Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.

The drop was “largely attributable to a strong decrease in coal power generation”, Agora said, accounting for a reduction of 46m tonnes in CO2 emissions. Emissions from industry fell significantly, largely due to a decline in production by energy-intensive companies. Electricity generation from renewable sources was more than 50% of the total in 2023 for the first time, while coal’s share dropped to 26% from 34%, according to the federal network agency.
 
There's a lot that bothers me about the quotes and conclusions by Agora in that article and another one just like it I also saw...

First and foremost, their coal decrease numbers don't match electricity maps. Could be accounting tricks, or simple error on one of the others part, but, seems suspicious to me.

How did they lower emissions, according to Agora...
- "Decrease exports" = not helping their neighboring countries get past the Russian gas withdrawal and hangover
- "Reducing energy intensive industries" as if sustained economic degrowth won't cause financial issues... Plus Germans will keep buying those products but from companies in other countries, just shifting the emissions and euros into someone else's balance sheet...
- No credit for warm winters?

But all of this feels like, "see, we didn't need those dirty nasty stinking hobbitses....err... Nuclear plants", when shutting them down was a very dumb emotional decision that made zero economic sense at all.
 
There's a lot that bothers me about the quotes and conclusions by Agora in that article and another one just like it I also saw...

First and foremost, their coal decrease numbers don't match electricity maps. Could be accounting tricks, or simple error on one of the others part, but, seems suspicious to me.

How did they lower emissions, according to Agora...
- "Decrease exports" = not helping their neighboring countries get past the Russian gas withdrawal and hangover
- "Reducing energy intensive industries" as if sustained economic degrowth won't cause financial issues... Plus Germans will keep buying those products but from companies in other countries, just shifting the emissions and euros into someone else's balance sheet...
- No credit for warm winters?

But all of this feels like, "see, we didn't need those dirty nasty stinking hobbitses....err... Nuclear plants", when shutting them down was a very dumb emotional decision that made zero economic sense at all.

I think that

Despite this fall in coal reliance, the thinktank said, “most of the emissions cuts in 2023 are not sustainable from an industrial or climate policy perspective”.

Müller said: “The crisis-related slump in production weakens the German economy. If emissions are subsequently relocated abroad, then nothing has been achieved for the climate.”

... and ...

In all, the thinktank estimated only 15% of the reduction in 2023 constituted “permanent emissions savings”.

To hit its climate targets, Germany needed a “barrage of investments” to modernise industry and reduce the carbon footprint from heating, Müller said.

... were clear enough to show that the headline doesn't represent the reality of progress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr

Europe's power producers generated more electricity from wind than from coal for the first time in the last quarter of 2023, marking a key milestone for regional energy transition efforts. Europe's utilities generated a record 193 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity from wind sites in the October to December window in 2023 compared to 184 TWh from coal-fired power plants, data from think tank Ember shows. Wind generation during the final quarter of 2023 was roughly 20% more than in the same quarter in 2022, and came despite widespread setbacks for the wind installation sector in 2023 due to high labour, materials and financing costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrGriz and ggies07

America’s greenhouse gas pollution from energy and industrial activities fell by 1.9% in 2023 compared to the year before, according to energy research firm the Rhodium Group. This marks the first time since the pandemic that carbon emissions have dropped. But perhaps more importantly, the reduction happened even as the broader American economy grew. “It’s the first time this decade that the United States has hit the important mark of growing its economy and cutting its climate pollution at the same time,” says Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer. Climate pollution from the power sector fell by 8% last year, a greater decline than in any other part of the economy, driven partly by the death of the coal industry, partly by an exceptionally warm winter. But there is still much work to be done: America must roughly triple its pace of pollution reductions to meet its Paris Agreement goal of cutting emissions in half by 2030. “Emissions cuts of that magnitude are probably not feasible,” Meyer says.
 

The American oil lobby has launched an eight-figure media campaign this week promoting the idea that fossil fuels are “vital” to global energy security, alarming climate experts.

“US natural gas and oil play a key role in supplying the world with cleaner, more reliable energy,” the new initiative’s website says.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr
We should probably talk about how global coal usage hit a new record last year and China + India together are forecasted to continue growing for at least the next decade — things that need to change but are currently not

My understanding is that China has a plan to grow out of fossil fuel while US has factions that want to keep us burning fossil fuels.

 
We should probably talk about how global coal usage hit a new record last year and China + India together are forecasted to continue growing for at least the next decade — things that need to change but are currently not

Funny, I read that 2023 was forecasted to be peak coal, and that china's coal consumption was forecasted to drop by 2% over the next 3 years. India's coal consumption might continue to grow, since their electricity needs are still growing (and they don't have a large solar cell manufacturing base), but that could get offset by the reduction in china and the rest of the world.

More importantly, CATL and BYD are the largest battery cell producers in the world, and have both released production versions of Na-Ion batteries - ideal for grid storage solutions. With CATL and BYD at the forefront, China should be installing record amounts of grid batteries alongside their renewables, making it easier to curtail their coal power plants.

Not sure where the forecast for "increased coal consumption for at least the next decade" came from, but I highly doubt it.
 
We should probably talk about how global coal usage hit a new record last year and China + India together are forecasted to continue growing for at least the next decade — things that need to change but are currently not

India is forecast to grow. China is not. China is forecast to peak in 2024. Other parts of southeast Asia will grow.
Solar PV production in particular is going to continue its rapid growth. That's a significant factor in why coal is expected to peak in 2026.
 

The government has set out plans for what it claims will be Britain’s biggest nuclear power expansion in 70 years, despite concerns about faltering nuclear output and project delays. Ministers published a roadmap on Friday that recommits the government to building a fleet of nuclear reactors capable of producing 24GW by 2050 – enough to meet a quarter of the national electricity demand.

Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, said: “Every few months the government makes a grandiose public announcement about future nuclear in the hope that a big investor will believe the hype and step up to fund this 20th-century technology, but it isn’t working. “The energy industry knows that the economic case for slow, expensive nuclear just doesn’t add up, and the future is renewable,” Parr added. “This vague, aspirational announcement with its unevidenced claims of cheap energy is unlikely to change their minds when there are real reactors overshooting their massive construction budgets and showing them the truth.”
 
  • Informative
Reactions: mspohr

The government has set out plans for what it claims will be Britain’s biggest nuclear power expansion in 70 years, despite concerns about faltering nuclear output and project delays. Ministers published a roadmap on Friday that recommits the government to building a fleet of nuclear reactors capable of producing 24GW by 2050 – enough to meet a quarter of the national electricity demand.

Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, said: “Every few months the government makes a grandiose public announcement about future nuclear in the hope that a big investor will believe the hype and step up to fund this 20th-century technology, but it isn’t working. “The energy industry knows that the economic case for slow, expensive nuclear just doesn’t add up, and the future is renewable,” Parr added. “This vague, aspirational announcement with its unevidenced claims of cheap energy is unlikely to change their minds when there are real reactors overshooting their massive construction budgets and showing them the truth.”

Nuclear, unlike solar and wind, dumps heat into the environment like a fossil fuel plant. UK and coastal Europe should counter that by extracting heat (water sourced heat pump) from the ocean for district heating.
 
Nuclear, unlike solar and wind, dumps heat into the environment like a fossil fuel plant. UK and coastal Europe should counter that by extracting heat (water sourced heat pump) from the ocean for district heating.
First the UK would need to build district heating. Not many places have it.

Water use (steam or cooling) is a big problem for some older forms of generation.

In the UK heat from power plants has been used to help grow hothouse tomatoes.
 

A bipartisan energy efficiency bill was indefinitely delayed last fall amid a clash between a major conservative lobbying group and one of the state’s most prominent Republican lawmakers, according to previously unreported emails obtained by the Energy News Network. Just before an expected vote to let Ohio utilities offer voluntary energy saving programs to customers, the Ohio chapter of Americans for Prosperity issued a “key vote alert” on Oct. 9, encouraging state House leadership to pull the bill and urging members to vote “no” if it came to the floor. “[T]he last thing Ohioans need is another mandatory program being foisted upon them,” said the alert. But the programs allowed by the bill would be voluntary, and in addition to that mischaracterization, the group claimed they could cost consumers five times more than what the bill would let utilities charge.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: DrGriz

The underlying bad news is that the wind industry is in crisis.
 
First the UK would need to build district heating. Not many places have it.

Water use (steam or cooling) is a big problem for some older forms of generation.

In the UK heat from power plants has been used to help grow hothouse tomatoes.

Looks like NY is building a district heating system. Octovalve for the city, makes sense! With the pipes being underground, you can also take advantage of some features of ground sourced heat pump.

New York will replace gas pipelines to pump clean heat into buildings

I still think we should pump in sea water for heating/cooling.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr

A lawsuit in a U.S. court is accusing American oil and gas producers, including Hess, Pioneer Natural Resources and Occidental Petroleum, of price-fixing by conspiring to reduce production.

The lawsuit alleges that these companies have for years "collectively coordinated their production decisions, leading to production growth rates lower than would be seen in a competitive market".

In a Tuesday statement carried by Reuters, the Plaintiffs' lawyer said the companies in question used the past three years to follow an approach of production discipline, which guaranteed that Americans would pay higher gas prices at the pump.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: fhteagle