I appreciate the nuances of this article and the issues it raises.
But, I'm sad to see another article in the NYT about energy that does nto even mention reducing consumption rather than simply talking about how we will meet the demands of it.
Only when consumers feel the real effects of this crisis will they consider reducing their energy use, like when gas rose to over $3.50 gallon after Katrina, or when Californians reduced their water usage during the recent drought.
But the easiest way to reduce carbon emissions is still to use less energy. That works day or night, sun or no sun, wind or no wind.
But, I'm sad to see another article in the NYT about energy that does nto even mention reducing consumption rather than simply talking about how we will meet the demands of it.
Only when consumers feel the real effects of this crisis will they consider reducing their energy use, like when gas rose to over $3.50 gallon after Katrina, or when Californians reduced their water usage during the recent drought.
But the easiest way to reduce carbon emissions is still to use less energy. That works day or night, sun or no sun, wind or no wind.
5
Without massive amounts of grid storage wind and solar sources will always need to be backed with thermal plants - coal and/or gas. The only way out of this conundrum is nuclear power which is non-carbon and provides base load power that wind and solar can never provide.
9
Getting rid of coal in its entirety is foolish. It can be used with proper controls to eliminate the most dangerous pollution, not CO2 which is not so dangerous. Very simple.
3
Here's another "simple" thing you can do: go into a room containing 1% CO2 - which you contend is "not so dangerous" - and then report to us all how things are going for you 8 hours later.
Coal is going to become more valuable to us later in the century, but as a source of chemicals and NOT as a fuel. However, we will need to have a robust solar,- wind- and nuclear-driven electrical power infrastructure in place to take advantage of it.
Coal is going to become more valuable to us later in the century, but as a source of chemicals and NOT as a fuel. However, we will need to have a robust solar,- wind- and nuclear-driven electrical power infrastructure in place to take advantage of it.
3
Coal is the lowest-cost and most reliable primary energy source for electric power generation. A modern coal plant emits few air emissions except water vapor and carbon dioxide. The war on coal is wholly political. A grab for money and power. A bear raid. There is no empirical evidence that use of fossil fuels affects climate.
CO2 emissions from all fossil fuels contribute only 3% of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. Nature promptly recycles all ambient CO2 into limestone and other mineral carbonates. As partial pressure of CO2 rises, the conversion to carbonate also rises--an equilibrium-seeking mechanism. 99.84% of all the carbon on earth is already sequestered in sediments.
This noxious calumny has destroyed the greatest energy infrastructure that ever existed. It has disemployed millions of coal miners, power plant workers, and members of their communities. It has impoverished numerous investors and business owners who invested hundreds of billions of dollars in good faith.
Tobacco product makers and tobacco farmers were compensated. And they weren't responding to a national need for electric energy. Adequate compensation of all the stranded coal and coal-electric assets in the U.S. would cost a pittance, but the pols won't have it..
This has been done through lies, commercial defamation, disinformation and rank political clout. But the truth will out. And when it does, all the mob members had better have good lawyers.
CO2 emissions from all fossil fuels contribute only 3% of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. Nature promptly recycles all ambient CO2 into limestone and other mineral carbonates. As partial pressure of CO2 rises, the conversion to carbonate also rises--an equilibrium-seeking mechanism. 99.84% of all the carbon on earth is already sequestered in sediments.
This noxious calumny has destroyed the greatest energy infrastructure that ever existed. It has disemployed millions of coal miners, power plant workers, and members of their communities. It has impoverished numerous investors and business owners who invested hundreds of billions of dollars in good faith.
Tobacco product makers and tobacco farmers were compensated. And they weren't responding to a national need for electric energy. Adequate compensation of all the stranded coal and coal-electric assets in the U.S. would cost a pittance, but the pols won't have it..
This has been done through lies, commercial defamation, disinformation and rank political clout. But the truth will out. And when it does, all the mob members had better have good lawyers.
3
Coal is in U.S. decline primarily because it is NO LONGER the lowest cost fuel and that situation is unlikely to change in the near term (20+ years) until fracked natural gas deposits become depleted.
And, you do not understand chemistry, my friend. Yes, there is a natural equilibrium that COULD become established, but the extra 3% you cite continually keeps the system out of equilibrium and allows CO2 to build up in the atmosphere - where is most assuredly contributes to warming the planet. You cannot get around physics and chemistry by ignoring the laws that govern them. Nature does not give one damn about any of our political or economic worldviews.
And, you do not understand chemistry, my friend. Yes, there is a natural equilibrium that COULD become established, but the extra 3% you cite continually keeps the system out of equilibrium and allows CO2 to build up in the atmosphere - where is most assuredly contributes to warming the planet. You cannot get around physics and chemistry by ignoring the laws that govern them. Nature does not give one damn about any of our political or economic worldviews.
6
I can't speak to the issue in Germany, China, or India. But in the U.S. in 2013, the number of permanent blue-collar jobs related to coal was 174,000. Of these, 83,000 were in mining, 31,000 in transportation, and 60,000 in power plant employment. If all these jobs were eliminated and each worker pensioned at $21,586/year (median per capita income, much higher than the average in the coal industry), the annual cost would be $3.8 billion.
This cost is conservative, because many workers would be able to get other jobs or would have social security and other benefits. The average age of miners in West Virginia is 55; the average age of of coal plant workers is 48. Therefore, the duration of these benefits would be roughly 15 years, and the total cost would be about $57 billion or less, probably much less. This is affordable, and it's the right thing to do.
This cost is conservative, because many workers would be able to get other jobs or would have social security and other benefits. The average age of miners in West Virginia is 55; the average age of of coal plant workers is 48. Therefore, the duration of these benefits would be roughly 15 years, and the total cost would be about $57 billion or less, probably much less. This is affordable, and it's the right thing to do.
6
I wonder how many people know that Bill Gates is the chairman of a company called TerraPower, investing billions in new nuclear technology. It's very clear what he thinks the answer is.
2
Yes part of the answer is an everything approach. You might look at say run of the river generation, fracking, geothermal energy and many other options.
2
With so few jobs in the coal industry in the US how about just paying them to do infrastructure work and shut down the mines.
2
How about paying the unemployed to make needed infrastructure and continue to mine coal. In fact some of it is used to make steel, not getting rid of that I hope.
Things change. I grew up in the 50's-60's in a heavy manufacturing town in upstate NY. The textile mills had left the North by then falling to the South and have by now fallen to the equator. That manufacturing base eroded and abandoned those Northern cities. Many have suffered and many more will continue to do so. Coal is a bad fuel. For a variety of reasons it must go. Policy can try to make things easier for coal miners, but they are going to have to adapt. Hopefully they do. Many won't. Darwin wins!
3
For some reason, Mr. Porter, I have not seen your articles until now. But I will look for them from now on. You are the voice of reason I have been looking for. Finally I have found someone who understands the realities.
Happily I don't hear you saying the sun is free. Sure it is, for getting suntans. But converting it into reliable electricity is anything but. And we now know it can't survive without subsidies.
Nuclear power has had a terrible rap. There were no doubt some scary accidents. But the fatality rate has been negligible compared to that from fossil power, especially when one includes those from mining and transporting the fuel, and from the smokestack emissions. Any large industrial activity has hazards.
It is unfortunate that we continue to rely on archaic nuclear reactor designs that were perhaps suitable for submarines. But we can do much better. There are advanced designs that eliminate corrosive water as the primary coolant, as well the need to locate them near large sources of water for waste heat removal.
Research continues on nuclear fusion, a giant step ahead of fission. But it is focused on designs that are not commercially viable. More needs to be done to develop approaches that are. They are out there; but they need to be fleshed out.
We can do all of this without raising the federal budget a penny. Just eliminate the construction of a single aircraft carrier and we will be awash in money.
Happily I don't hear you saying the sun is free. Sure it is, for getting suntans. But converting it into reliable electricity is anything but. And we now know it can't survive without subsidies.
Nuclear power has had a terrible rap. There were no doubt some scary accidents. But the fatality rate has been negligible compared to that from fossil power, especially when one includes those from mining and transporting the fuel, and from the smokestack emissions. Any large industrial activity has hazards.
It is unfortunate that we continue to rely on archaic nuclear reactor designs that were perhaps suitable for submarines. But we can do much better. There are advanced designs that eliminate corrosive water as the primary coolant, as well the need to locate them near large sources of water for waste heat removal.
Research continues on nuclear fusion, a giant step ahead of fission. But it is focused on designs that are not commercially viable. More needs to be done to develop approaches that are. They are out there; but they need to be fleshed out.
We can do all of this without raising the federal budget a penny. Just eliminate the construction of a single aircraft carrier and we will be awash in money.
4
Really??? Awash in money??? And how about those employed making that ship? How foolish.
1
Their are always pros and cons when using fossil fuels as a source of power. On the one hand using fossil fuels such as coal, provides a cheap way to produce energy, provides jobs, and provides constant power. On the other hand, fossil fuels are creating increasing amounts of pollution every year, with countries like China and India Increasing their coal production and already using more coal than all the other countries combined. A better source of power needs to be established to reduce increasing pollution.
2
A natural resource economics professor of mine always reminds us, graduate students, that the stone age did not end because of lack of stones.
The coal age is ending because of two fundamental factors. First, better/cleaner and cost effective fuels are available.
Second, environmental degradation, caused by harmful coal burning emissions, threatens the survival of future generations.
The coal age is ending because of two fundamental factors. First, better/cleaner and cost effective fuels are available.
Second, environmental degradation, caused by harmful coal burning emissions, threatens the survival of future generations.
7
Well there are not better cheaper options and those emissions don't really threaten survival of future generations either. Part of them but no way all of them.
1
Unfortunately, the article really does not discuss the attitude of Third World countries regarding clean energy sources. Many of these countries think that climate change controls on cheap, but dirty, sources of energy are an industrialized world plot to keep them Third World countries that are dependent on the industrialized world. Whether this is true or not, it is a perception and needs to be understood and addressed. In all likelihood, some people in China have similar feelings. Then there is the question about how reliable China's statistics are. What China says it is doing and what it is actually doing are often two very different things.
3
For those touting nuclear power, please tell me, have we learned how to recycle the radioactive nuclear waste? If not, then we will continue to sweep it under the rug (if we can keep finding rugs) for future generations to deal with. They will eventually be in the situation we are in now, trying to wean themselves from a planet-polluting power source, not to mention the life-altering danger of a disaster such as Fukushima or Chernobyl.
As Rozenblit posted previously, "We must commit ourselves to the battle. If we spend a little each year we can get there. But we wont even do that. We just keep doing what is cheapest, for today."
It would take years and billions of $ to build more nukes and the ones who want to keep investing in them have their heads in the sand, hopefully not yet radioactive.
As Rozenblit posted previously, "We must commit ourselves to the battle. If we spend a little each year we can get there. But we wont even do that. We just keep doing what is cheapest, for today."
It would take years and billions of $ to build more nukes and the ones who want to keep investing in them have their heads in the sand, hopefully not yet radioactive.
5
General Atomics in San Diego has a reactor design that uses spent fuel as fuel. That's the best way to recycle it. Otherwise it remains in storage, which is better than spewing it into the air. Coal has trace amounts of radioactive material. And guess where that goes.
4
I don't get this. We are all drowning in the garbage that they make for us and they are killing us at the same time. We are indeed between a rock and a hard place.
3
Germany cut itself off from being able to completely get off fossil fuels when it canceled the nuclear option. This will prove to be a serious mistake by the Germans. Thanks for a very nice and informative article.
8
Can the insurance companies light a fire under the G20 counties? http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/08/29/insurance-funds-worth-1-2tn-...
No insurance companies don't vote. And they can just either refuse coverage or raise their rates.
People won’t willingly go back to a life without electricity and automobiles. It is critical to understand this.
In developing countries like China and India want to raise their standard of living.
The only way to stop fossil fuels for electricity generation, transport, industrial & residential uses, is to develop and implement new, practical non-fossil fuel energy sources that are more economical, both in investment & operation, than fossil fuels.
The new sources must be capable of supplying the vast quantities of energy needed in the coming decades.
Consider just the electric energy we will need by 2050—just 34 years from now.
In 2014, the world generated 22,700 terawatt hours of electricity to power the needs of 7 billion people. World electrical generation is projected to grow to about 54,000 Terawatt hours per year by 2050 AD for the projected 9 billion people on Earth.
To supply the 54,000 Terawatt hours of electrical generation, Dr. James Powell in "Silent Earth" concluded that existing technologies won't cut it.
E.g. Nuclear? This would require 6,500 reactors, each 1,000 megawatts. Currently, there are only 437 reactors in the world.
We suggest that the pathway is a space based solar power satellites launched by an international Maglev launch facility.
Cheap electricity can be used to manufacture synthetic fossil fuels from air and water.
Finally because of safety and efficiency in transport we suggest Superconducting Maglev Logistics networks.
In developing countries like China and India want to raise their standard of living.
The only way to stop fossil fuels for electricity generation, transport, industrial & residential uses, is to develop and implement new, practical non-fossil fuel energy sources that are more economical, both in investment & operation, than fossil fuels.
The new sources must be capable of supplying the vast quantities of energy needed in the coming decades.
Consider just the electric energy we will need by 2050—just 34 years from now.
In 2014, the world generated 22,700 terawatt hours of electricity to power the needs of 7 billion people. World electrical generation is projected to grow to about 54,000 Terawatt hours per year by 2050 AD for the projected 9 billion people on Earth.
To supply the 54,000 Terawatt hours of electrical generation, Dr. James Powell in "Silent Earth" concluded that existing technologies won't cut it.
E.g. Nuclear? This would require 6,500 reactors, each 1,000 megawatts. Currently, there are only 437 reactors in the world.
We suggest that the pathway is a space based solar power satellites launched by an international Maglev launch facility.
Cheap electricity can be used to manufacture synthetic fossil fuels from air and water.
Finally because of safety and efficiency in transport we suggest Superconducting Maglev Logistics networks.
3
Producing all that electric power will require paying millions of workers middle class wages to build wind and solar harvesting and storage capital assets for decades.
As far as I can tell, the biggest problems is too many unemployed and low wage workers who are getting a small amount of welfare, but still aren't able to buy enough stuff to grow the economy.
Can't see any reason to burn capital, fossil fuels, to kill jobs when so many are in need of good jobs.
As far as I can tell, the biggest problems is too many unemployed and low wage workers who are getting a small amount of welfare, but still aren't able to buy enough stuff to grow the economy.
Can't see any reason to burn capital, fossil fuels, to kill jobs when so many are in need of good jobs.
1
Mr. Porter,
I have read the comments to your very important piece. This is a tough socioeconomic problem. There is no easy solution because undeniably fossil fuels are integral to the economic progress humans have made over the last 200 years. However, we now know that combustion of fossil fuels is causing a greenhouse effect that is warming the Earth, with the strong probability that it will greatly harm our species and may also cause the permafrost to thaw and cause an uncontrollable release of millions of tons of methane that will be self perpetuating and irreversible, So we must take the transition from fossil fuels very seriously.
I have interest in a patent which may be of interest to companies/countries that have and are currently mining coal reserves. The patent is U.S. Patent No. 7467660, Title: Pumped carbon mining methane production process. This method of producing methane and separate streams of carbon dioxide and hydrogen was invented by Dr. Meyer Steinberg, a leading scientist in the fossil energy field. This method can produce methane for power plants without mining the ore at lower cost than fracking. If we are going to frack, I recommend this as a better method for producing methane for fuel. It avoids creating the toxic wastes of coal burning and fracking.
Dr. Steinberg has completed several papers for the use of qualified chemists. He has written an excellent test plan that could be performed at relatively low cost. See www.hceco.com
I have read the comments to your very important piece. This is a tough socioeconomic problem. There is no easy solution because undeniably fossil fuels are integral to the economic progress humans have made over the last 200 years. However, we now know that combustion of fossil fuels is causing a greenhouse effect that is warming the Earth, with the strong probability that it will greatly harm our species and may also cause the permafrost to thaw and cause an uncontrollable release of millions of tons of methane that will be self perpetuating and irreversible, So we must take the transition from fossil fuels very seriously.
I have interest in a patent which may be of interest to companies/countries that have and are currently mining coal reserves. The patent is U.S. Patent No. 7467660, Title: Pumped carbon mining methane production process. This method of producing methane and separate streams of carbon dioxide and hydrogen was invented by Dr. Meyer Steinberg, a leading scientist in the fossil energy field. This method can produce methane for power plants without mining the ore at lower cost than fracking. If we are going to frack, I recommend this as a better method for producing methane for fuel. It avoids creating the toxic wastes of coal burning and fracking.
Dr. Steinberg has completed several papers for the use of qualified chemists. He has written an excellent test plan that could be performed at relatively low cost. See www.hceco.com
3
Your suggestions are not yet practical. Nice try though.
1
Easing the transition for those who will, in the short term, suffer as a result of what must be done, is of course an obligation that cannot morally be dodged. But the idea that that would involve"paying the dirtiest generators...to stick around" is a monstrous failure of imagination. Coal-fired generation is not only not required to facilitate the transition reliably and at least cost, it's actually a barrier to doing so (see any number of credible independent studies of the road to 2050 if you're really interested, which I do often doubt when I read your columns). It's madness to suggest that we have to keep these plants around - we need to take care of the people and communities who served all of us so well for so long, but there's absolutely NO reason that has to include continuing to generate electricity from coal.
4
Our only obligation is to citizens of this country, nobody else. And of course there are many reasons to continue generating electricity from coal, especially in those countries with new coal powered plants and little to no alternatives.
1
For what it's worth. $1.00 for every ton mined goes to reclaim the scarred landscape from prosperous times. Runoff now goes into creeks instead of the mine acid water table and vegetation gets a C+ for air quality.I am aware of the horrors of methane, ozone NOX and SOX but I don't know where to looks to see if the minuscule amount of atmospheric carbon increased? Instead of extending unemployment benefits for lost jobs agencies could provide travel and accommodation vouchers to lost jobs. I'd admire the Clinton Foundation if they considered the working class too.
I would admire the Clinton foundation if it was funded by money that they actually earned, not by corrupt donations. I also would feel better if they did much more for our citizens that need help, rather than those around the world.
3
Completely foolish we have marginalized nuclear. With more money in research and development it would get cheaper and safer. We could be almost completely off everything else by now if we had pursued it.
19
Are you calling for tax hikes to fund hundreds of thousands of jobs trying to figure out fifth and sixth generation nuclear which will burn all the fuel and not leave tons of 97% good fuel to store for the rest of civilization?
1
Perhaps! Being a pipe fitter/welder and having been as close to a hot reactor as I am to this laptop, I have developed a half-life of my own. The body scan says I have a "little cobalt" in my thyroid;) I am a fan of nuclear, BUT, recorded history is, what, 2500-3000 yrs old. Beyond that it is supposition and archeology. The residue from nuclear plants will last 25,000 years. That is an exceedingly long tail to our lack of care for whomever follows us and indicative of how arrogant and brutal we are in caring only for ourselves. I'm putting a 5kw solar system on the place this year. Happily, I might add!
3
3000 years is a blink of your eye in the history of this planet.
As the global human population increases from about 7.4 billion today to some 10 billion during this century, and an increasing fraction of humans aspire to air conditioning, cars, and other aspects of an energy-intensive lifestyle, dependence on coal will inevitably increase.
4
It is not inevitable, Coal can be replaced with advanced Nuclear decarbonizing the electric grid and employing many people.
Uranium is 30,000 times more energy dense than Coal is.
Do they burn coal in the future on Star Trek? No the fire up a reactor nice and clean.
Uranium is 30,000 times more energy dense than Coal is.
Do they burn coal in the future on Star Trek? No the fire up a reactor nice and clean.
3
Where do you propose they put all that spent fuel? Build all these thousands of reactors? Have access to water for cooling? Have access to evacuation routes in the event of meltdowns?
...that's what I thought. Better to pursue advanced carbon sequestration.
...that's what I thought. Better to pursue advanced carbon sequestration.
2
One coal plant burns 10,000 tons of coal and produces 40,000 tons of carbon dioxide. Not in its lifetime. Not in a year. But in a single day! The scale is too great to deal with the carbon dioxide once it's produced. It just can't be produced in the first place.
1
we are still in the weeds here. there are two simple principles at work.
1. everywhere in "wealth of nations" that adam smith makes a general claim about prosperity, it always includes the rider that population must be continuously growing. even today, there is no credible economic model to show that human population decline can result in steady or increasing prosperity.
2. everywhere that realistic climate change adaptation is discussed, the rapid shift away from fossil fuels is projected to result in serious economic hardship for many sectors, if not the entire economy.
there is no credible future scenario that does not show continued population growth and increasing total consumption of fossil fuels for at least the next four decades.
in the end, population will peak, and fossil fuel consumption will decline, and we'll face the inevitable economic and social costs spread across billions more people and a planet incalculably worse off than it is now. then change will be forced on us, like it or not.
1. everywhere in "wealth of nations" that adam smith makes a general claim about prosperity, it always includes the rider that population must be continuously growing. even today, there is no credible economic model to show that human population decline can result in steady or increasing prosperity.
2. everywhere that realistic climate change adaptation is discussed, the rapid shift away from fossil fuels is projected to result in serious economic hardship for many sectors, if not the entire economy.
there is no credible future scenario that does not show continued population growth and increasing total consumption of fossil fuels for at least the next four decades.
in the end, population will peak, and fossil fuel consumption will decline, and we'll face the inevitable economic and social costs spread across billions more people and a planet incalculably worse off than it is now. then change will be forced on us, like it or not.
4
But things have changed, we no longer need or want an increasing population to create wealth. Robots can and do that very well, better than humans in many cases.
1
So much talk about coal in the last few weeks primarily in the context of the presidential campaign. Why Trump is insisting that we, as a nation, continue to support and expand mining in the name of protecting less than 100,00 jobs is baffling.
I come from a long line of coal workers - thankfully my father left the area, met and married my mother, and raised all of us kids to understand that education was the key to our future.
Meanwhile, we've lost my great grandfather, grandfather, several uncles, and many more cousins to black lung which incidentally is on the rise.
I understand that people are afraid of change. I know this first hand every time we visit our relatives in coal country. But that's no excuse for our politicians to continue enabling an industry that isn't healthy on so many levels.
I come from a long line of coal workers - thankfully my father left the area, met and married my mother, and raised all of us kids to understand that education was the key to our future.
Meanwhile, we've lost my great grandfather, grandfather, several uncles, and many more cousins to black lung which incidentally is on the rise.
I understand that people are afraid of change. I know this first hand every time we visit our relatives in coal country. But that's no excuse for our politicians to continue enabling an industry that isn't healthy on so many levels.
7
My ancesters are also gone.
2
@ Kris, its more than just the coal miners who will lose their jobs, its the loss of cheap electricity that goes into nearly all manufacturing. High electric bills will make U.S. less able to keep high paying manufacturing jobs. Look at California for example, a high use residential consumer pays $0.35 per kilowatt hour!
1
Not baffling to an educated person. Eliminating coal is foolish especially export markets.
1
Harsh, I know, but jobs should never outweigh ecology. Everyone alive today who works in coal knew, or have no excuse for not knowing, that it was a dying industry. Who, in their right mind, decided to go to work in a coal mine? I have no sympathy for them.
In Germany the labor unions still are powerful, in America, I suspect it is the lobby paying our representatives to keep mines open. Profit should never outweigh ecology. The owners should have known that their investments would stop returning profit and planned accordingly.
We are subsidizing lassitude, and everyone, including earth, is suffering for it.
In Germany the labor unions still are powerful, in America, I suspect it is the lobby paying our representatives to keep mines open. Profit should never outweigh ecology. The owners should have known that their investments would stop returning profit and planned accordingly.
We are subsidizing lassitude, and everyone, including earth, is suffering for it.
10
Well yea of course. I mean so what my kids go without dinner. As long as mother earth is ok then anything you do to screw my family is ok.
It's easy for someone on the outside to look in and criticize peoples job choices. If you don't live in coal country, you have no idea of the economic factors driving the decisions to work in the dying industry. You can't just "work somewhere else" or "move where jobs are better". Poor people don't have that luxury.
1
Keep remembering that when you're freezing in the dark.
1
Solar and wind generated electricity on small scale (the roof of a Walmart superstore, for example) can be produced in the U.S. and delivered to the building's distribution panel for perhaps 6 to 8 cents per kWh. From the grid, that required electricity will probably cost in the range of 10 to 12 cents.
Of course some power is required when no renewable energy is available. It could be pulled from on-site storage. Cost for storing and recovering energy from batteries available today (Tesla Powerwall) is in the range of 15 cents per kWh. Weighted average cost for a 24 hour cycle, perhaps 10 to 12 cents using solar and battery. That is, use some energy immediately as it comes off the roof, store some in a battery, and then use it later before the sun comes up again.
Need for base load was a 20th century story. The base load need today and in the improving storage technology future is myth.
Mr. Porter please take a closer look at the clean technology that's available today, off the shelf. That technology is cost competitive now and improving rapidly. Workers in this old fossil fuel industry should be cared for, but continuing to buy their more expensive and environmentally disastrous product is nonsense.
Of course some power is required when no renewable energy is available. It could be pulled from on-site storage. Cost for storing and recovering energy from batteries available today (Tesla Powerwall) is in the range of 15 cents per kWh. Weighted average cost for a 24 hour cycle, perhaps 10 to 12 cents using solar and battery. That is, use some energy immediately as it comes off the roof, store some in a battery, and then use it later before the sun comes up again.
Need for base load was a 20th century story. The base load need today and in the improving storage technology future is myth.
Mr. Porter please take a closer look at the clean technology that's available today, off the shelf. That technology is cost competitive now and improving rapidly. Workers in this old fossil fuel industry should be cared for, but continuing to buy their more expensive and environmentally disastrous product is nonsense.
1
Fans on our car antennae.
1
Sorry I think this is pure fantasy, the holy grail of the passive renewable only dogma. How will all of the Tesla batteries and solar panels get manufactured? China burns more Coal than everyone else combined because Chine makes all our stuff. The Apple computer I am typing this on was made with Coal.
Passive renewable generation has not even made a small scratch in the hegemony of Fossil fuel use. And there will be more people and people are raised out of poverty by energy use, it's a direct corollary.
Passive renewable generation has not even made a small scratch in the hegemony of Fossil fuel use. And there will be more people and people are raised out of poverty by energy use, it's a direct corollary.
6
Well Gee base load will be with us as long as we have the current variety of grid, thinking otherwise is ignorant.
1
Even for renewable supporters some physical realities intervene in realizing substitution of coal. Because of their intermittency wind and solar need back-up options that can be called upon to make up for the uncertainty of power from renewables. In the US natural gas is an option that is relatively inexpensive, abundant and is widely used. In countries like India that options is very limited. A second option is to install energy storage such as batteries or pumped hydro power. Batteries are expensive for now although they are coming down in price, and hydropower is limited by geography and vagaries of weather. Additionally, all electrical grids need a virtual flywheel that will keep the momentum of the grid if the power is lost or fluctuates even for a fraction of a second. This is needed to keep electricity at the requisite frequency and voltage level. Absence such inertia, usually provided by rotating generators using coal, gas or hydro plants, a grid can collapse. The US has had many notable blackouts because of grid collapse. As more coal plants disappear, as is happening in the US, the need for inertia is being increasingly fulfilled by natural gas or hydro plants. Other countries cannot match that diversity and going 100% renewables is not an option until they have inexpensive energy storage. The bottom line is unless cheaper options exist for substituting energy from coal and providing the grid inertia, coal may be a necessary evil one has to depend on.
11
"The Challenge of Cutting Coal Dependence...
It won’t be easy to get rid of coal."
Translation: Our momentum is slowing because too many have discovered the fraud that is replacing heating, transportation and energy generation systems.
Save
It won’t be easy to get rid of coal."
Translation: Our momentum is slowing because too many have discovered the fraud that is replacing heating, transportation and energy generation systems.
Save
2
Did you ever hear of NUCLEAR POWER?
12
people are hysterical about th 3 accidents which occurred
nuclear power is unfortunately a dead issue
1
The problem with nuclear power is that it's expensive, significantly more so than distributed solar in many locations. Read about the Hinkley Point project in the UK to get a feel for the real world cost of nuclear generated electricity.
Solar with the necessary storage to deal with its intermittency is lower cost now and continuing to fall in cost.
Solar with the necessary storage to deal with its intermittency is lower cost now and continuing to fall in cost.
2
Nuclear power is inexpensive if Co2 is priced according to the value of the only known habitable atmosphere.
Nuclear power actually displaces Fossil fuel use, in a policy environment where the first mover is if the power source generates quantities for modern society without producing Co2 Nuclear is the hands down winner.
A Star Trek future doesn't run on wind.
Nuclear power actually displaces Fossil fuel use, in a policy environment where the first mover is if the power source generates quantities for modern society without producing Co2 Nuclear is the hands down winner.
A Star Trek future doesn't run on wind.
1
If you look closely what is happening with nuclear and wind energy, Germany is more of a NIMBY (not in my back yard) country than "the greenest of green countries": (a) Post-Fukushima phasing out German reactors means Germany is still nuclear powered, but only by France. (b) Try to build transmission lines to carry the wind power from the north, good luck with the property owners!
If only the Times could remember their own articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/business/energy-environment/germanys-c...
If only the Times could remember their own articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/business/energy-environment/germanys-c...
13
tRump and other conservatives love to pander to coal miners. If coal mining is that great an industry, answer this: why have the coal-mining regions remained so desperately poor for so long, even through the good times?
6
Coal is a cheap source of energy that contributes to the comfort, dietary intake and winter warmth our our nation's senior citizens.
1
I think the story is a little more complicated than that. At one time, coal miners were some of the most highly paid industrial workers in the world, and spent their money locally, raising the incomes of everyone around them. The areas are impoverished because of the boom-bust character of an economy based entirely on natural resources. It is also because when coal is out of favor, the lords of the industry, who wouldn't lower themselves to live in the areas where their money is being made, have no understanding of or concern for their workforce. Many of these communities cannot be diversified, because they are located in geographically isolated areas where the terrain limits their economic options, yet the people there are very attached to their land, their communities. Everything they own is there, and there are no buyers for their homes. Coal communities bear more resemblance to native american tribes than to other groups of industrial workers.
2
I see so many criticisms of Germany, yet the last I heard, Germany uses 30% less energy per person as compared to the US. Instead of dryers, we us racks to hang our clothing to dry. Instead of air-conditioners, we use window covers and awnings to keep our houses cool during the summer. US buildings (airports, malls) are over.refrigerated to the point that the average human being (e.g., me) has to put a sweater on to feel comfortable in an air-conditioned building in the US.
Germany is not perfect, but at least we are making an attempt. The US?
Germany is not perfect, but at least we are making an attempt. The US?
47
We'd prefer not to triple our electric rates in service to a failed global warming hypothesis, thank you so much.
1
Unfortunately all of that effort has not accomplished any meaningful reduction of Germany's Co2 emissions. The USA has actually rolled out a vast potrfolio of Wind and Solar I believe we are #1 or #2 in the world as far as passive renewable installed base goes. And unfortunately all of the installed US base of Wind and Solar has not amounted to more than about 6% of our electricity needs.
The energy problem is vast beyond daily human comprehension.
The energy problem is vast beyond daily human comprehension.
The US is the last country to lecture anyone on energy efficiency and consumption. Go to California, Arizona, Texas...anywhere sunny and hot. The preference is still to throw clothes in a dryer several times a week. Then complain about bills. And thats just a tiny example.
7
“Learn a new trade.”
Sincerely,
Whalers, Lamplighters, Elevator Operators, Milkmen, and Switchboard Operators
Sincerely,
Whalers, Lamplighters, Elevator Operators, Milkmen, and Switchboard Operators
26
How about YOU, Dave Evans?
What do YOU do for a living - - that cannot someday be outsourced to the third world?
Are YOU willing to go back to college, at 50 or 60 and "just learn a new trade" -- at $100K for a 4 year degree today?
It is easy to sit in that comfy chair, isn't it -- and tell other people that "your life as you know it is over, and you will be desperately poor and on welfare for the rest of your time on earth"?
What do YOU do for a living - - that cannot someday be outsourced to the third world?
Are YOU willing to go back to college, at 50 or 60 and "just learn a new trade" -- at $100K for a 4 year degree today?
It is easy to sit in that comfy chair, isn't it -- and tell other people that "your life as you know it is over, and you will be desperately poor and on welfare for the rest of your time on earth"?
3
Germany has serious self-inflicted wounds that were unnecessary from its Energiewendung, and many of these do not apply (and will not happen) in the US.
The big one is that Germany abruptly shut all of its nuclear power plants, and then not only kept the lignite coal plants going, but expanded their production. At the time the argument for this was that the lignite plants would be converted to CCS ... a "have their cake and eat it too" for the Germans. Had it worked they would have been free of the fear of nukes following Chernobyl, kept lots of Germans working in an area that had been in E. Germany and was depressed, and avoided emitting CO2.
But the Vattenfall CCS demonstration turned into the fiasco they all have, and was cancelled ... and now they are on the hook of promises made, that cannot be redeemed.
This German coal "experience" doesn't apply to the US for several reasons:
* Appalachian coal mining is dying all on its own. The coal is running out and it is too expensive to produce. Columbia can mine and ship coal to eastern US seaboard cheaper than it can be mined in Appalachia. The eastern US coal mining jobs are going away, no matter what Trump or anybody else says.
* The EPA-MATS standard on Hg dooms all but the most modern coal-fired power plants. The rest aren't worth the pollution control costs to meet it. And this is BEFORE any consideration of CO2.
Please read here:
http://tinyurl.com/zkj42xc
The big one is that Germany abruptly shut all of its nuclear power plants, and then not only kept the lignite coal plants going, but expanded their production. At the time the argument for this was that the lignite plants would be converted to CCS ... a "have their cake and eat it too" for the Germans. Had it worked they would have been free of the fear of nukes following Chernobyl, kept lots of Germans working in an area that had been in E. Germany and was depressed, and avoided emitting CO2.
But the Vattenfall CCS demonstration turned into the fiasco they all have, and was cancelled ... and now they are on the hook of promises made, that cannot be redeemed.
This German coal "experience" doesn't apply to the US for several reasons:
* Appalachian coal mining is dying all on its own. The coal is running out and it is too expensive to produce. Columbia can mine and ship coal to eastern US seaboard cheaper than it can be mined in Appalachia. The eastern US coal mining jobs are going away, no matter what Trump or anybody else says.
* The EPA-MATS standard on Hg dooms all but the most modern coal-fired power plants. The rest aren't worth the pollution control costs to meet it. And this is BEFORE any consideration of CO2.
Please read here:
http://tinyurl.com/zkj42xc
12
Why is the challenge of cutting coal dependence an utterly inextricable maze? The answer is coal is the most profitable fuel of all. So long as the argument that private profitability prevails over public wellbeing, capital owns labor power as the only way for socio-economic development and nation-states must not be allowed to buy out privately owned power plants, coal dependence not only will continue but also flourish, if the laboring masses of the world remain silent and even keeping coal and coal-powered plant owners in countenance.
In contrast to generators utilizing coal and indeed all fossil fuels as energy sources, those using renewables are not only expensive to build and install but also losses-prone to investors. Both solar- or wind-powered electricity mills and plants taking advantages of naturally existent forces (or light and air) as fuels can never create any new value for their owners because they hire almost no worker to be exploited for appropriating surplus value, once they have acquired the machines. From the capital personified prospective, they would rather die than invest in renewables. Only the opposite of capital, e.g. the public would want to do so.
The nation-states have to build the solar and/or wind mills and plants as replacements and in the meantime redeem all fossil-fuel-powered plants in order to shut them down permanently. The needed funds to achieve such a world-wide gigantic project are astronomical and should be borne mainly by capital.
In contrast to generators utilizing coal and indeed all fossil fuels as energy sources, those using renewables are not only expensive to build and install but also losses-prone to investors. Both solar- or wind-powered electricity mills and plants taking advantages of naturally existent forces (or light and air) as fuels can never create any new value for their owners because they hire almost no worker to be exploited for appropriating surplus value, once they have acquired the machines. From the capital personified prospective, they would rather die than invest in renewables. Only the opposite of capital, e.g. the public would want to do so.
The nation-states have to build the solar and/or wind mills and plants as replacements and in the meantime redeem all fossil-fuel-powered plants in order to shut them down permanently. The needed funds to achieve such a world-wide gigantic project are astronomical and should be borne mainly by capital.
5
What, if anything, does "must be borne mainly by capital" mean?
1
Cost should be borne mainly by capital because the calamity falls on capital’s ravenousness of easy profit making. Neither hired labors, nor product (electricity) buyers have anything to do with the wreckage wrought by maximization of profit. That capital's churned out toxic gases and made handsome profits on the dirty fuels at the expense of climate change should be held accountable for being the culprit. None can absolve capital from the blames. Any attempt trying to sidestep capital's responsibility will fail ineluctably.
1
Here are some facts which clearly show that it will be a very loooong time before the reduction of fossil fuel GHG will be seriously reduced.
At the 2015 Paris Accord, China, practically the biggest emitter agreed " to peak its CO2 emissions by 2030 " i.e. emissions are likely to keep increasing until then. India, another big emitter agreed to ""increase its tax on coal from $1 to $6 per tonne" giving the impression that it is serious. However under other plans for economic development India plans to India still plans to double coal output by 2020 and rely on the resource for decades afterwards!
As of 23 August 2016, of the180 signatories to the Paris Agreement
only 23 very small states have ratified their agreement_ between them accounting for only 1.08 % of the total global greenhouse gas emissions.
At the 2015 Paris Accord, China, practically the biggest emitter agreed " to peak its CO2 emissions by 2030 " i.e. emissions are likely to keep increasing until then. India, another big emitter agreed to ""increase its tax on coal from $1 to $6 per tonne" giving the impression that it is serious. However under other plans for economic development India plans to India still plans to double coal output by 2020 and rely on the resource for decades afterwards!
As of 23 August 2016, of the180 signatories to the Paris Agreement
only 23 very small states have ratified their agreement_ between them accounting for only 1.08 % of the total global greenhouse gas emissions.
9
George -- take a look at what is really happening in both China and India. You'll see the same realities:
* the government claims of power expansion with coal were crazy, and never were going to happen, for several reasons ... among them...
* Both these countries produce only very low-grade dirty coal, and the economics these governments wanted only work if it is burned with near-zero pollution control. The result is the worst air pollution in the world ... and literally children and old people die as result. The public, even in these countries, won't stand for it.
* China has become the world's largest manufacturer of solar cells, and a major producer of wind turbines.
* China's coal industry is under great stress and is in decline. India is producing a bit more coal, but has cut coal imports far more than its production increase; coal usage is down and India intends to reduce it further immediately. Look here:
http://ieefa.org/coal-decline-steepens-2016-2/
* Both China and India are adding solar+wind much faster than fossil now.
read here:
scroll.in/article/814246/india-is-becoming-one-of-the-worlds-largest-solar-markets-but-is-reliant-on-china-for-imports
* the government claims of power expansion with coal were crazy, and never were going to happen, for several reasons ... among them...
* Both these countries produce only very low-grade dirty coal, and the economics these governments wanted only work if it is burned with near-zero pollution control. The result is the worst air pollution in the world ... and literally children and old people die as result. The public, even in these countries, won't stand for it.
* China has become the world's largest manufacturer of solar cells, and a major producer of wind turbines.
* China's coal industry is under great stress and is in decline. India is producing a bit more coal, but has cut coal imports far more than its production increase; coal usage is down and India intends to reduce it further immediately. Look here:
http://ieefa.org/coal-decline-steepens-2016-2/
* Both China and India are adding solar+wind much faster than fossil now.
read here:
scroll.in/article/814246/india-is-becoming-one-of-the-worlds-largest-solar-markets-but-is-reliant-on-china-for-imports
3
We've blown past the 1.5 target of Paris: “Maintaining temperatures below the 1.5C guardrail requires significant and very rapid cuts in carbon dioxide emissions or co-ordinated geo-engineering. That is very unlikely. We are not even yet making emissions cuts commensurate with keeping warming below 2C.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/30/nasa-climate-change-...
In around 30 years, according to Margaret Davidson, NOAA’s senior advisor for coastal inundation and resilience science and services, and Michael Angelina, executive director of the Academy of Risk Management and Insurance said recent data indicates sea levels could rise by roughly 9 feet (3 meters) by 2050-2060, which is "far higher and quicker than current projections." Until now most projections have warned of seal level rise of up to 4 feet by 2100. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/04/12/405089.htm So, the April projections on what cities will look like in 100 years must be updated -- it appears that NYC will be 15% flooded by mid-century.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/30/nasa-climate-change-...
In around 30 years, according to Margaret Davidson, NOAA’s senior advisor for coastal inundation and resilience science and services, and Michael Angelina, executive director of the Academy of Risk Management and Insurance said recent data indicates sea levels could rise by roughly 9 feet (3 meters) by 2050-2060, which is "far higher and quicker than current projections." Until now most projections have warned of seal level rise of up to 4 feet by 2100. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/04/12/405089.htm So, the April projections on what cities will look like in 100 years must be updated -- it appears that NYC will be 15% flooded by mid-century.
Agreed to try, not to do.
This is a good, thoughtful column with very good insights. We can wail, gnash or teeth and play the woulda, coulda, shoulda game, or we can try to sit down like intelligent people and figure out how to solve this problem. This is not an 'either-or' situation; it's not an 'us or them' situation; and it's not a 'we versus they' situation. This is very much a 'we' situation, and to solve it the thought process needs to start turning to 'we'. That implies that everyone who has a stake in this - the miners, the workers in the coal-burning electric plants, the owners of the plants, the policymakers for the regions/countries in which the plants are located, the people working in the renewable sector, the researchers working on carbon capture and energy storage, and last, but not least, the users of electricity - needs to have a voice in finding the solution to how to quickly transition from coal to another source. Involving all of these stakeholders will require a new and revolutionary approach to decision making and governance. It will require transnational thinking, bipartisan coalitions, compromise and will. And I don't want to hear people say 'this is impossible!'; we need to start saying 'let's make it work'.
10
Until we humans get much, much better at storing electricity, wind and solar will never be more than a small and utterly unreliable fraction of electricity production. Heck, our best minds can barely figure out how to keep a cell phone going all day. Get back to me when we can use solar and wind to light a whole city on a calm night.
18
The energy problem is really what to do with the coal workers. They can work in construction or other jobs. They have a work history, which gives them a good shot at employment. Get the minimum wage to go up and switch coal workers to infrastructure renewal. Start in Germany, if it works get economist and activist to institute it in other countries. If you breathe clean air you are less likely to get lung cancer.
1
Coal miners are UNIONIZED and earn $30-$35 an hour, with excellent benefits. Do you seriously think "raising the minimum wage" will get all of them to quit their union jobs and go to McDonalds to flip burgers?
4
World wide. Being a Coal miner in China is very high risk, especially for women and children.
1
The article, like many in the media, studiously ignores a safe zero carbon emission alternative, namely nuclear power. The main obstacle is political opposition based on misinformation and outdated information.
11
Getting rid of fossil fuels, especially coal, will not require billions of dollars. It will require trillions of dollars. The task is that big and it will take the better part of a century to do it.
Every time we attempt to move in that direction, we can't do this or that because of this group or that group. Now it's 50,000 coal miners.
Easy for me to say, right. I'm not a coal miner. Well, nothing stopped us from getting rid of the textile industry, the shoe industry, the electronics industry, the appliance industry, the toy industry. I could go on.
We are talking about millions of jobs here and many more will be lost to robots. Long haul truckers may be gone in ten years. Uber wants to automate all its cars.
The jobs loss thing makes for good political fodder, but it doesn't come close to the real costs. We keep waiting for the silver bullet and as we do, the climate keeps heating up.
The problem is leadership and the publics lack of understanding of how big the problem is. For instance, the generating capacity of the US is over 1000 gigawatts. That means nothing to the public. The hardware and infrastructure to produce and distribute it took over 100 years to build. Replacing it could take just as long.
That is why we must stop making excuses and move forward. We must commit ourselves to the battle. If we spend a little each year we can get there. But we wont even do that. We just keep doing what is cheapest, for today. Excuses, excuses.
Every time we attempt to move in that direction, we can't do this or that because of this group or that group. Now it's 50,000 coal miners.
Easy for me to say, right. I'm not a coal miner. Well, nothing stopped us from getting rid of the textile industry, the shoe industry, the electronics industry, the appliance industry, the toy industry. I could go on.
We are talking about millions of jobs here and many more will be lost to robots. Long haul truckers may be gone in ten years. Uber wants to automate all its cars.
The jobs loss thing makes for good political fodder, but it doesn't come close to the real costs. We keep waiting for the silver bullet and as we do, the climate keeps heating up.
The problem is leadership and the publics lack of understanding of how big the problem is. For instance, the generating capacity of the US is over 1000 gigawatts. That means nothing to the public. The hardware and infrastructure to produce and distribute it took over 100 years to build. Replacing it could take just as long.
That is why we must stop making excuses and move forward. We must commit ourselves to the battle. If we spend a little each year we can get there. But we wont even do that. We just keep doing what is cheapest, for today. Excuses, excuses.
16
" It will require trillions of dollars. The task is that big and it will take the better part of a century to do it. "
This is hyperbole which is based on your hysteria.
This is hyperbole which is based on your hysteria.
1
Your reaction is typical of the lay public. I'm an electrical engineer. A 1000 megawatt plant costs over one billion dollars. We have 1000 of those. That's the first trillion. Now lets talk about natural gas for heating and oil for transportation. That's trillions more. How about the rest of the world. Renewables are becoming competitive but will ultimately cost as much or more, especially when storage systems are priced in.
I'm not being hysterical. We have many decades of hard work ahead of us to move off of carbon based energy. Just because you don't understand the scope of a problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Sometimes the truth isn't what you want to hear. That doesn't make it hyperbole. This conversion will take many decades and we must get started. It's that big a deal.
I'm not being hysterical. We have many decades of hard work ahead of us to move off of carbon based energy. Just because you don't understand the scope of a problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Sometimes the truth isn't what you want to hear. That doesn't make it hyperbole. This conversion will take many decades and we must get started. It's that big a deal.
14
More hysteria.....
1
While simplistic, Clinton's proposed $30 billion to get people out of coal divided by the 50,000 employees currently working as coal miners works out to approximately $600K per employee. While this is still less of a subsidy than what's given to the US Steel industry, it shouldn't take this kind of money to transition a dying industry.
4
The solution to global warming was presented by an American professor on PBS a couple of weeks ago. If every woman in the world had 1/2 less child the source of damage to this planet: people populating it, would begin to diminish immediately. The US government tax system, rather than subsidizing the environmental cost associated with each additional individual with tax breaks for having children, would need to not only eliminate tax breaks, but to increase the taxation to families who choose to have children. The professor indicated this would be met with stiff opposition, yet here's a solution that points out a blatant unfairness within our tax system. Perhaps a carbon tax ought to be assessed each individual and business. We must start now.
15
Why not change the tax code to eliminate the deductions for more than 2 children and limit welfare payment to 2 children. The US military already restricts dependent allotments to a spouse and 2 children.
3
The problem is PEOPLE -- not coal or nuclear or oil.
We have TOO MANY PEOPLE. Seven billion and growing all the time! The planet cannot support that many people, period.
Trying to make this about coal or natural gas or solar is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
We have TOO MANY PEOPLE. Seven billion and growing all the time! The planet cannot support that many people, period.
Trying to make this about coal or natural gas or solar is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
7
A factor that may be missed in this issue is AI and robotics. Coal mining appears to be an area that robots and AI's could get very good at. This may eliminate most of the remaining coal jobs. Of course, there should be great efforts at education and retraining and support for coal miners who lose their jobs and their children. But a large decrease in the number of people employed in coal mining could make it a lot easier to shift to energy sources that don't profoundly endanger the planet and public health.
3
How much coverage has coal gotten in the last 3 weeks in this newspaper? First there's Declan Walsh hanging out with coal miners in coal country. Well written, great details but let's face it every other media outlet in the US is equally obsessed with coal. Then we get a critique yesterday or so on whether Clinton's $30 bln plan quite adds up. I suppose the global climate change questions seems fresh to you but at least this reader has been aware of this for ages even in Germany.
Could you please write about other and something else in this great land of ours? Please.
Just as a reminder coal employs about 60,000 to 75,000 people in the US spread a few states mostly with small electoral votes.
Could you please write about other and something else in this great land of ours? Please.
Just as a reminder coal employs about 60,000 to 75,000 people in the US spread a few states mostly with small electoral votes.
3
...and hillary clinton supports fracking. this is what it means to be a "progressive who gets things done." Yes we'll stop contributing to climate change, just as soon humans are extinct.
3
She does not. Why say she does?
2
C'mon, Germany's so-called move to 'windenergie' (and other renewables) is a a bit of a falsehood. Their GHG emissions from electricity **use** have actually gone up quite a bit in the last decade, since they're supplanting lost power with electricity from Hungary and Poland, which is mostly derived from (very dirty) coal.
Of course, they look golden if you look the GHG content of their electricity production, but that's bogus.
Of course, they look golden if you look the GHG content of their electricity production, but that's bogus.
14
This is a multi-faceted problem. It's just not about cutting emissions for most, and certainly not for the people who rely on coal industry for their income, and those who are on lower income for cheaper cost. It all has to be addressed,and the needs of all must be met.
2
Coal can only really be displaced by Nuclear power, passive renewables are not doing the job of displacing Fossil Fuel hegemony. There are plans and newer generation reactors which could replace the furnaces in coal plants thus speeding up the change to a carbon free grid. Also nuclear plants employee allot of people at high wages.
The world's atmosphere has to be calculated as maybe our most valuable shared commons, it's the only known habitable atmosphere.
The world's atmosphere has to be calculated as maybe our most valuable shared commons, it's the only known habitable atmosphere.
5
And coal is the ultimate concentrated form of solar energy. Fossil fuels result on only 3% of all CO2 emissions. All the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere quickly becomes limestone. CO2 +CaO => CaCO3.
All the carbon in the world, except 0.16%, is already sequestered in sediments, so it is obviously a very efficient equilibrium-seeking mechanism..
All the carbon in the world, except 0.16%, is already sequestered in sediments, so it is obviously a very efficient equilibrium-seeking mechanism..
1
The fact is that with steep energy efficiency measures, natural gas (and a gradual phase-in of widespread battery backup), and huge investments in a dispersed sustainable energy system, we could easily make huge inroads in addressing our own emissions, pioneering technologies that can be used throughout the rest of the developing world (which follows our lead and has for decades), and stimulating our underpaid, underemployed economy. It's perfectly scientifically plausible, since our current consumption is vastly higher than it needs to be to sustain our lifestyle and we have huge coasts and mountains and plains in our bountifully, bountifully blessed nation. Inflation is not high, and this could easily be achieved to a significant degree through tightening regulation and fiscal stimulus.
Why don't we do this? The actions of evil forces. Powerful entrenched fossil fuel interests that have a long record of crushing threats to their wealth and plundering the land. Powerful fabulously wealthy interests irrationally fear inflation and don't want a federal government with teeth.
We need to wake up and fight back and save our country! For heaven's sake, what's the plan, just let the entire Global South fall apart and send surge after surge of refugees into Europe?
Why don't we do this? The actions of evil forces. Powerful entrenched fossil fuel interests that have a long record of crushing threats to their wealth and plundering the land. Powerful fabulously wealthy interests irrationally fear inflation and don't want a federal government with teeth.
We need to wake up and fight back and save our country! For heaven's sake, what's the plan, just let the entire Global South fall apart and send surge after surge of refugees into Europe?
2
It's always interesting to watch affluent "progressives" line up to triple everyone electricity bills.
7
Governments need to get far more creative about this. Coal communities are teaming with hard workers, all willing to toil at physical labor for a living. They are also connected to the rest of us with heavy duty transportation infrastructure. They have a smattering of engineers and management personnel in place as well. Why isn't every other solar panel and wind turbine in the world manufactured in a former coal community? All the pieces are already in place.
5
Virtually all solar panels are today manufactured in China, by slave workers who earn about 40 cents an hour.
Those jobs are not coming back to the US, and will NEVER employ former coal workers at anything like their current salaries of about $60K per year.
Those jobs are not coming back to the US, and will NEVER employ former coal workers at anything like their current salaries of about $60K per year.
1
Mr. Porter leaves out a scenario that appears to be increasingly likely: That the unsubsidized costs of wind and solar energy are fast approaching, and are close to passing, the cost of energy produced with coal not taxed for carbon. Several recent utility-scale solar plants have been landed with long term contracted costs as low as $0.03 cents a Kwh. Solar, in particular, is benefiting from a long running, exponential cost decline that mirrors what happened to computers from the 1970s through the 2000s. Of course, that may be because current solar systems are generally silicon-based.
Yes, these power sources cab be intermittent, although the much of the daily duck-curve can be managed with distributed systems and time-of-day pricing. Significant improvements in the cost and management storage technologies (batteries, capacitors, hydro) will be required.
If the renewable costs hit this scenario, then at least in the US the market will speak (as it is already), and the unmanaged (and unmanageable) gusts of market change will sweep coal aside coal, in yet another Schumperian blast of creation and destruction. It could happen faster than we can imagine in an open economy like the US, where market forces (usuallY0 work their will. Those putative free-marketers, the Koch Borthers, will hate it.
Yes, these power sources cab be intermittent, although the much of the daily duck-curve can be managed with distributed systems and time-of-day pricing. Significant improvements in the cost and management storage technologies (batteries, capacitors, hydro) will be required.
If the renewable costs hit this scenario, then at least in the US the market will speak (as it is already), and the unmanaged (and unmanageable) gusts of market change will sweep coal aside coal, in yet another Schumperian blast of creation and destruction. It could happen faster than we can imagine in an open economy like the US, where market forces (usuallY0 work their will. Those putative free-marketers, the Koch Borthers, will hate it.
13
Great comment. This should have been the lede for the article. We have seen coal peak, and it is in the process of being defeated in the marketplace on price. Renewable technology is improving as quickly as semiconductors or networking ( Moore's Law), but is still moving very quickly relative to burning things we dig up from the ground. The better technological solution will win, and the transition might happen fast enough to surprise even Mr. Porter. Yes, the process will take some time, but focusing on coal seems to be another case of the contrarian, "click bait" journalism that too many media outlets are resorting to -- even the NY Times.
1
Arguing that solar follows Moore's law is an indication that you are clueless. It does not and can not.
6
Jacobi -- it is you who is clueless. CT Woods said
"Solar, in particular, is benefiting from a long running, exponential cost decline that mirrors what happened to computers from the 1970s through the 2000s."
He didn't say it was Moore's law, he said it 'mirrors' it ... and this has been so ... so far.
All exponentials run out -- Moore's law on transistors is running out soon. How long the costs of PV will decline on the current exponent is of interest ... but these costs are already so low that it is the "balance of system" costs that are the majority of a grid-scale solar installation now: the costs of everything else but the solar cells!
"Solar, in particular, is benefiting from a long running, exponential cost decline that mirrors what happened to computers from the 1970s through the 2000s."
He didn't say it was Moore's law, he said it 'mirrors' it ... and this has been so ... so far.
All exponentials run out -- Moore's law on transistors is running out soon. How long the costs of PV will decline on the current exponent is of interest ... but these costs are already so low that it is the "balance of system" costs that are the majority of a grid-scale solar installation now: the costs of everything else but the solar cells!
2
There's no rationality in the discussion, as long as faux-environmentalists cling bitterly to the invalid anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, to the point where they even want to criminally prosecute people who disagree with it.
8
Really? Criminal prosecutions too? Where do you get this silliness from? FOX? Rush? The hysterical man in the mirror?
2
The attorneys general of about a dozen states, and the Justice Dept., have investigated criminal prosecutions of their enemies for deviating from the "progressive" AGW fetish.
2
CWP, do you regard the US National Academy of Sciences as "faux-environmentalists"? If you got your climate science information from working climate scientists rather than politically-motivated bloggers and television "news" sources, you'd have a much clearer picture of the truth: AGW is caused by burning fossil carbon for energy and releasing it into the atmosphere as CO2. We do that because fossil carbon is "cheap", but it's only cheap because the "free" market externalizes, that is, *socializes*, the costs of AGW. The prices we consumers currently pay for energy from fossil carbon don't include those costs, but we will all pay them one way or another, whether we call ourselves environmentalists or not.
While some people want to criminally prosecute anyone who disagrees with them about anything, I'd be satisfied if AGW-deniers like you stopped listening to professional disinformers paid by fossil fuel interests, accepted your share of the costs of AGW, and agreed to internalize them with a carbon tax. A revenue-neutral carbon tax on fossil fuel producers, together with a Border Tax Adjustment on imported goods based on the fossil carbon burned to make them, is a solution "market-oriented conservatives" should embrace. For more information, visit www.carbontax.org.
While some people want to criminally prosecute anyone who disagrees with them about anything, I'd be satisfied if AGW-deniers like you stopped listening to professional disinformers paid by fossil fuel interests, accepted your share of the costs of AGW, and agreed to internalize them with a carbon tax. A revenue-neutral carbon tax on fossil fuel producers, together with a Border Tax Adjustment on imported goods based on the fossil carbon burned to make them, is a solution "market-oriented conservatives" should embrace. For more information, visit www.carbontax.org.
1
Wait just a minute... Jill Stein can point to a study that says it can be done. That's enough for me. Ha ha ha
1
IMHO, we gave up on 'clean coal' too quickly. Environmentalists don't like goal because it's not wind and solar. Even if you could burn coal with no emissions, they still wouldn't like it. But it looks like that it's going to either be cleaner coal, or else nuclear, for a long time.
Sure, solar costs are coming down and batteries are improving. But if solar gains 1% of the market a year, the cut-over will take almost a century.
Sure, solar costs are coming down and batteries are improving. But if solar gains 1% of the market a year, the cut-over will take almost a century.
12
The phrase "clean coal" was a politically-motivated oxymoron. There is nothing clean about coal. Sure, you can put scrubbers on powerplant smokestacks to trap the particulates, but today's coal mining dumps the removed mountaintops into adjacent valleys, turning the streams and creeks the color of Coca-Cola.
4
The oxymoronically named "clean coal", even if you remove all the SO2 and particulates, is still going to generate massive amounts of CO2. So it doesn't work. Not an option.
2
Instead of spending money and years fighting not to change things or pretending that climate change wasn't occurring, all our energy industries could have united, formed a consortium, and worked on coming up with a sustainable solution. They didn't and we can see and feel the results every day. It's easier to say it can't be done or that jobs will be lost than it is to do it or retrain people so that they have jobs when coal mining or any other industry vanishes. Shame on us for letting industries get away with ruining our planet. On other hand, whoever or whatever takes our place might thank us for going extinct.
6
The climate is always changing, an always has been. But humans aren't causing it. "Progressives" cling bitterly to their anthropogenic global warming hypothesis in spite of a growing mountain of evidence against its validity.
6
The point is to leave the world a better place than the way we found it. Yes, CWP, climates do change but not at the pace it's changing now. We have records and this is unprecedented. Furthermore, why should we contribute to our own demise as a species if we're intelligent enough to do something about it? Or maybe we aren't and we deserve to be extinct. I'd like to think not.
3
Every other possible explanation for the warming of the oceans has been explored; the consensus on AGW has been established for some time.
Empirical data is not "progressive," the warming oceans know nothing of your political labels. There is no "growing mountain of evidence against its validity." You are engaging in wishful thinking, sadly.
Empirical data is not "progressive," the warming oceans know nothing of your political labels. There is no "growing mountain of evidence against its validity." You are engaging in wishful thinking, sadly.
4
As long as we've known the downsides to burning this stuff you would think we would have resolved ourselves to finding a better solution. From shoving the tops off of mountains to get to it, to piling the mountains of toxic ash next to our water supplies, the cost of this is far more than any reasonable and intelligent society should bear.
35
Government worshiping "progressives" will do anything to increase the power and control of their great god government.
1
Charles W.,
Ignore the progressive monsters under your bed: anyone with a basic knowledge of physics understands that anthropogenic global warming is caused by our habit of burning fossil carbon for energy, incidentally releasing it to the atmosphere as CO2. We do that because the prices we currently pay for fossil fuels "externalize" the costs of AGW. Everyone pays them one way or another, though, as lethal heat waves kill thousands in India and Pakistan, extreme rains flood Baton Rouge and Paris, and rising sea levels destroy ocean-front property around the world. And AGW's costs will multiply as long as we keep burning "cheap" fossil carbon for energy.
AGW represents market failure, and correcting market failures by internalizing externalities is a legitimate role of government. Economists recommend a carbon tax for the purpose. The tax need not account for all of AGW's costs, only enough to eliminate the price advantage fossil fuels currently enjoy over existing carbon-neutral energy sources. If history is a guide, market forces would then drive the transition to a carbon-neutral economy efficiently and fairly.
A *revenue-neutral* tax on fossil fuels at the mine, well or port-of-entry, together with a Border Tax Adjustment on imported good based on the fossil carbon burned to make them, would work without increasing the power and control of government. "Free-market conservatives" should support that! For more information visit www.carbontax.org.
Ignore the progressive monsters under your bed: anyone with a basic knowledge of physics understands that anthropogenic global warming is caused by our habit of burning fossil carbon for energy, incidentally releasing it to the atmosphere as CO2. We do that because the prices we currently pay for fossil fuels "externalize" the costs of AGW. Everyone pays them one way or another, though, as lethal heat waves kill thousands in India and Pakistan, extreme rains flood Baton Rouge and Paris, and rising sea levels destroy ocean-front property around the world. And AGW's costs will multiply as long as we keep burning "cheap" fossil carbon for energy.
AGW represents market failure, and correcting market failures by internalizing externalities is a legitimate role of government. Economists recommend a carbon tax for the purpose. The tax need not account for all of AGW's costs, only enough to eliminate the price advantage fossil fuels currently enjoy over existing carbon-neutral energy sources. If history is a guide, market forces would then drive the transition to a carbon-neutral economy efficiently and fairly.
A *revenue-neutral* tax on fossil fuels at the mine, well or port-of-entry, together with a Border Tax Adjustment on imported good based on the fossil carbon burned to make them, would work without increasing the power and control of government. "Free-market conservatives" should support that! For more information visit www.carbontax.org.
4
What qualifies Germany--a country with almost half its energy generated from coal--to be called the "greenest of green" countries. You only have to go as far as France next door to find a country doing far more to reduce carbon with their nuclear program. I understand they are investing in solar and wind, but those are far from useful on a global scale.
26
"...far from useful.."
And back in the day they said that nuclear would be "too cheap to bother metering."
And back in the day they said that nuclear would be "too cheap to bother metering."
1
We don't owe these people a living.
8
Easy to say from your comfy perch with a good job and benefits.
I would like to know what you'd say if YOUR job was eliminated and you were 45-60 years old, and had no time or money to "retrain" in some high tech field -- which there are no jobs for in your region anyways.
I would like to know what you'd say if YOUR job was eliminated and you were 45-60 years old, and had no time or money to "retrain" in some high tech field -- which there are no jobs for in your region anyways.
4
If you run the numbers for power emissions over the next 100 years the only thing that really matters is keeping China, India, and Africa from burning coal as their economies ramp up.
That is what really matters. All the focus on wealthy economies who can afford to reduce coal use is misplaced.
The world must make clean energy a better solution economically than coal. The focus should be on making the economics of clean energy work for China, India, and Africa.
People should be advocating for advancements in energy technology instead of using coal as culture war bludgeon.
That is what really matters. All the focus on wealthy economies who can afford to reduce coal use is misplaced.
The world must make clean energy a better solution economically than coal. The focus should be on making the economics of clean energy work for China, India, and Africa.
People should be advocating for advancements in energy technology instead of using coal as culture war bludgeon.
22
Mr. Scharf's focus on economics is appropriate, because anthropogenic global warming is a cost of prosperity powered by fossil fuels that isn't included in the prices we pay for them. Instead, the costs of fossil energy are paid by victims of lethal heat in South Asia, extreme rainfall in Louisiana and rising sea levels around the world. Already in the billions of dollars and thousands of lives annually, AGW's costs will multiply as long as the world continues to burn fossil carbon for energy.
Economists agree that the most efficient way to solve AGW is with a carbon tax on producers, who would then raise their prices to consumers. Not only would consumers be motivated to switch to available "alternative" (i.e. carbon-neutral) energy, but the tax revenue would be a source of capital to invest in alternative energy supply and infrastructure.
A revenue-neutral US tax on domestic fossil-fuel production, together with a Border Tax adjustment on imported goods tied to their "embodied" fossil carbon, would help drive our transition to a carbon-neutral economy while preserving US industry and keeping overall prices low; and the resulting technological innovations could be exported to help other countries become carbon-neutral themselves.
While China and India are major total emitters of fossil carbon, the US is still the largest per-capita emitter. The best way for us to make clean energy a better solution economically than coal, is to advocate for a national carbon tax.
Economists agree that the most efficient way to solve AGW is with a carbon tax on producers, who would then raise their prices to consumers. Not only would consumers be motivated to switch to available "alternative" (i.e. carbon-neutral) energy, but the tax revenue would be a source of capital to invest in alternative energy supply and infrastructure.
A revenue-neutral US tax on domestic fossil-fuel production, together with a Border Tax adjustment on imported goods tied to their "embodied" fossil carbon, would help drive our transition to a carbon-neutral economy while preserving US industry and keeping overall prices low; and the resulting technological innovations could be exported to help other countries become carbon-neutral themselves.
While China and India are major total emitters of fossil carbon, the US is still the largest per-capita emitter. The best way for us to make clean energy a better solution economically than coal, is to advocate for a national carbon tax.
3
... the Tragedy of the Commons plays out in real time ... China, by itself, is rampaging toward the 6th Extinction by accelerating climate change thru their consumption of fossil fuels ...
12
Germany ditched its atomic power plants and replaced (is replacing?) them with plants using coal. These new coal plants are less polluting than the old ones, but still substantially more so than atomic power plants.
So the "challenge" Germany is facing is of its own making.
So the "challenge" Germany is facing is of its own making.
33
China and India cannot use nuclear power plants either, they are in an earthquake zone: Himalayas have lots of earthquakes, in 2008 China had an earthquake that killed 87857 people, and in 2005 India had an earthquake that killed 80000+ people. Fortunately China is doing research, the majority of solar panels being installed in this country are made in China.
1
Aren't there other things that can be done with coal besides burning it for heat? Oil can be burned, made into plastics or lubricants. How about turning coal into charcoal for trapping toxins and poisonous gases? That would be ironic, changing something that pollutes into something that purifies.
2
"Aren't there other things that can be done with coal besides burning it for heat?"
If someone could develop total 100% conversion of mass to energy, unwanted coal and garbage could be used as fuel.
If someone could develop total 100% conversion of mass to energy, unwanted coal and garbage could be used as fuel.
Coal Gasification merely moves the pollution around, and uses MORE coal than you would just burning it (the coal) to produce electricity in the first place. It's still a matter of energy inputs.
2
German citizens have paid a nearly 100% tax on electricity bills to subsidize the creation of solar & wind energy facilities. All know these sources are not functioning when weather is not favourable; therefore, back-up generation (called peaking stations) is needed along with reliable always 'ON' generation. It is in these last 2 situations that Germans have behaved recklessly in decommissioning their nuclear facilities in the wake of the Japanese disaster. Next, coal fired boilers are not capable of quick changes in output.
Germany's best option to meet both power needs and CO2 reduction is the keep the nuclear plants on-line and retrofit coal fired facilities to burn natural gas.
Germany's best option to meet both power needs and CO2 reduction is the keep the nuclear plants on-line and retrofit coal fired facilities to burn natural gas.
31
Or retrofit the coal plants with newer generation Nuclear i.e. replace the Coal furnace with a modular Nuclear plant. There are plans for reactor designs to do this.
2
Germany has no natural gas -- it buys most of it's nat-gas from Russia.
You've got a lot of misconceptions ... read here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
You've got a lot of misconceptions ... read here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
2
Decommissioning those functioning, efficient and clean nuclear power plants was the second biggest mistake of the disastrous reign of Angela Merkel (the first is obviously letting millions of unvetted Syrian and Middle Eastern migrants into the EU!).
2
The biggest issue isn't retirees. It's producing power.
This piece took quite awhile to get around to mentioning it:
"Finally, even the most renewable-friendly nations have not figured out how to draw more than a modest share of their power from wind and sun — which can’t be counted on to deliver energy continuously. At the same time, coal remains the easiest and often cheapest source of base power. So from Germany to India, strategies to increase the share of renewable energy in the power mix have relied on a coal base."
Wind and solar just aren't available all the time and/or predictably. If Germany and other countries wean themselves off coal and lack natural gas reserves of their own or hydropower, they must import liquefied natural gas or build nuclear plants. Until there is utility scale power shortage, investing in more and more solar and wind power merely adds capacity to the times of day and seasons when they are able to produce power, without making power actually available 24/7/365. Only coal, natural gas, nuclear or hydro can do that.
This piece took quite awhile to get around to mentioning it:
"Finally, even the most renewable-friendly nations have not figured out how to draw more than a modest share of their power from wind and sun — which can’t be counted on to deliver energy continuously. At the same time, coal remains the easiest and often cheapest source of base power. So from Germany to India, strategies to increase the share of renewable energy in the power mix have relied on a coal base."
Wind and solar just aren't available all the time and/or predictably. If Germany and other countries wean themselves off coal and lack natural gas reserves of their own or hydropower, they must import liquefied natural gas or build nuclear plants. Until there is utility scale power shortage, investing in more and more solar and wind power merely adds capacity to the times of day and seasons when they are able to produce power, without making power actually available 24/7/365. Only coal, natural gas, nuclear or hydro can do that.
25
"storage", I meant, not "shortage". Oh well.
1
The current problem is an example of Germany dumping the costs of its domestic politics on other countries. The first attempt to minimise the use of coal in the (then) EEC was the Large Combustion Plant Directive which mandated the use of expensive retro engineering to ensure that European coal fired plants were as inefficient as German ones which had been converted to keep the Greens happy. The current German policy relies largely on buying energy from Polish brown coal generators while at the same time encouraging the EU (as it now is) to penalise Poland. Any Europian Union industrial/energy/environmental policy will get nowhere if it fails to protect German manufacturing.
2
Coal has been, contrary to some 'articles,' made more clean. New plants emit a fraction of the pollution they did, and I truly wonder what the real cost of wind and solar equals. With all of the subsidies enticing anyone that desires to get in on the action, I doubt we'll ever know the true costs, but I'm sure the taxpayers are taking a big hit.
Get off the no coal bandwagon and look at alternatives that make sense. We need coal for now, and most of that used in the US has vastly reduced emissions of CO2. This is especially true since the EPA's updated emission mandates over the last 6 years.