-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.
- Thread starter nwdiver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The Fantasy of Reviving Nuclear Energy https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/...ntasy-climate.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
World leaders are not unaware of the nuclear industry’s long history of failing to deliver on its promises, or of its weakening vital signs. Yet many continue to act as if a “nuclear renaissance” could be around the corner even though nuclear energy’s share of global electricity generation has fallen by almost half from its high of roughly 17 percent in 1996. In search of that revival, representatives from more than 30 countries gathered in Brussels in March at a nuclear summit hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Belgian government. Thirty-four nations, including the United States and China, agreed “to work to fully unlock the potential of nuclear energy,” including extending the lifetime of existing reactors, building new nuclear power plants and deploying advanced reactors.
Pledges and declarations on a global stage allow world leaders a platform to be seen to be doing something to address climate change even if, as is the case with nuclear, they lack the financing and infrastructure to succeed. But their support most likely means that substantial sums of money — much of it from taxpayers and ratepayers — will be wasted on perpetuating the fantasy that nuclear energy will make a difference in a meaningful time frame to slow global warming.
What’s missing are leaders willing to buck their own powerful nuclear bureaucracies and choose paths that are far cheaper, less dangerous and quicker to deploy. Without them we are doomed to more promises and wasteful spending by nuclear proponents who have repeatedly shown that they can talk but can’t deliver.
World leaders are not unaware of the nuclear industry’s long history of failing to deliver on its promises, or of its weakening vital signs. Yet many continue to act as if a “nuclear renaissance” could be around the corner even though nuclear energy’s share of global electricity generation has fallen by almost half from its high of roughly 17 percent in 1996. In search of that revival, representatives from more than 30 countries gathered in Brussels in March at a nuclear summit hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Belgian government. Thirty-four nations, including the United States and China, agreed “to work to fully unlock the potential of nuclear energy,” including extending the lifetime of existing reactors, building new nuclear power plants and deploying advanced reactors.
Pledges and declarations on a global stage allow world leaders a platform to be seen to be doing something to address climate change even if, as is the case with nuclear, they lack the financing and infrastructure to succeed. But their support most likely means that substantial sums of money — much of it from taxpayers and ratepayers — will be wasted on perpetuating the fantasy that nuclear energy will make a difference in a meaningful time frame to slow global warming.
What’s missing are leaders willing to buck their own powerful nuclear bureaucracies and choose paths that are far cheaper, less dangerous and quicker to deploy. Without them we are doomed to more promises and wasteful spending by nuclear proponents who have repeatedly shown that they can talk but can’t deliver.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Strict new EPA rules would force coal-fired power plants to capture emissions or shut down
Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency.
apnews.com
Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a rule issued Thursday by the Environmental Protection Agency.
New limits on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired electric plants are the Biden administration’s most ambitious effort yet to roll back planet-warming pollution from the power sector, the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change. The rules are a key part of President Joe Biden’s pledge to eliminate carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 2035 and economy-wide by 2050.
The rule was among four measures targeting coal and natural gas plants that the EPA said would provide “regulatory certainty” to the power industry and encourage them to make investments to transition “to a clean energy economy.” The measures include requirements to reduce toxic wastewater pollutants from coal-fired plants and to safely manage coal ash in unlined storage ponds.
EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the rules will reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting the reliable, long-term supply of electricity that America needs.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
New Biden administration pollution regulations released Thursday will make it more expensive for energy companies to keep burning coal. The industry is losing two of its most powerful advocates in Congress, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin. And last month’s collapse of the Key Bridge in Baltimore choked off a crucial export conduit for coal producers whose domestic markets have dimmed during the past two decades.
Now the U.S. has a fleet of aging power plants that are slipping toward retirement — pushed on their way by persistent legal pressure from environmentalists who are hailing the new regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency.
But despite coal-fired power plants contributing just 16 percent of U.S. electricity last year, compared with about half two decades ago — and forecasts from the U.S. Energy Information Administration that more than 20 percent of the existing coal power plants will close by 2030 — the sector still wields some political might in Washington.
And there is no shortage of other pro-coal Republicans. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia is the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee. (She denounced Thursday’s EPA rules, calling them the latest plank in an “unrealistic climate agenda that threatens access to affordable, reliable energy.”) John Barrasso, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s ranking member, is running for whip, and his state of Wyoming is far and away the nation’s biggest coal producer.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2023 reports renewables 10 times more efficient than nuclear at Carbon Dioxide CO2 mitigation.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Taxing big fossil fuel firms ‘could raise $900bn in climate finance by 2030’
Levy on oil and gas majors in richest countries would help worst-affected nations tackle climate crisis, says report
www.theguardian.com
A new tax on fossil fuel companies based in the world’s richest countries could raise hundreds of billions of dollars to help the most vulnerable nations cope with the escalating climate crisis, according to a report. The Climate Damages Tax report, published on Monday, calculates that an additional tax on fossil fuel majors based in the wealthiest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries could raise $720bn (£580bn) by the end of the decade
The authors say the levy could be easily administered within existing tax systems. They calculate that if the tax were introduced in OECD countries in 2024 at an initial rate of $5 a tonne of CO2 equivalent, increasing by $5 a tonne each year, it would raise a total of $900bn by 2030.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
I made a mistake and I took the Capability for real Coal Consumption but from a substantial point of view China is still building Coal Plants and by 2030 Coal will be 50% of China Primary Energy.
That's main thing IMO.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
Primary energy (PE) is the energy found in nature that has not been subjected to any human engineered conversion process. It encompasses energy contained in raw fuels and other forms of energy, including waste, received as input to a system. Primary energy can be non-renewable or renewable.
In the case of China Coal of course is non-renewable.
Primary energy is a way to paint China in a bad light, because their steel industry still uses the bessemer process, which can ONLY be produced using coal. Also, a little over 1/3 of china's population are still rural, which relies on coal for their cooking needs.
And the chart they used is spread over such a LONG time frame (100 years!! really?!?!) that it hides how much progress China has made in reducing their fossil fuel consumption these past decades. Less than 17 years ago, coal made up over 80% of their electricty production (China: coal power generation share 2022 | Statista.)! It's now down to 60% and will drop further, DESPITE a growing economy.
But again, we can't force china's policies. What Peter D. Carter is doing is scapegoating. By highlighting how much coal China is consuming, he's redirecting attention away from US fossil fuel advocates like Senator Manchin from West Virginia from domestic criticism. Not to mention western allies like Germany, who actually deployed new coal power plants to shut down their nuclear power plants, and India, which is still at 80% electricity generation from coal and is the world's second largest consumer (will be first if they don't change their policies)!!
You write - "how much progress China has made in reducing their fossil fuel consumption these past decades" - this is patently false. And are we supposed to think coal going from 80% to 60% over 17 years as a percentage of electricity generation is acceptable progress?
China hit an all time high of 17 Mbd this year. This is up from 4 in 1998. Coal consumption for electricity generation went from 1 TWh in 2000 to over 5 TWh in 2022. This is not reducing fossil fuel consumption. It is roughly a 5X in fossil fuels over 20 years. NG consumption is relatively small but about 20X in that time period.
This is not a 100 year timeline - this is a 20. You can use any timeline you want and it will show the same thing. This is not "reducing".
Going from 80 to 60% coal in electricity generation over 17 years is great but about 1/2 of that was on the back of hydro which isn't scalable. It means at same trend line, coal is gone in 51 years. And, again, hydro doesn't scale.
In the same time period, coal consumption has gone down 60% net in the US. Using the same % figures, the US went from 49% to 16% of electricity over the last 17 years. Sure, on the back of NG, but still.
None of this means the US is doing great or there is no reason to do anything because we can't change China. But China is a big part of the problem. Just because fossil interests use China as an excuse to obfuscate and distract, doesn't mean China is doing great.
Since when does being rural mean you need to use coal for cooking? China has been at (or near depending on source) 100% household electricity for a decade. And China can change the way they make steel, right? And that coal consumption does not show up in the 5X growth in electricity generation by coal in the last 20 years.
China is a big problem. The US is a big problem. It is not one or the other. India is the next elephant of course....
China hit an all time high of 17 Mbd this year. This is up from 4 in 1998. Coal consumption for electricity generation went from 1 TWh in 2000 to over 5 TWh in 2022. This is not reducing fossil fuel consumption. It is roughly a 5X in fossil fuels over 20 years. NG consumption is relatively small but about 20X in that time period.
This is not a 100 year timeline - this is a 20. You can use any timeline you want and it will show the same thing. This is not "reducing".
Going from 80 to 60% coal in electricity generation over 17 years is great but about 1/2 of that was on the back of hydro which isn't scalable. It means at same trend line, coal is gone in 51 years. And, again, hydro doesn't scale.
In the same time period, coal consumption has gone down 60% net in the US. Using the same % figures, the US went from 49% to 16% of electricity over the last 17 years. Sure, on the back of NG, but still.
None of this means the US is doing great or there is no reason to do anything because we can't change China. But China is a big part of the problem. Just because fossil interests use China as an excuse to obfuscate and distract, doesn't mean China is doing great.
Since when does being rural mean you need to use coal for cooking? China has been at (or near depending on source) 100% household electricity for a decade. And China can change the way they make steel, right? And that coal consumption does not show up in the 5X growth in electricity generation by coal in the last 20 years.
China is a big problem. The US is a big problem. It is not one or the other. India is the next elephant of course....
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Big oil privately acknowledged efforts to downplay climate crisis, joint committee investigation finds
Internal documents revealed by committee show companies lobbied against climate laws they publicly claimed to support
www.theguardian.com
“For decades, the fossil-fuel industry has known about the economic and climate harms of its products but has deceived the American public to keep collecting more than $600bn each year in subsidies while raking in record-breaking profits,” said Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, who chairs the committee. The documents are part of an investigation launched in 2021 by the House committee on oversight and accountability, which disbanded when Republicans took control of the chamber in 2022.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
From the above mentioned article:
PARIS, Dec 15 (Reuters) - Global coal use is expected to reach a record high in 2023 as demand in emerging and developing economies remains strong, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in a report on Friday.
Demand for coal is seen rising 1.4% in 2023, surpassing 8.5 billion metric tons for the first time as usage in India is expected to grow 8% and that in China is seen up 5% due to rising electricity demand and weak hydropower output, the IEA said.
In the European Union and United States, however, coal use is set to drop by around 20% each in 2023, the report said.
Coal use is not expected to decline until 2026, when the major expansion of renewable capacity in the next three years should help lower usage by 2.3% compared to 2023 levels, even with the absence or stronger clean energy policies.
However, global consumption is forecast to remain well over 8 billion metric tons in 2026, the report said. TO REACH GOALS SET BY THE PARIS AGREEMENT, THE USE OF UNABATED COAL WOULD NEED TO FALL SIGNIFICANTLY FASTER, IT ADDED.
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately international development agencies keep funding coal rather than renewables.
Nice. You wrote "20 years", but had to go back almost 30 for the data to back your point.
"China hit an all time high of 17 Mbd this year" -- isn't that a measure of oil consumption?!
"Coal consumption for electricity generation went from 1 TWh in 2000 to over 5 TWh in 2022" -- this is just bad interpretation. TWh is a measure of energy produced, not resources consumed. A more efficient power plant can produce more TWh of electricity, while consuming fewer tons of coal. Go back to your source and make sure they've interpreted the data correctly.
Let me help you out, here's the statistics of China's coal CONSUMPTION for almost half a century: China Coal Reserves and Consumption Statistics - Worldometer
It's missing the 2017-2023 data, but from other sources, they've basically been consuming 4.2-4.4 billion short tons during that time period. All while manufacturing for the world. Meaning their total coal consumption peaked in 2013. This data is sourced from the EIA, NOT China.
Yes, there are other methods of producing steel, but those other methods are more expensive. Get your suppliers to demand the use of locally made steel, and you might convince chinese industry to make the change. But millions of Walmart shoppers are the reasons why you'll just end up pissing in the wind.
If you truly want to effect change, start by changing the local mindset. The materialistic (and disposable) mindset is still pretty prevalent in the US economy. Waste NOT, Want NOT. If we don't buy it, then China will stop making it.
China has set 5-year plans for itself to increase their renewable energy supply and reduce their fossil fuel dependence (because it's expensive for them to import that stuff as well), so let them execute on it. Don't let the domestic politicians focus so much on China that they lose sight of failing to meet our own climate goals!
Nevada put big battery energy storage where a coal plant used to be
Nevada utility NV Energy's largest battery energy storage system sits on a former coal-fired power plant site and will save customers a lot of money.
electrek.co
No waiting for new lines if you reuse an existing power plant site. Probably saves on site cleanup too.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Oil Going Down While China’s Energy Mix And Emissions Doing A Backflip
China won’t be able to offset U.S. crude oil decline coming from growth of electric vehicles.
www.forbes.com
Similar threads
