Slashdot Mirror
As US Cleans Its Energy Mix, It Ships Coal Problems Overseas
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Thomas K. Grose reports that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that greenhouse gas emissions in the US have fallen 8 percent from their 2007 peak to 6,703 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, due largely to the drop in coal-fired electricity which in 2012 generated 37.4 percent of US electricity, down from 50 percent in 2005. But don't celebrate just yet. A major side effect of that cleaner air in the US has been the further darkening of skies over Europe and Asia as US coal producers have been shipping the most carbon-intensive fuel to energy-hungry markets overseas. US coal exports to China were on track to double last year and demand for US metallurgical coal, the high-heat content coking coal that is used for steelmaking, is so great in Asia that shipments make a round-the-world journey from Appalachia as they are sent by train to the port of Baltimore, where they steam to sea through the Chesapeake Bay, then south across the Atlantic Ocean and around Africa's Cape of Good Hope to reach Asian ports. The Tyndall Center study estimates that the burning of all that exported coal could erase fully half the gains the United States has made in reducing carbon emissions and if the trend continues, the dramatic changes in energy use in the United States — in particular, the switch from coal to newly abundant natural gas for generating electricity — will have only a modest impact on global warming, observers warn. 'Without a meaningful cap on global carbon emissions, the exploitation of shale gas reserves is likely to increase total emissions,' write Dr John Broderick and Prof Kevin Anderson. 'For this not to be the case, consumption of displaced fuels must be reduced globally and remain suppressed indefinitely; in effect displaced coal must stay in the ground (PDF).'"
It seems like they're trying really hard in this article to make it seem like the reduction of coal in the US will have no effect, while not being able to escape the fact that it does. For example, they use phrases like:
... could erase fully half the gains the United States has made ...
"fully half...," why not just say half? because fully half sounds worse.
will have only a modest impact on global warming
"only a modest impact...," but still an impact. I don't want to downplay the issue, but I really do think they're overplaying it. Rather than having a article that is based in fact, we get this apparently biased piece of journalism that brings to question the integrity of the article.
China is using more coal. Let's blame America, not the annual movement of tens of millions of people from poverty to the middle class.
Sheesh.
US: Can I get some sweet sweet rare earth metals over here?
China: No you cant have our natural resources.
China: Give us your sweet sweet COAL!!!!!!!
US: Here ya go!
Open markets are amusing. They'll deal with anyone including the ones who won't share their toys.
And "all that exported coal could erase fully half the gains" Sex panther, 60% of the time it works EVERY time.
The title of the article should have been America Exports Black Energy Death Throughout the Globe, Condemning Humanity to Extinction
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Nice.
Don't forget, Women and Children Hit Hardest
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
It's not being used for electricity. We hardly make any steel here anymore. Most of it is made in Asia anymore. We have the infrastructure to mine it and ship it out. If it wasn't done here it would be done elsewhere at a slightly higher cost. It has nothing to do with electrical production, it's not used for that. In fact, it's almost twice the cost of other coal per ton so no one would WANT to use it.
PLEASE put a Nuke plant in my backyard.
Worst case scenario, the plant melts down, and I get relocated. Boo hoo. In exchange, I get a 100% change of not having to breathe coal ash, or any other noxious byproducts of coal burning plants. And the CO2 produced by a nuclear plant is negligible, basically non-existent compared to even 'clean' natural gas'.
I like those odds.
And nuclear waste? Use it to generate power, dipshits. The more radioactive the waste, the hotter it is, and the more useful it is to generate power. Throw it in a pool, insulate it, and use it as a heat source for a sterling engine or something...
The US Gov't did not sign the Kyoto treaty...
The US drop is because of the drop in Nat Gas prices, not wind turbines or Solar, etc.
Both Germany and Denmark have installed many times the $ investment per capita in 'green' energy that the US has done, to no effect. In fact Germany is increasing coal consumption and moving to coal based electricity. In short the green energy revolution has failed, where a simple price change on gas has worked.
Pollution is caused by the burners, not the diggers. You can bet that US coal is extracted in a safer, cleaner way than almost all other coal on the planet. If coal is to be burned, then US coal is the best way to do it.
Why is that?
Assuming he is not on the plant site that is exactly what would happen. People in the surrounding areas would be relocated.
Of course you could go look at what happens when a coal slurry pond breaks.
Obama, Defender of Union Jobs (except miners, arguably the only job that still requires a union).
"Bankrupted" by huge demand for exports? Plenty of businesses would be delighted to be bankrupted that way.
Also, US reduction in coal burning has a lot more to due with the cost and supply of natural gas, improved efficiency of new gas generation plants, and their better responsiveness to rapid demand changes vs. coal-fired generation, rather than the reduction of carbon emissions per unit of energy. US utilities do sell their carbon credits, but they'd be increasing natural gas use on its own benefits to them.
I am not a crackpot.
On the other hand, your home owner's insurance costs jump significantly. Living near a nuclear plant is surprisingly expensive.
I have to agree. We're switching to alternatives and the coal miners are now exporting. That's good from a CO2 perspective and from a trade deficit perspective. We've got more green energy, which is almost universally good. What? You thought all those coal mines were just going to shut down? No, that'll take longer. If ever.
Listen people, if you forecast nothing but doom and gloom, EVEN WHEN THERE IS GOOD NEWS, then people are going to become jaded to your forecasts. They're going to assume that everything you report on and forecast has one hell of a negative nancy bias. And their assumption is going to be correct. So buck up me kiddo, things are looking up.
I mean, jesus... 50% to 35% in 5 years? Damn. I didn't think our power structure was that nimble.
That was generally Europe. The US has always been a net exporter of many raw materials. Compared to other 1st world nations we have a huge amount of land and the (relatively untapped) resources that came with that.
USA is exporting energy sources now, so it's exporting oil (refined, gasoline even), coal. While overall production of energy resources in USA is up and the demand is probably lowest in at least a decade because of the dying economy, the prices are also up and while this may seem as a paradox, it's not. It's inflation. Here is what is going to happen if China lets its currency float: renminbi will rise in USD terms and for the Chinese producers and consumers the prices for raw materials, energy and food will drop in their currency and in dollar terms they will rise. So for Americans (and Europeans) it will be increasingly more expensive to buy energy and food and but these resources will be cheaper and cheaper for the Chinese to acquire in the global market.
By the way that's the reason that I was always saying that the Japanese should not devalue their currency, but especially after the tsunami hit and their nuclear power plants were shut down - this only hurts the Japanese as they have to pay higher prices for energy and materials in real terms.
But don't become too excited about the USA having 'shifted its pollution elsewhere', here is the eventuality that is not understood in this by the majority: there is no difference between a pre-industrial economy and a post-industrial one. This concerns everything, from education levels to types of energy used. USA will be exporting high value energy sources and will be using much more polluting energy sources eventually if it doesn't turn around and let the markets work rather than thinking that the government will fix the economic problems that the government has created with all the taxes, regulations, money printing.
Basically this is a temporary effect that the pollution has gone somewhere else, because the production has gone there as well. But as the production goes, so does energy use but also so does value of the money (especially if you keep printing it).
The pollution will return in huge volumes to USA as it will have to re-industrialise, but now it will have to start from nothing again, there is no manufacturing. So there are no modern efficient factories, so much cheaper, less efficient means will be used for everything, from manufacturing to heating your houses and food.
The pollution will come back once the inflation comes out and kills the bonds and the dollar. For now the Americans should be happy that the current European problems are on the front pages of all the news stories. Those problems are immediate, but they are nowhere as big as the American story.
You can't handle the truth.
Seems people always manage to find a way to make something the fault of the U.S.
It's like having a bitch of a wife that makes everything your fault.
The US wants to have a heavy influence (which is a form of power) over the rest of the world. It also tends to act like the world's police.
Maybe, just maybe, increased power, influence, and prestige actually should come with increased responsibility and scrutiny.
It's not necessarily "anti-US" sentiment.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Don't forget, Women and Children Hit Hardest
That's preposterous: There's no way a 6-year-old can hit harder than a grown man.
I am officially gone from
You would be getting less radiation in the pool than where you are now. Oblig: Spent Fuel Pool
Bullshit. I live less than 5 miles from the oldest active nuclear plant in the country, and it has absolutely no effect on homeowner's insurance rates. You know what does? Having a pool with a diving board or a trampoline.
You really need to start reading What if?.
Swimming to the bottom, touching your elbows to a fresh fuel canister, and immediately swimming back up would probably be enough to kill you.
Yet outside the outer boundary, you could swim around as long as you wanted—the dose from the core would be less than the normal background dose you get walking around. In fact, as long as you were underwater, you would be shielded from most of that normal background dose. You may actually receive a lower dose of radiation treading water in a spent fuel pool than walking around on the street.
Worst case means worst case. Something worse than a Chernobyl style dumping of radioactive material into the lungs of the nearby residents, since it's pretty unlikely we've actually experienced the absolute worst case scenario.
And worst case is always pointless to worry about, that's irrelevant to taking a punt at how bad that case might be.
A pool with a trampoline would be 100% awesome. You would have girls in bikinis jumping up and down...
I'll be in my bunk.
...Or a dog, particularly certain species.
Insurance companies are evil, but they are also not stupid.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
How do you know that the higher incidence of thyroid cancer is not merely due to more people getting tested for thyroid cancer as a result of concern for radiation exposure? Hint - it actually is. Thyroid cancer rates among Pripyat evacuees is higher than other Ukrainian populations without access to high level medicine but is similar to those of US and Western Europe.
The US drop is because of the drop in Nat Gas prices, not wind turbines or Solar, etc. Both Germany and Denmark have installed many times the $ investment per capita in 'green' energy that the US has done, to no effect. In fact Germany is increasing coal consumption and moving to coal based electricity. In short the green energy revolution has failed, where a simple price change on gas has worked. Pollution is caused by the burners, not the diggers. You can bet that US coal is extracted in a safer, cleaner way than almost all other coal on the planet. If coal is to be burned, then US coal is the best way to do it.
Chernobyl again. Really. TMI is a better example. If i was to design a plant that would be as close as possible to being a massive dirty bomb that generated electricity,it would still be safer than Chernobyl. It didn't/doesn't even have a containment building. Something that everything else (even other Russian designs) have.
Chernobyl is an example of just how much the former USSR didn't care for anyone or anything in the name of the cold war. That design was about getting the plutonium out fast and nothing else.
A better example of a worse case for most other designs is Fukushima. Bad. Yes. Very bad in fact. But much more localized than Chernobyl. However it did demonstrate that you just can't trust profit motive at any level, or the collective lack of responsibly felt by individuals in a corporation.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Alternatives are irrelevant because the worst case claim wasn't a "the worst case of X is worse than the worst case of Y" (not that such an argument would make sense anyway). It's not a choice between alternatives it's a straight out claim that "the worst case is I have to relocate".
I'd *much* rather have a nuclear power plant in my backyard than a coal one. But that's irrelevant to what the worst case actually is.
Consider that an atomic bomb has a mass of fissible material measured in kilograms, The Average US spent fuel pool has a mass measured in kilotons.
If you don't understand how these things are different then you really ought not to be telling other people about nuclear physics. (And the word is "fissile", not "fissible".)
Yes. When the claim is "worst case" you take the worst case. Amazing!
Chernobyl isn't the worst case in the scenario presented because noone would be permitted to build a new plant like that anyway. The worst case, if it is to be a realistic one, must include a modern nuke plant of the type one can actually get permission to build. Alternatively, if the worst case need not be realistic then the worst case is the butterfly effect causes our sun to go nova and everyone dies. The beauty of this particular worst case scenario of course is that it can be tied to any activity, not just nuke plants.
sigs are hazardous to your health
Frankly, I don't think most folks outside of the U.S. pay much attention to us or cares...unless Obama is shooting a missile up their butts.
Actually, you're quite wrong. The rest of the world is a lot more aware of what happens in the US than the opposite.
I lived within half a mile of the worst civil nuclear disaster in America, Three Mile Island. No one died, cancer rates are normal, etc. I agree with the Anon Coward.
Did you read the study abstract? Its a lot less sensationalist than the /. headline. It basically says this good thing is not as good as many are claiming because the coal is not staying in the ground. Do you disagree with that?
From a policy perspective it points to the need to take trade into account in global treaties on carbon emissions. This should apply both in energy exports (as in this case) and in manufacturing (ie, much of China's emissions are actually for goods the US consumes).
Germany is increasing coal consumption not because its investment in green energy has failed, but because it is shutting down nuclear reactors in the wake of Fukushima.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
I will ask you again: if your hypothesis is correct, how do you explain the fact that people live en masse near coal power plants, smelters with their own metallugry-grade coal burners and so on, and property prices are largely unaffected by such proximity. This in spite of the fact that they expose themselves to a significantly greater risk of lung cancer by living in such a location, which is one of the most debilitating, painful and lethal cancers that humans can get?
Here's another, even nastier question: why are so many people living on the old bedrock (which has deep storages of uranium, such as Scandinavia, Canada and so on) still by large value living in their own house rather then in apartment building in spite of the fact that living in your own house massively increases your risk of getting lung cancer due to radon issues?
It is in fact well researched that the only time people by large start to care about radon in such places is when they have a child coming into the family.
Fact is, people care far, FAR more about property then even about risk of slow, torturous death. Something thyroid cancer is pretty unlikely to provide, unlike lung cancer.
As a result, I conclude that property damage is in fact the worst consequence.
Outlaw, no. A global treaty that put a price on carbon emissions and took trade into account, that sounds about right.
Maybe. IIRC CO2 released into the atmosphere tends to remain a lot longer than the cooling effect of soot.
Plus – well – is that even a solution? Soot acid rain, lung disease, etc. Not sure if the pluses outweigh the minuses.