Slashdot Mirror
6 Major Countries Have Recently Announced Plans To Phase-Out All Coal-Fired Power Plants (electrek.co)
At least 6 major countries, including Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Finland, have all recently -- several within the past few weeks -- announced the imminent phase-out of all coal-fired power plants. Electrek reports: Earlier this week, Canada, which has already significantly reduced its use of coal to about 7% of its energy generation, announced a phase of the resource by 2030. The country's strong hydropower should keep dominating its energy generation, but the country has also been investing in wind and solar to make up the difference. A week before Canada's announcement, France announced a more aggressive timeline of 2023 for its own phase-out of coal, but it should be more easily achievable since they have already reduced the use of coal to 3% of their electricity generation -- thanks to a strong local nuclear industry. Finland is the latest country to join the group, but it also announced a more aggressive solution of simply banning entirely the use of coal to produce energy by 2030. The country gets about 12% of its electricity from coal, which it has to import. Peter Lund, a researcher at Aalto University and chair of the energy program at the European Academies' Science Advisory Council, told New Scientist: "These moves are important forerunners to enforce the recent positive signals in coal use. The more countries join the coal phase-out club, the better for the climate as this would force the others to follow." As for the U.S., it gets about 33% of its total electricity generation from coal and will likely grow the coal industry rather than phase it out under President-elect Donald Trump.
It's like every Trump hater utterly ignores what Trump actually says he will do, and just makes up in their head the worst they can imagine for any particular...
Under Trump coal use will not grow, it just will stop shrinking for a while until renewables get more cost effective. Also coal mining will ramp up again to access cleaner coal, so even the U.S. will be continuing to reduce carbon emissions just as we have been for decades now (unlike many other countries).
Windpower will decline though because wind power is the most idiotic way to generate power, if you think at all about long term viability.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's your daily indoctrination on Slashdot, brought to you by the global warming acolytes. If this were any other subject, the lack of evidence for global warming and the zealous defense by the AGW apologists would be ridiculed like the religion that it is. When you eliminate the adjustments to the data, all the warming just happens to disappear. AGW is about as credible as the Book of Mormon.
This is the newest horror film, and the entire world is cast. Europe is moving forward as the geeky scientist who warned us all, and China is the strong-man who takes over when the USA gets killed early on.
Never fear! High Priest MightyMartian will be along soon to hurl insults at anyone who dares question AGW! With the power of God, MightyMartiam shall render all the AGW unbelievers silent! AGW must not be questioned, because doing so is an unacceptable heresy that we true believers must not tolerate!
Never fear! High Priest MightyMartian will be along soon to hurl insults at anyone who dares question AGW! With the power of God, MightyMartian shall render all the AGW unbelievers silent! AGW must not be questioned, because doing so is an unacceptable heresy that we true believers must not tolerate!
If coal isn't readily available what will we put into the christmas stocking of the little shits all over the land?
How can it "force the others to follow"? Won't it just drive the cost of coal down? Lots of supply & little demand = lower coal prices.
Soon they won't be advertising clean coal anymore they will be advertising cheap coal. Cheaper than any other fuel by far.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Good luck when another Toba hits. Going to really suck when the sun isn't shining so much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is about wealth redistribution, not climate. The goal is to put workers in the coal industry out of jobs, close down those businesses, and concentrate more money in the hands of the wealthy liberals. Yes, the Earth has gotten slightly warmer, but that's due to variations in solar and volcanic activity, not carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The atmosphere was already opaque in the infrared bands absorbed by carbon dioxide, so additional carbon dioxide won't make a difference. This is about wealth redistribution, and the climate change argument is a hoax worthy of any of the fake news being discussed on this site.
With reduced demand comes diminished price, and lower price comes less profitability to employ workers to mine it. Brilliant manipulation of the demand side - to the detriment of the magical thinking of the trump-siders.
See, people, the real world is HARD when you actually have to consider facts!
quote: "As for the U.S., it gets about 33% of its total electricity generation from coal and will likely grow the coal industry rather than phase it out under President-elect Donald Trump."
I don't believe it.
The coal business is dying from natural causes in the USA, and I don't think there's anything Trump can possibly do to turn that around. Thanks to the fracking revolution, cheap natural gas is rapidly undercutting and replacing coal, and some existing coal plants are even being converted to gas. Wind turbines have been going up in large numbers -- including here in Texas, where the wholesale price of electricity (dynamically auctioned via computer) has sometimes been pushed to zero. At the same time, the cost of solar panels has plummeted. How is coal going to compete with all that? It just can't.
This kind of effort will simply cause rich countries to buy cleaner fuels and poor countries with inefficient and dirty coal-fired power plants to buy cheaper coals.
Richer countries should keep using efficient and relatively clean coal-fired power plants and invest in poor country's energy infrastructure.
...but, clean coal.
#MAGA
This is good news! More for us to use!
Renewable energy is far more harmful to the environment than coal is. Let's consider:
1) Hydroelectric disrupts the natural flow of rivers, which has proven harmful to many species of fish that depend on the seasonal flow of water. Furthermore, there is the risk of a catastrophic dam failure. Hydroelectric power has ruined many animal habitats and led to many extinctions.
2) Solar power requires toxic chemicals and harmful emissions to produce the solar panels. Solar power is extremely dangerous to birds, many of which are cooked to death while flying over solar farms.
3) Wind turbines are deadly to birds. Slowing of the wind by harvesting it's energy also causes massive climate change as computer models have shown.
4) Geothermal power is limited in the areas in which it is a viable energy source. Furthermore, geothermal plants release toxic chemicals and carbon pollution from inside the Earth. Sequestering these pollutants back in the ground will lead to earthquakes just as fracking does.
5) Nuclear energy has the issue with spent fuel rods and the potential of catastrophic meltdowns. Despite all the precautions taken, nuclear meltdowns still do occur, which is why Europe is abandoning nuclear as an energy source.
Considering the above, fossil fuels are by far the safest and least impactful forms of energy.
And it is completely meaningless as long as the US, India and China continue to pollute at their current levels. Until those three countries cut back on emissions anything the rest of the world does is the equivalent to a fart in a hurricane.
I keep hoping that maybe with Reid gone we can get nuclear + renewables going strong here in the USA and dump coal ourselves.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not very optimistic about that--it's more of an unfounded hope.
If Trump and his cast of Dominionists doesn't manage to start World War 3 and kill us all in nuclear fire, then U.S. Civil War 2: Electric Nignogaloo will get most of us killed anyway, then the Islamic extremists-du-jour will swoop in along with Russia and China and finish the rest of us off, so who gives a shit what his fucking energy policy is going to be?
Nobody's planning to phase out coal. In fact, they've discovered that coal dust sprinkled on breakfast cereals helps build growing children's bodies 12 ways.
But you won't hear about that in your mainstream media. No sir.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Canada is not a major country.
Yeah, those coal minors in West Virginia that lost their jobs, the jobs Trump keeps promising to bring back. They obviously don't stand the real problem: coal mining isn't down because of environmental activism, it's down because of lack of demand. Fact is, natural gas power production is both cheaper and much more damaging to the environment.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Fusion will both eliminate the need for dirty energy and relieve the world's helium shortage... any day, real soon now!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
You are missing the point. It is more efficient to burn some types of coal than others. I acknowledge that the plants are relatively inefficient. The "clean coal" argument is that if you are going to burn coal, burn anthracite rather than other types, such as lignite. Personally, if coal is going to be used as a fuel, I hope it is anthracite.
minor? What kind of fifth-grade copy-editing is this?
Fuck off you fucking empty troll.
In terms of power.
Oil remained the largest primary energy source in Australia, at 38 percent in 2013–14, followed by coal (32 per cent) and natural gas (24 percent). Renewables accounted for 6 per cent of Australia’s energy mix
- Australian Energy Statistics [PDF]
I don't know how, but it just is. It always is.
"Wind and solar are viable, they just don't lessen the needed amount of fossil fuel capacity needed"
I call bullshit. We could put in HVDC transmission lines (Max distance around 3500km or 83% of the width of the contiguous United States) running from east to west and north to south. Those lines are each longer than a weather system is big, so you ship wind power from windy areas to calm areas that need power, and from sunny daylight areas to dark or cloudy areas that need power.
For the rest of the balancing needed, we could, for example, put in one gigantic hydrogen electrolysis and storage and fuel cell generator facility in the geographic center of the country. It would only be 30% round-trip efficient (energy out compared to energy in) however then you just need to install three times the wind and solar you would otherwise need, and Bob's your Uncle. If you don't want to do that, use a bunch of large compressed air storage facilities http://energystorage.org/advan... running at 70% round-trip energy efficient.
And if you still don't want to do very large storage for some reason, then tap into the enormous geothermal energy rersources under the US. Way more than enough energy for the country's needs there. No GHG emissions.
How about a combination of all these strategies. The technology is there. The price is becoming reasonable, and a small and not too punitive carbon tax would make it economical to build all this new infrastructure fast. We just need to get off our asses and do it.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
India will build 30 new coal fired plants for every one this bunch shuts down. And, anyway, everyone knows Trump will be assassinated before he gets anywhere near the white house.
More coal for me!
America has been shutting down coal plants since Obama came to office. However, it NOTHING to do with regulations from him. It had to do with the fact that Nat Gas and wind are MUCH CHEAPER than coal is here. Combine that with all coal plants having to have ZERO mercury emissions.
Coal WAS 33% in 2015. Coal is now down to 27% of America's electricity. and for 2017, should be around 20-24%.
In addition, only idiots will think that trump can bring back coal (yes, he promised, but again, only idiots believe that). WHy is this so? Because coal is TOO EXPENSIVE compared to nat gas and wind. IN addition, with the new nukes that will be on-line and tested in the next 4 years, these will replace MORE of our coal plants.
The real question is less about Western nations, and more about CHina.
China currently gets either 75 or 88% of their electricity from fossil fuel (depends on which chinese gov group gives you information).
They currently have around 1.2TW of coal capabilities, and are building out 35-50 GW of new coal plants EACH YEAR. Even this year, they will do 35 GW.
Around the year, 2030. they will have 1.9-2 TW of coal plant capabilities and only then will they quit building new coal plants.
Even if the ENTIRE west, including Japan and South Korea, shuts down 100% of our coal plants, that is actually less than 1TW. So, China will build out ~3/4 of what the west has. Unless that stops, nothing we do will matter.
The far left has to quit ignoring science and numbers and start hammering on CHina FOR REAL. In addition, so does the entire western gov.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Faroe Islands on track to 93â... electricity production fromon wind and hydro https://youtu.be/oRMj_mR-nBc headd towards 100â... fast via @ Twitter https://twitter.com/TheEinarkist/status/802494053161893888
Sorry bout that seems formatting became all screwy... Maybe the percentage signs ? Anyway https://twitter.com/TheEinarkist/status/802494053161893888 has a link to a video on the subject
The only solar farms that kill birds are the ones that reflect sunlight toward a tower, and those are in what, single digits -worldwide-, compared to tens-of-thousands of farms consisting of light absorbing panels? Hell there are 3 'conventional' solar farms within a mile of my own damn house. And if you think a field of panels designed to ABSORB as much sunlight as possible is 'cooking birds' above them, you really have rocks in your head.
or simply cut and paste from some 3rd rate coal company websites?
Let's assume for the sake of argument that civilization doesn't implode in the next few hundred years. At some point, all fossil fuels, as well as all easily mineable fissionables, will run out. Unless something magical happens, I don't see wind and solar cell systems generating enough power to run factories to replace themselves.
There is one genuinely reliable source of energy, guaranteed not to give out over the next few hundred thousand years: geothermal. It doesn't take a huge temperature differential to pull power out of a heat pump. And if we could design some really good drilling equip, we could use the remaining fossil fuels to dig down to layers whose temperature exceeds 100 C . I'd love to see something along those lines implemented.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Electricity, however, may be.
Just as we saw France exporting Nuclear generated electricity to Germany as it switched to renewables, you could possibly see the US export cheaply generated electricity to Canada or Mexico.
Hell - exporting cheap electricity to Mexico may be one way to pay for that wall/fence/barrier thing he wants to build.
TSIA
"Canada, which has already significantly reduced its use of coal to about 7% of its energy generation, announced a phase of the resource by 2030. The country's strong hydropower should keep dominating its energy generation, but the country has also been investing in wind and solar to make up the difference."
By "the country" I assume they mean the Province of Ontario and in no significant way has wind and solar been used to replace coal. Coal was replaced by natural gas and expanded nuclear generation. Wind and solar have been an unmitigated disaster that has driven electricity rates through the roof due to ridiculous feed in tariff deals paying solar and wind producers up to 10 times the rate per kW-hr other energy sources are paid.
The best part is the idealogues pushing wind and solar, while burdening electricity rate and tax payers with the present and future costs (respectively), are too blind to see the inherent link between cost of power generation and its carbon footprint. If it costs more to produce solar and wind power, it has a bigger footprint. There's no way around it. Much of the money spent on solar and wind goes to big industrial producers with giant manufacturing plants, likely run by coal sourced electricity in China and elsewhere. The rest of the money goes to private solar/wind landowners that use the money to build a bigger house or a bigger boat. I mean, you really don't think all those investors that jumped in head first into the feed-in tariff program, the contractors and developers that walked into my office to get their projects going, building entire warehouses just to put solar panels on the roof, were doing it to reduce carbon emissions did you? They knew a gravy train when they saw it.
Sadly, some people reading this will actually still believe that fantasy and have no idea what I mean between the inherent equivalency between cost and carbon footprint. They'll cart out the tired old "the petroleum industry is subsidized too...". Oh yeah? 90% subsidized like Ontario's FIT program? It makes me laugh.
In the US, the government can't control energy production. Neither the President nor any other government official can declare "You will build a nuclear plant here" or "I want wind generators in the Rockies." These things are done by private industry in cooperation with local governments and public participation.
Many other countries can build such facilities by authoritarian decree. They can move swiftly in response to a perceived need. A democracy can be slow and clumsy because it requires many voices to be heard. Many such facilities require private investment from a wide variety of sources, most of whom expect profits or tax incentives. The complications are endless as environmentalists and others voice their concerns.
In the US almost everything is done by private industry including most of the space program, military weapons, communication networks, health care, etc. Tax dollars are awarded to bidders on some of these projects, and to universities for research, etc. But few government employees are involved. A major role of government is to regulate private industry- food, drugs, standards of safety, etc. They can say 'no' to an unsafe product, but they can't demand that a product be built.
Now consider the recent deep divide in Congress, in the Press, and on Main Street. Nothing got done these past many years. With Republicans now controlling every branch of government, some things will get done in the next few years (but you might not like them).
...omphaloskepsis often...
industry under anyone. Coal is dying because Natural Gas is cheaper. The only reason why power plants are burning coal is that the plants already exist. Nobody is building new ones. As renewable generation grows it will replace coal generation. This is due to the fact that coal is more expensive.
Our freak entering the White House has declared that we must burn more coal and allow more pollution to compete in the world markets. Trumpenstein will wipe us out like Godzilla wipes out Tokyo.
I wonder, what make a country major?
Coal is far safer than many other forms of energy and it's cheaper than nearly all others (nat gas being currently and possibly temporarily cheaper). Coal can be obtained and stored for long periods with far less complexity and cost, and when trains loaded with coal crash there are not huge explosions like when liberal billionaire Warren Buffet's oil-filled trains crash. Coal is stable.
Cheap and plentiful coal providing cheap and plentiful energy provided the basis for many of America's good-paying middle class manufacturing jobs, which have been eliminated by the millions with the ongoing war on coal. Manufacturing processes like steel processing consume vast amounts of energy, so even small shifts in the price of a unit of energy cause such industries to move to places where energy is cheaper.
In an article about coal power, I think this link is a bit more relevant. Note that Canada is the world's #5 producer, but the rest are more than 20 places down. Even then, Canada is only 1/5th of China.