Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

74% of US Coal Plants Threatened by Renewables, But Emissions Continue To Rise (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report this week saying that in 2018, "global energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 1.7 percent to 33 Gigatonnes." That's the most growth in emissions that the world has seen since 2013. From a report: Coal use contributed to a third of the total increase, mostly from new coal-fired power plants in China and India. This is worrisome because new coal plants have a lifespan of roughly 50 years. But the consequences of climate change are already upon us, and coal's hefty emissions profile compared to other energy sources means that, globally, carbon mitigation is going to be a lot more difficult to tackle than it may look from here in the US.

Even in the US, carbon emissions grew by 3.1 percent in 2018, according to the IEA. (This closely tracks estimates by the Rhodium Group, which released a preliminary report in January saying that US carbon emissions increased by 3.4 percent in 2018.) "By country, China, the United States, and India together accounted for nearly 70 percent of the rise in energy demand," Reuters wrote.

76 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. Well yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You have to stop burning coal. You cant just use renewable zero emission energy AND still burn the coal and expect things to change

    1. Re:Well yeah by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      You have to stop burning coal. You cant just use renewable zero emission energy AND still burn the coal and expect things to change

      Think burning coal is bad?

      Wait until legislation is passed, outlawing all the solar cells and windmills and designating them to be burned in coal plants. /s?

    2. Re:Well yeah by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Deploying solar PV in Arizona helps bring the cost of the tech down so that it is affordable in Rajasthan..

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re: Well yeah by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Deploying solar PV in Arizona

      Would that fall under the category of increasing supply or demand? Serious question; not trying to be snide or argumentative... still too sleepy for that.

    4. Re: Well yeah by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Well there isn't a supply bottleneck, so it would be demand.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Well yeah by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      This growth in emissions is not about coal, which is simply not competitive in US right now due to shale revolution having made natgas almost free.

      It's about the massive growth cycle US is in.

  2. Ah must be all that by ruddk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Clean coal they are talking about. :’D

    --
    L'Idiot
  3. The Paris Accord Will Fix Everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Just keep blaming Trump and ignore the fact that several countries who signed the Paris Accord, including China and India, have increased their use of coal.

  4. Sounds like a solution by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    If most of the coal-related emissions are coming from a couple countries, multiple countries should be able to gang up and apply sanctions against them until they fix the (now geographically localized) sources of the problems.

    1. Re: Sounds like a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would you gang up on 3rd world nations? These countries are just developing a middle class and billions of people are coming out of poverty. Its a shame you only look at it from a Western point of view.

    2. Re: Sounds like a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      True. You have to make a middle class before you can exploit them and shove them back into poverty again.

    3. Re: Sounds like a solution by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why would you gang up on 3rd world nations? These countries are just developing a middle class and billions of people are coming out of poverty. Its a shame you only look at it from a Western point of view.

      The primary emitters are China, India, and the USA. While they all have wealth-distribution and other issues, I'd hardly call them third-world. All three are spacefaring. All three have high-quality universities whose graduates make an impact all over the globe. All three have considerable and unique contributions to world culture and knowledge.

      Don't get me wrong, third-world nations should be given support. But you're making a mistake when you claim the OP wants to "gang up" on third-world nations. China, India, and the USA are the "couple counties" the OP suggest the rest of the world should "gang up" on.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re: Sounds like a solution by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The primary emitters are China, India, and the USA. While they all have wealth-distribution and other issues, I'd hardly call them third-world. All three are spacefaring. All three have high-quality universities whose graduates make an impact all over the globe. All three have considerable and unique contributions to world culture and knowledge.

      And two of them - India and China - together have something like seven times as many people as the United States. Which means they get to pollute more than the United States. It's per capita or nothing - no one would say the Vatican is free to pretend that all nations are equal, and that they have the right to pollute just as much as a much larger country.

    5. Re:Sounds like a solution by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Even if you could somehow get enough countries to agree to impose sanctions against China to actually hurt the Chinese, you would never be able to convince the Chinese to move away from coal by a large enough amount to make a real difference to global emissions.

    6. Re: Sounds like a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      China would be a second world nation as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd world designations have nothing to do with standard of living in those nations.
      1st world is the US and allied nations mostly following capitalist economic policies
      2nd world was the Soviet Union and other nations within it's sphere of influence, mostly following communist economic policies (China is more 2nd world than Any of the nations that made of the former Soviet Union are today).
      3rd World are those nations outside the direct influence of either the 1st or 2nd world Super Powers
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

    7. Re: Sounds like a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All three are spacefaring. All three have high-quality universities whose graduates make an impact all over the globe. All three have considerable and unique contributions to world culture and knowledge.

      That would still be possible in a third world country.

      When we think of a country as poor the case is usually that the poorest are on the verge of starvation.
      That doesn't mean that the richest doesn't have plenty of resources and goes to good universities.
      North Korea is dirt poor but the upper class still lives a life in luxury.

      That is why we don't judge countries of how great their best and how rich their top are.
      We judge them by how they treat their poorest.

    8. Re: Sounds like a solution by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      It's far more complicated than per capita.

      Living in a remote area where you have NO electricity, no running water (and obviously) no car means your CO2 production is limited to burning wood. There are tens of millions of such people living in China today, in 2019. They want - and will get running water and electricity.

      A frugal lifestyle (small apartment, bicycle to work, no A/C) etc... in the west produces many times the CO2. Case in point - your refridgerator, TV and internet.

      Comparing per capita is close to useless as regards implementing policy.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    9. Re: Sounds like a solution by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      The only problem is that at least two of the countries (I don't know about India...) are led by "fuck you I do what I want" people, and have large military complexes.

      So the best the rest of the world can do is implement trade sactions, and even then you're playing a game of chicken.

      I'm so glad I'm not in politics cause I don't have the foggiest idea of what could be done.

    10. Re: Sounds like a solution by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Do tell how you come to a global agreement on reducing CO2 pollution without setting an emissions standard?

    11. Re: Sounds like a solution by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Living in a remote area where you have NO electricity, no running water (and obviously) no car means your CO2 production is limited to burning wood. There are tens of millions of such people living in China today, in 2019. They want - and will get running water and electricity. A frugal lifestyle (small apartment, bicycle to work, no A/C) etc... in the west produces many times the CO2. Case in point - your refridgerator, TV and internet.

      So you reinforce the point that the whining about pollution from China and India is really about continuing the western sense of entitlement, but at the same time argue that pollution limits shouldn't be set per capita? Oooooooookay.

    12. Re: Sounds like a solution by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      No. I think that increasing their standard of living is great, and what needs to happen

      It's the Western fools that think we can reduce our standard of living to the point where there would be an environmental equilibrium that I'm ridiculing.

      This is a technological problem more than it is a reduce consumption problem.

      Solar (PV) and wind generated power is growing at an exponential rate. That needs to continue - that's what needs to be focused on.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  5. FUD stats... by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The lightweight article referred to above has links to a more thorough article that gets to the important details (https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2019/march/global-energy-demand-rose-by-23-in-2018-its-fastest-pace-in-the-last-decade.html)

    The issue here is that the demand for electricity increased by a large percentage in the US, China and India. Obviously something has to ramp up to meet those demands. In the US that was primarily natural gas, the usage of which increased by 10% in 2018. China is using coal to meet their increased power demands.

    So why is power consumption increasing? The article above said a significant portion was due to colder than normal winters and hotter than normal summers, thus requiring more power for heating and cooling. In the US petrochemical demand has increased due to trucking and industrial consumption. The economy is strong, growth is occurring, and that is fueled by energy.

    So the FUD here is that "emissions continue to rise" is not due to a shift back to coal, but the use of fossil fuels to meet a quick increase in energy demands. Solar, nuclear, wind, etc, cannot ramp up nearly as fast as gas and coal, because those plants already have spare capacity to meet peak demands. If the higher rate consumption continues then renewable sources will continue to grow to reach at least their previous percentage share of power generation.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:FUD stats... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1, Informative

      Perhaps you want to research how fast a gas turbine is spinning up.

      Hint: no one keeps gas turbines as spinning reserves.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:FUD stats... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Sure you do, you just define 'spinning reserve' as starting in under 2-5 minutes. Spinning, ready etc nomenclature changes world wide, even regionally (in the details) in the USA.

      You have to be careful terms are explicitly defined when dealing with any sort of fuzzy foreigners.

      Also note: Gas turbines do not like to spin up fast and cold. Pick one, they can do it, but it cuts a bunch off their lives.

      What CTs mostly do is ramp, then come back down as the slower cheaper plants ramp. Some/many stay on during the 'rampy' times of day. Number based on expected max instantaneous load ramp.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:FUD stats... by ilguido · · Score: 1

      you perfectly know how much power each of them will produce in the foreseeable future (next 15, next 30, next 120, next 240 minutes)

      Wow, that is a lot of time to get your backup system up and running efficiently. /sarcasm

      When you have enough renewables, then they are spread out as virtual power plants. E.g. a wind farm with 100 turbines is not 100 plants but one single virtual plant. When you have a few dozens of those virtual plants you perfectly know how much power each of them will produce in the foreseeable future.

      Here is where reality kicks in. Power plants do not produce energy, but power: electric utilities sell a guaranteed power output (e.g. 3kW to a household, 500kW to a small factory etc.) and they are liable if that power supply is not met. New renewables do not guarantee a given power output, unlike hydropower, coal, gas, nuclear. With coal for example, you build a 1MW coal power plant and you are pretty sure to have a 1MW output (maintenance aside, but that's programmable); while with solar or wind, you build a 1MW power plant and you will get 250kW on average if you are lucky, but you do not really know. So you end up building 10 1MW solar plants to have good chances (but no certainty, so you still need backup!) of meeting that 1MW request. While the price per energy produced is low, the price per power guaranteed is high. Unfortunately it is the latter that you need.

    4. Re:FUD stats... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I bet I've spent more hours on control floors than you.

      CTs can go from cold to power fast, but it costs them _many_ hours of lifetime. Hence utilities _don't_do_it_. They warm them up first, it's not like rapid ramp periods are surprises to them

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:FUD stats... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Solar is very schedulable. Wind less so, but it's not like weather forecasts don't exist. Already used in load forecasting.

      You do need plants after dark, but it's not like that's not known.

      But 'good news', other than northern climates in winter, demand is typically highest at noon/late afternoon (the classic double peak). They've got plants sitting there ready to run when the sun goes down. You don't have to build them, just staff and fuel them. It does mean you can't tear them down and is a real cost.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:FUD stats... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Wow, that is a lot of time to get your backup system up and running efficiently. /sarcasm
      Yes, it is. so what is your point?

      Here is where reality kicks in. Power plants do not produce energy, but power: electric utilities sell a guaranteed power output
      The "utility company", yes. But they are free to use what ever plant they want, or simply buy power elsewhere.

      Did I mention: I'm tired about idiots who have no clue how production works?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:FUD stats... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Obviously they keep them warmed up.
      My point was about performance.

      No idea what a control floor is :P

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:FUD stats... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      AKA dispatch center, control center, grid operations center, Independent System Operator (ISO) regional control center.

      I spent a decade+ writing software that collected real time system data and fired off many simulations in the 1 day to 1 week forecast range. Allowed the system operator or power trader to examine various operational scenarios. That job took me around the world a few times.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:FUD stats... by ilguido · · Score: 1

      Solar is very schedulable. Wind less so, but it's not like weather forecasts don't exist. Already used in load forecasting.

      I know that english is not my mother tongue, but, come on, I was pretty clear. I am not talking about load balancing or production scheduling. I am talking about production planning and capacity factor. The biggest share of renewable sources you have, the lowest the capacity factor of your whole power supply (i.e. the weighted sum of the capacity factor of all your power sources) is, so you need more redundancy to meet the requested power supply, that is you need more plants, which means more costs. Moreover, for traditional power sources, maintenance and refuelling can be planned months in advance, while for wind or solar you have no control on their downtime, so you have to plan in advance a backup source, that is you have to build even more plants.

    10. Re:FUD stats... by ilguido · · Score: 1

      But they are free to use what ever plant they want, or simply buy power elsewhere.

      Ah, ok, now I get it: your plan is to let, say, Mexico build coal plants, so when your solar and wind power is slacking off, you can buy power from them and berate them because they still use dirty sources. Smart.

      Did I mention: I'm tired about idiots who have no clue how production works?

      Internet is serious stuff, uh?

    11. Re:FUD stats... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Solar is 'peak shaving', the plants to serve nighttime load already exist. You just can't tear them down yet.

      All peaker plants only run a few hours/day. That's their nature. The most expensive, oldest peaker in your region likely has a worse capacity factor than solar. Solar is only the worst 'category', individual plants will run lower capacity factors. There are individual plants that run at 0% (granting not 0.0000000%) capacity factor most years. They make all their money on capacity payments. Some are priced higher than load curtailment (paying industrial users to shutdown when things are very critical).

      Every transmission/control area is required to maintain enough standby power to cover the biggest single plant/transmission line going down. That is also just the nature of the grid. Nothing is 100% reliable, utilities are required to accept that fact and spin for their nuke, biggest thermal plant or highest power transmission line falling over.

      The long term situation for the grid is challenging. Eventually solar might become a difficulty, once most areas load - solar becomes night peaking. But not even close yet. Negative reactances of switching power supplies is a more immediate issue. Old school, you just let the grid brown-out and power use drops, but with switchers when you drop V, current goes up. When that becomes dominant the grid has a huge fucking problem.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:FUD stats... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Just to add: Your basic mistake is thinking any plant can 'guarantee a given power output'.

      That's just wrong. They _have_ (FERC rules in the USA) to spin for their biggest single power source, as _none_ are guaranteed.

      As a practical matter, they _all_ violate spinning/ready reserve rules a few hours/year BTW. But engineers are practical people, not mathematicians.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:FUD stats... by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      The issue here is that the demand for electricity increased by a large percentage in the US, China and India.

      That's not true.
      US Electrical consumption has actually been flat for over a decade: https://www.vox.com/energy-and...
      Per capita, we're declining in electrical demand.

    14. Re:FUD stats... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The biggest share of renewable sources you have, the lowest the capacity factor of your whole power supply And why would the CF be relevant when I actually know with a very small error margin how much power my plants will produce over the next 6hours?

      so you need more redundancy to meet the requested power supply Erm ... no?

      that is you need more plants, which means more costs. Erm ... no? You have the plants already ... you use the plants you are replacing with renewables ...

      Moreover, for traditional power sources, maintenance and refuelling can be planned months in advance, so can usually power production by renewables be planned.

      while for wind or solar you have no control on their downtime, so you have to plan in advance a backup source, that is you have to build even more plants. Erm ... no? You have those "backup plants" already.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:FUD stats... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No, my plan would be to buy power e.g. from Texas.
      And if we talk about Mexico, obviously we set up wind and solar plants there as they have lots of sun and a long coastline.

      Mexico build coal plants
      Why would they? It is the second most expensive power source, or the third if one was so stupid to build an oil plant.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re:FUD stats... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      AKA dispatch center, control center, grid operations center, Independent System Operator (ISO) regional control center.
      Half guessed that, we call it dispatcher center/room. I only spent a few hours there.

      I spent a decade+ writing software that collected real time system data and fired off many simulations in the 1 day to 1 week forecast range. Allowed the system operator or power trader to examine various operational scenarios.
      I did the same.

      That job took me around the world a few times.
      Unfortunately stuck in Baden Württemberg as I basically only worked for EnBW.com ... I hoped to visit ENCF.fr, too but it never happened.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:FUD stats... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Our power trading code likely exchanged data. We were at the Swamp German power company...as well as all over the UK, Spain etc.

      CEO to another team lead: 'Fix that by friday our you're going to Amsterdam to explain the client why it's broken.'
      Me: 'What do I have to screw up to get sent to Amsterdam? Say the word and it's as good as broken!'

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. Burn More On Purpose? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

    For some countries burning as much fossil fuel as possible works. Never ever forget the country most impacted by climate change and sea level rise will be the USA, no country will suffer as much as they do, the entire US east coast is under huge threat. Right now for those countries in conflict it makes sense to generate as much carbon dioxide as fast as possible, it's no like the USA will complain, they will help and in their insanity try to out compete you by producing even more carbon dioxide. All entirely silly but unfortunately much closer to reality than it should sanely be.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Burn More On Purpose? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Every country with coasts will suffer.
      But it is nice you showed us your US centric few of the problem :P

      I would assume the coasts of Australia, India, China etc. are similar long.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Burn More On Purpose? by _merlin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bangladesh will suffer the most - the whole country is basically at current sea level. They'll need to hold back the ocean Dutch-style or pack up and leave.

    3. Re:Burn More On Purpose? by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative
      The dutch dams work because of the special situation at the Dutch coast: a mudflat with tidal changes.

      Due to the special conditions around the North Sea (a small sea bordering an ocean) you have high tidal differences, which allows to empty the rivers during low tide and block the incoming seawater during high tide. The difference in height is up to ten feet at the Dutch coast, but only about one foot at Bangladesh's coast.

      The tidal changes work like a large natural water pump. The natural pump basically doesn't exist in Bangladesh with only one foot twice per day, and with one foot of sealevel rise, it is totally gone. Instead, Bangladesh would have to install large man-made water to get the water of the Ganges and the Brahmhaputra river out of the country and into the ocean.

      I always wonder when people bring up the Dutch dam system if they ever actually look how they work? And why they only exists along the North Sea and nowhere else on the globe? You would expect them to have been built alongside all coasts of the world, if they were an universally appliable concept. Alas, they aren't. They work because the Dutch coast is in fact a mudflat... the largest mutflat of the world. The Dutch dam system only works with mudflats. Everywhere else, it fails, becaue either, you don't have enough tidal changes, or because of the missing mudflats along the coast.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    4. Re:Burn More On Purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Every country with coasts will suffer.

      Yes, but they will mostly cooperate to make space for those who have to move away from the costal areas.

      Imagine what will happen in the US when "those costal people" that makes up 90% of the population migrates to higher ground.
      It's not going to be pretty in a country where the focus is on greed rather than resolving issues.

    5. Re:Burn More On Purpose? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I always wonder when people bring up the Dutch dam system if they ever actually look how they work?
      In general it is safe to assume that people don't look up how stuff works.

      Hence all the misconceptions about renewable power, its supposed dirtiness in production of wind turbines, panels etc. usage of rare earth elements (which are not rare) etc. p.p.

      Funnily many things are super simple to grasp if one would just sit back 30 minutes, empty the mind of all prejudice and start thinking with a clear mind on a fresh slate.

      But alas, I'm a requirements engineer, it is in my blood to assume I know nothing and listen to the others and build up a new mental model.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Burn More On Purpose? by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      the entire US east coast is under huge threat.

      That's why I'm about a mile high in Denver. That's an old Jimmy Buffett song before he realized he liked Margaritas better than Coors? LOL... Nobody drinks Coors here.

    7. Re:Burn More On Purpose? by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      Every country with coasts will suffer.

      Evo Morales chuckles at the thought. It's not just the US that will suffer. Chile will pay a steep price too. Maybe Bolivia will finally get access to the sea if it rises enough.

  7. Why not nuclear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Coal => natural gas+nuclear => fusion

    Renewables will always be a niche market.

  8. Duh! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    74% of the US coal plants threatened.

    Coal contributes to one third of the increase mainly due to China and India

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Duh! by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      74% of the US coal plants threatened.

      Coal contributes to one third of the increase mainly due to China and India

      Yes, but per capita the US reigns as emperor along with Canada, Saudi Arabia and Australia who all emit from 15-17 tons of CO2 per capita. Comparable figures for India and China are 1,58 tons and 6,59 tons of CO2 per capita. Some 327 million Americans produce the same amount of CO2 emissions as 800 million Chinese and 3,4 billion Indians (that's 2,5 times the current population of India).

  9. Coal is dead by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Clean Natural gas is cheaper than even the raw dirty coal. Drill baby drill crowd produced so much of natural gas, the dig baby dig crowd got shafted.

    If the coal workers have any sense, they will support the Democrats and make sure they get the job of safely shutting down coal mines. There is enough work there to guarantee jobs for the coal workers till they retire. There is money for it from the bonds posted by the coal companies. Democrats will make sure those bonds are actually used to give jobs to the coal workers. If they go with the Republicans, the companies will self post, sign some papers, steal the bonds, and promptly declare bankruptcy after divvying up the money.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Coal is dead by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Vote for the same people who called them deplorable? The same people who coldly told them "learn to code"? The same people who, when the working class retaliated with "learn to code", considered this a hate crime? We'll get right on voting for people who call us racists, rape apologists and woman haters.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  10. Re:No, Dan East, you're the FUD. by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    ^ Is complete bullshit, you just have to invest in the infrastructure to comparable levels. https://www.clf.org/blog/doe-e...

    Did you not read what I wrote? With the current state of things - the current infrastructure - gas power production can literally ramp up by pressing a couple buttons and telling the plant to produce more energy. The plants are not normally running at 100% capacity. Solar and wind already produce all they are capable of producing, and that is just pumped into the grid with hopes it can be used at that exact moment. "Ramping up" means literally building and installing new solar panels and wind turbines. That cannot happen nearly as fast as gas and coal plants that already have spare production capability. My point is spot on.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  11. Not a surprise... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Informative

    The EU just abandoned their 2050 climate goals because there was no chance of reaching it. And Germany has seen coal use slightly rise over the last 10 years - no chance of meeting their own 2020 and 2030 commitments.

    The future isn't solar and wind (because it's not working); it's nuclear. That is the only way forward out of pollution and limited power.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Not a surprise... by Freischutz · · Score: 2

      The EU just abandoned their 2050 climate goals because there was no chance of reaching it. And Germany has seen coal use slightly rise over the last 10 years - no chance of meeting their own 2020 and 2030 commitments.

      The future isn't solar and wind (because it's not working); it's nuclear. That is the only way forward out of pollution and limited power.

      Germany is set to phase out coal-fired power stations by 2038: https://www.ft.com/content/cfa... Both Nucear and Coal will be killed off by the free market for the simple reason that Nuclear and Coal are the two most expensive options available in terms of LCOE and the only remaining fossil full that can compete with terrestrial wind and solar in terms of cost-effectiveness is natural gas. Isn't the free market wonderful?

    2. Re:Not a surprise... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Yep! And you just punted on every commitment you had made prior...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  12. Re:No, Dan East, you're the FUD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Solar, wind, and batteries combined are about 2% of the world's energy needs. We would have to ramp up a factor of 70 or so (to provide for excess capacity in some areas to cover for those with less) at a minimum.

  13. The Dems aren't shooting for jobs by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    shutting down coal plants. They're trying to replace the coal jobs via the Green New Deal. The "Green" part is incidental to the "New Deal" part. It's a jobs program to give a real answer to the question "What do we do with all these out of work coal miners in Ohio that swing presidential elections?". The answer is to give them jobs doing something we want done anyway (replacing old, dirty coal plants with wind and solar).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The Dems aren't shooting for jobs by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The answer is having the resources to retrain for new jobs

      And when there are more unemployed people looking for work than there are jobs available? Besides, if there's enough demand, corporations will - shockingly enough in today's capitalist USA - recruit and train workers to the job. A GND would create far more jobs than would be lost in the coal industry, skipping the old saw about workers being untrained. Replacing coal and nuclear with wind and solar would take a few decades, so it's not like people would have jobs next year but would shortly be out of work again.

    2. Re:The Dems aren't shooting for jobs by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Do you know how much work there is shutting down the coal mines safely? All those tilings left behind. Mine shafts to be systematically closed and sealed, lest some random soccer team gets lost in there. All those toxic ponds of pumped water to be safely disposed off. These are all green jobs. The coal companies posted bonds to do the clean up. Or have self bonded. There are just 50,000 coal workers left. And we need them. They are the only ones skilled enough, trained enough to do the job. None of the coal workers want their kids to get into coal mining. They really don't want the coal mines to operate in perpetuity. All they want is a honest job with honest pay till their retirement.

      Orderly shutting down of coal mines would do the job, has the money for it. But you can trust Republicans to play up the emotions, steal all the bond money posted by the coal companies and leave the workers high and dry, and the taxpayers with the clean up bill.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:The Dems aren't shooting for jobs by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      It's a jobs program to give a real answer to the question "What do we do with all these out of work coal miners in Ohio that swing presidential elections?". The answer is to give them jobs doing something we want done anyway (replacing old, dirty coal plants with wind and solar).

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

      --
      Nope, no sig
    4. Re:The Dems aren't shooting for jobs by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      I think Andrew Wheeler's plan is to follow the example of Brazil and wait until there's a dam holding toxic waste that breaks thus providing lots of money and jobs to whoever cleans it up...

      They will clean it up, right?

  14. its a big world by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    Americans are buying SUV's over cars and SUV's get much worse MPG. It's the reason Ford will no longer make sedans.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/busine...
    That's why emissions are up in the US.
    Secondly, the US isn't the top carbon emitter enymore either: China emits more carbon then the US and Europe combined:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
    Third, the US has a president that denies global warming is real and is doing everything he can to eradicate any "Obama era" policy that might require reduced emissions, more efficiency vehicles or the pushing of renewables. The republican mantra of "remove those horrible job killing regulations " is in full force.

  15. Technically by Texmaize · · Score: 2

    Technically, coal is going down, but it goes to natural gas. So, title is sorta misleading https://www.statista.com/stati...

    --
    "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
  16. Global CO2 levels continue to rise by Chas · · Score: 1

    YEAH!

    And it's not from the coal we're burning in the US! Even with the coal we burn, we're DOWN, year over year.

    Look at China and India though.

    This is where the global rise is coming from.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Global CO2 levels continue to rise by Freischutz · · Score: 2

      YEAH!

      And it's not from the coal we're burning in the US! Even with the coal we burn, we're DOWN, year over year.

      Look at China and India though.

      This is where the global rise is coming from.

      Yes but in terms of raw tonnage of CO2 emissions it's the US and China that matter by far the most. The US and China emit more CO2 put together than the entire rest of the top 20 list of CO2 emitters put together including India: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/d... If you consider the populations behind the slices on that pie chart the US emissions are simply staggering.

  17. You WindBourne or just a generic GOPer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You clearly have no idea what the Paris Accord even was.

  18. Us coal went down by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    According to rhodium's us report, CO2 from coal went down. In fact, co2 from our cars went down as well, in spite of moving some new sales to trucks/SUV. CO2 from electricity sourced by nat. Gas is what went up the most. The other was semis and jet aircrafts due to our economy booming. But coal plants are not threatened by renewables. They continue to be threatened by nat gas and wind. Solar is not making a dent yet. Right now, the GOP is working on rewriting regs/subsidies dealing with nuclear power. Hopefully, this will make inroads.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  19. Are you thick? Or deceitful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    China has a lot more people than the US and EU combined too. Did you have a point?
    Maybe your point was to hide the fact Americans are twice as CO2 polluting as either Europeans or Chinese.

  20. It's the oil crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seems pretty obvious to me. It's the crash in oil (as well as coal) that led to the increase in use. What else could have allowed people to start using 6-wheel diesel trucks as commuter cars? Cheaper cost of operation, of course. Some of these chest-beating wannabes are driving to their white-collar office jobs in 6-wheel diesel trucks, every day, as if it's normal. They've never towed a damn thing in their lives.

    It was economics that led to the increase, and it will be economics that leads to the fallout. Hopefully sooner than later, because I'm getting really tired of inhaling diesel exhaust at the freaking super market of all places.

    1. Re: It's the oil crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe we can get Pepper to give up the secrets of the Stark ARC reactor and solve both problems at once.

      And for the record, I don't think it's fair to call her an idiot, even if she is played by one...

  21. The articles are shit by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    Having read this and the the source article, it is obvious the articles are trying to hide the fact that China and India are the major contributors to the increase and that U.S. coal is no where near the player it is portrayed to be. The author of the article is writing propaganda to push an agenda instead of being a journalist and presenting the true facts.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  22. Re:Still IMPERSONATING me JEALOUS "Lil' Jowie"? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Stop IMPERSONATING me lying

    You wanna know how you can stop people impersonating you? By signing the fuck in.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  23. Re:Orange traitor hangs either way. by Luckyo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Mueller will save you, I'm sure. Any day now.

  24. Re:You lie like a WindBourne. by Luckyo · · Score: 2

    He read the actual data. Summary is intentionally misleading.

  25. Illegal Immigration by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

    I'm curious how much illegal immigration affects energy consumption in the US? We're so caught up in how the media spins illegal immigration (and shutting down people who point out the destruction of low-skilled jobs available to impoverished American citizens), I hardly hear anyone talk about the environmental impact of illegal immigrants. Many of the places they come from don't really push "energy consciousness," an American value stemming from its relatively high standards of living.