carbon fuel. In terms of lowering CO2, I've yet to see anyone propose anything better than renewables. As for cost - do people realise most of the PSO levy goes to peat and gas? Is that commonly understood?

I have to say, I think your idea of a few central plants really misses one the great benefits of renewables: distributed generation where individuals, coops etc can actually generate their own energy, not just be on the receiving end of a utility. I think decision makers need to realise the massive potential of solar PV in Ireland - not only is it getting cheaper all the time, it matches wind well, reduces the need for transmission grids (as it can often be used within the same distribution grid) and is genuinely accessible for many individuals.

I'm enjoying watching all the utilities across Europe sweat it out as they failed to anticipate the renewables revolution. I also look in disgust at some of the laws they get passed, eg in Spain, because they can't deal with it. I'm not about to support heading back to an energy system where I just sit at the end of a power line and pay my bill at the end of every month.

Old diesel

Macha wrote: »

Why are you supporting coal as an option? It's not - economically, environmentally or socially. Do you know what goes into coal mining? You'd choose to send men down coal mines rather than look at a wind turbine? Charming.

Is this one of the 'more sensible things' you're alluding to above? Having one single unit of supply on the grid is definitely not an option. That's not how electricity systems work. What happens when it trips off line or needs maintenance? Do people realise that fossil fuel plants also need back up? Has that been factored into calculations about reduced CO2 output comparisons?

I think hes more argueing for a WELL designed low demand smart grid - and is suggesting that even if you had coal as part of this - its still better then a mishmash of different technologys - with poorly thought out wind.

This might be on the basis that with the poorly designed solution - your still end up possibly having to come back to fossils when wind isn't performing well.

But I may have picked up Francis wrong - and apologies if that's the case

Old diesel

Macha wrote: »

I'm afraid gas is also a no go after 2030 if we want to hit our climate targets. Despite what the industry claims, it isn't a low-carbon fuel, it's just a lower carbon fuel.

I have to say, I think your idea of a few central plants really misses one the great benefits of renewables: distributed generation where individuals, coops etc can actually generate their own energy, not just be on the receiving end of a utility. I think decision makers need to realise the massive potential of solar PV in Ireland - not only is it getting cheaper all the time, it matches wind well, reduces the need for transmission grids (as it can often be used within the same distribution grid) and is genuinely accessible for many individuals.

I'm enjoying watching all the utilities across Europe sweat it out as they failed to anticipate the renewables revolution. I also look in disgust at some of the laws they get passed, eg in Spain, because they can't deal with it. I'm not about to support heading back to an energy system where I just sit at the end of a power line and pay my bill at the end of every month.

But alas the irish model tends to be wind developers coming into communities - been able to put in turbines as if the community doesn't exist.

Such thinking hinders the potential of communities imo - wheras I would like to see communities drive forward

The sort of model you talk about - individuals producing their own energy - and co ops - could be a more positive model for Rural communities.

I previously linked to the Neilston community wind farm project in this thread - and I like the thinking behind that project - in that the wind farm is part of a WIDER initiative to actually create a BETTER future for the town of Neilston.

Now if from day 1 when we started planning wind farms - we had that sort of approach and community involvement in planning - then maybe communities might be far more receptive to having wind turbines - if they've been able to be involved in planning the turbines in a way that suits their communities.

Its not the turbines that are the big issue - but how we plan them - and dump them into communities*

*very strong term - but I can't see how else you could describe how turbines are "planned" in Irish rural communities

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

Why are you supporting coal as an option? It's not - economically, environmentally or socially. Do you know what goes into coal mining? You'd choose to send men down coal mines rather than look at a wind turbine? Charming.

?

Theres a long list of environmental and human rights issues associated with wind turbine manufacturing, installation and operation. The devastation caused by the mining of rare earth metals and graphite is only one part of this ugly story.

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

I'm afraid gas is also a no go after 2030 if we want to hit our climate targets. Despite what the industry claims, it isn't a low-carbon fuel, it's just a lower carbon fuel. In terms of lowering CO2, I've yet to see anyone propose anything better than renewables. As for cost - do people realise most of the PSO levy goes to peat and gas? Is that commonly understood?

.

And yet the US is lowering its emission far quicker than the likes of the EU wind junkies on the back of gas. Despite what some in the EU would have us believe as outlined in the link below highlighting the flaws in a recent French analysis

http://theenergycollective.com/saeverley/353341/french-report-misstates-role-shale-gas-reducing-us-carbon-emissions

The renewable element of these climate targets is still up for debate in the EU given the poor performance of wind in lowering emmissions across the EU

http://www.energypost.eu/brussels-confines-climate-policy-emission-reduction-emission-trading/

"Significantly, it does not include post-2020 national renewable energy targets"

Macha

Birdnuts wrote: »

And yet the US is lowering its emission far quicker than the likes of the EU wind junkies on the back of gas. Despite what some in the EU would have us believe as outlined in the link below highlighting the flaws in a recent French analysis

http://theenergycollective.com/saeverley/353341/french-report-misstates-role-shale-gas-reducing-us-carbon-emissions

The renewable element of these climate targets is still up for debate in the EU given the poor performance of wind in lowering emmissions across the EU

http://www.energypost.eu/brussels-confines-climate-policy-emission-reduction-emission-trading/

"Significantly, it does not include post-2020 national renewable energy targets"

More nonsense - sorry there's just no other words for the contents of these posts. The shale gas 'revolution' is temporary for many, many reasons and has already started to fall away. Carbon emissions in the US rose last year as coal started to come back into the system:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/13/after-years-of-decline-u-s-carbon-emissions-rose-2-percent-in-2013/

By the way, your links don't actually back up what you claim they do. For example, what the second one has to do with the role of renewable energy in reducing historic carbon emissions in Europe, I don't know. The fact that the European Commission decided to propose only an EU-wide binging renewable energy target (capitulating to the UK and many utilities that failed to invest in renewables) doesn't really tell us how good renewables are at reducing carbon emissions. What that tells me is that utilities have woken up to the threat of renewables to their traditional business model and are fighting against them. As for the UK, they're so Eurosceptic they can't accept any policies 'imposed' by Brussels. By the way, the final decision on the targets will be in October this year - what you linked to is a report on the Commission's proposals.

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Theres a long list of environmental and human rights issues associated with wind turbine manufacturing, installation and operation. The devastation caused by the mining of rare earth metals and graphite is only one part of this ugly story.

Oh boy... more FUD

Straw clutching because none of those things are limited to wind. Also it's been a while since China had a monopoly on "rare" earths.

Also the way of policing these things is just insane. Something like 200,000 companies will have to verify the source of things like tantalum when the reality is that there are only about 14 refineries worldwide that are capable of handling it in volume and if you don't police them then there's no point.

If you want a human rights issue how about the deaths associated with the 2022 world cup in Qatar ?

Wind is reducing demand for fossil fuel here to 3/4 of what it used to be , which probably translates into less deaths in the mining and drilling industry.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wind is reducing demand for fossil fuel here to 3/4 of what it used to be , which probably translates into less deaths in the mining and drilling industry.

Not even the hot air/wind brigade at the SEAI are claiming that. I suppose your a fan of electric cars and their dirty batteries. Wind energy is the very definition of "Greenwash"

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

More nonsense - sorry there's just no other words for the contents of these posts. The shale gas 'revolution' is temporary for many, many reasons and has already started to fall away. Carbon emissions in the US rose last year as coal started to come back into the system:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/13/after-years-of-decline-u-s-carbon-emissions-rose-2-percent-in-2013/

By the way, your links don't actually back up what you claim they do. For example, what the second one has to do with the role of renewable energy in reducing historic carbon emissions in Europe, I don't know. The fact that the European Commission decided to propose only an EU-wide binging renewable energy target (capitulating to the UK and many utilities that failed to invest in renewables) doesn't really tell us how good renewables are at reducing carbon emissions. What that tells me is that utilities have woken up to the threat of renewables to their traditional business model and are fighting against them. As for the UK, they're so Eurosceptic they can't accept any policies 'imposed' by Brussels. By the way, the final decision on the targets will be in October this year - what you linked to is a report on the Commission's proposals.

This weeks Economist suggests otherwise in relation to gas. But sure self appointed online experts know better I suppose. Also the US is exporting more coal to Europe in recent years which says it all really

http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2014/05/07/us_coal_shipement_to_europe_soar_107744.html

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Not even the hot air/wind brigade at the SEAI are claiming that. I suppose your a fan of electric cars and their dirty batteries. Wind energy is the very definition of "Greenwash"

So your problem with wind farms is that they don't replace petrol

And here's the thing , you know that we only use 3/4 of the fossil fuel we would otherwise use to generate electricity.

Capt'n Midnight

Insulation is a better investment than generation.

Here's the graph though, which shows that we use about 1 GW more electricity at peak in winter than summer



http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/weeklypeakdemand/

So insulation helps. But heating is not the main use of electricity , even in winter. And of course we get more wind in winter.


Arguing about investing in wind vs. insulation is a bit like

Jim Hacker: Even maths is politicised.
"If it costs £5 billion a year to maintain Britain's nuclear defences
and £75 a year to feed a starving African child,
how many children could be saved from starvation
if the Ministry of Defence abandoned nuclear weapons?"

Sir Humphrey: That's easy. None. They'd spend it all on conventional weapons.[/]I

Macha

Birdnuts wrote: »

This weeks Economist suggests otherwise in relation to gas. But sure self appointed online experts know better I suppose. Also the US is exporting more coal to Europe in recent years which says it all really

http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2014/05/07/us_coal_shipement_to_europe_soar_107744.html

[mod]Don't get personal - attack the post, not the poster. And by the way, I don't know why you're giving out about 'online experts' given that this is an internet forum.[/mod]

Where does the Economist suggest otherwise on gas and in relation to what element of what I wrote? That it isn't a low-carbon fuel? That isn't up for the Economist to decide - that's a fact.

Yes, the US has exported more coal to Europe in the last few years because they have an artificially inflated supply of natural gas in the US. If you don't believe anything else of the economics of US shale gas, at least accept that it is almost impossible to export the stuff (you need a Congressional permit) and this is keeping supply artificially high). As I already said, coal is already coming back into the US energy system but as soon as the US starts exporting natural gas outside NAFTA, coal is going to come flooding back in as natural gas supply drops and US wholesale natural gas prices react accordingly.

On top of that the EU ETS isn't delivering a carbon price high enough to keep that US coal out. If anything, this should lead you to the conclusion that carbon-price only policies aren't enough and we need specific policies to boost efficiency and renewables to change our energy system.