7 ms·

The LA Times' title for this article is wrong. California does not generate electricity from coal, however, California uses a lot of electricity generated from

The LA Times' title for this article is wrong. California does not generate electricity from coal, however, California uses a lot of electricity generated from coal. As the article notes near the end, California uses electricity from coal generated out of state. According to SNL, "at times, as much as 50% of Southern California's electricity still comes from coal-fired plants, Steve Homer, director of project management for the Southern California Public Power Authority, or SCPPA, told SNL Energy." https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-34113318-14128 https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-3411331... This really is a reminder that the writers of articles frequently do not write the headlines. That's a big reason why titles of articles are frequently misleading.

tn13 10y ago
Titles are written by click-bait experts.
- dontbanme 10y ago
  Master baiters, you might say!
calcsam 10y ago
The reason is pretty simple: California doesn't have many power plants. I spent a day or two once sifting through California Public Utility Commission archives. California has not approved a coal plant since at least 1978, mainly due to NIMBY concerns wherever they tried to build them.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  I disagree with most things NIMBY, but can you really fault people for not wanting a coal-burning power plant in their backyard given the sheer volume of pollutants released from them? It seems like a great thing that California hasn't approved a new one in 40 years.
  - scarmig 10y ago
    Fun fact: a coal plant releases more radiological pollution in a day than a nuclear plant releases in a year.
    - vkreso 10y ago
      Measured when and on what coal plant design? It's not like all coal plants can be generalised in such a way.. or can they?
      - dsr_ 10y ago
        Per megawatt: see http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-r...
      - howlin 10y ago
        Coal involves burning tons of minerals, concentrating the non-carbon elements of those minerals into coal ash and exhaust. A lot of those other minerals are radioactive or otherwise toxic. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-r... However, to make a fair comparison you should also consider the toxic byproducts of uranium extraction and purification. Coal is not refined in anywhere near the same degree as reactor-grade uranium.
        koenigdavidmj 10y ago
        > However, to make a fair comparison you should also consider the toxic byproducts of uranium extraction and purification. Coal is not refined in anywhere near the same degree as reactor-grade uranium. If I understand correctly, these waste products are liquid or solid that can be stored, rather than dispersed into the atmosphere like coal byproducts. (Of course, storage poses its own technical challenges, like warning people in fifty thousand years not to mess with them, and the Hanford site's current leakage problems.)
- whyenot 10y ago
  > California has not approved a coal plant since at least 1978, mainly due to NIMBY concerns wherever they tried to build them. This seems like a misleading statistic. Since you have looked at the numbers, how many natural gas power plants were built over the same time period? I can think of at least two just in my county.
outworlder 10y ago
According to the same source: > In 2014, less than 5% of California's total energy demand was served by coal and petroleum coke-fired plants, nearly all of it from plants outside the state Which is followed by what you quoted: > At times... So, according to that source, out of state coal consumption can range from 5% to 50%. It doesn't say exactly when the 50% figure was hit, or why.
- biot 10y ago
  Peak use vs. average use. A dramatic spike in usage means you need to get power from somewhere (or put up with brownouts), and on occasion that means 50% comes from coal even if it's only for 30 minutes a few times a month.
- Symmetry 10y ago
  Stocks versus flows. You integrate power over time to get energy. 5% of the energy comes from coal but up to 50% of the power. That means that much of the time the use of coal power has to be less than 5%. Probably but not necessarily much less.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Can you elaborate? I can't remember that month of Physics when we learned how equations relating to power.
    - arcticfox 10y ago
      Average contribution from coal: 5% Max contribution from coal: 50%
    - Symmetry 10y ago
      Power is the rate at which energy is flowing. You can get the same amount of energy by either a large amount of power for a short time or a small amount of power for a short time. A way you could have up to 50% coal power but only 5% coal energy is if you use 0% coal for power 90% of the time but 10% of the time use 50% coal power.
Gratsby 10y ago
Per the article there is one coal power plant still active. It's run by Argus (the sometimes good, sometimes bad company from Arrow) near San Bernadino.
dang 10y ago
Ok, we've attempted to make the title more accurate. If anybody suggests a better title, we can change it again.
- kinofcain 10y ago
  But the article does address both the in-state generation and consumption. It doesn't do a great job of clearly separating the two, but it mentions that both are down dramatically. Here it explicitly refers to all power fueled by coal as different from power generated by coal in-state: "Second, in a report that the agency released last week, California saw a 96% decrease in coal-fueled electric power consumption during the same time frame." And goes into the reasons why this shift is affecting not just in-state generation but consumption of out-of-state coal power: "“What the bill basically said is, if you’re going to sell power in California, you have to be as clean as the power that we burn here in California,” said Dan Jacobson, legislative director for the advocacy group Environment California." It even calls out a plant in Nevada as one of the plants providing power to CA that was taken offline: "For example, the 1,636-megawatt coal-fired Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nev., shut down at the end of 2005. Southern California Edison had a 56% interest in the plant." Even the article that OP links to supports the LA Times article, rather than refuting it.
  - dang 10y ago
    We're happy to change the title to a more accurate one, or back to the original if it's best. But we need user help to figure these things out—it's impossible to study all the articles well enough to get the nuances right.
    - kinofcain 10y ago
      Ok, the original title was accurate and describes what's in the article.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  My suggestion: California's minimal coal-generated elecricity imports fall another 96% Problems with title as it stands: 1. Suggests California has (or had) considerable coal-based generation. It doesn't and didn't. 2. Suggests California's reliance on coal-fired electricity was high. It wasn't. 3. Fails to disclose that a small quantity of imported power has been reduced yet further. It's actually almost a perfectly anti-informative headline. Reading it you'd form a mental state nearly perfectly counter to reality.
fisherjeff 10y ago
> First, the share of California's total megawatt hours of power generated by burning coal dropped from 1% in 2007 to just 0.2% in 2015. > Second, in a report that the agency released last week, California saw a 96% decrease in coal-fueled electric power consumption during the same time frame. That is the steepest fall by percentage of any state. That reads to me like the title is correct but incomplete - coal energy production and consumption are both down significantly.
secabeen 10y ago
Yep. LA uses a lot of power from the Intermountain plant, in Utah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermountain_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermountain_Power_Plant

tn13 10y ago

Titles are written by click-bait experts.

dontbanme 10y ago
Master baiters, you might say!

calcsam 10y ago

The reason is pretty simple: California doesn't have many power plants. I spent a day or two once sifting through California Public Utility Commission archives. California has not approved a coal plant since at least 1978, mainly due to NIMBY concerns wherever they tried to build them.

mikeyouse 10y ago
I disagree with most things NIMBY, but can you really fault people for not wanting a coal-burning power plant in their backyard given the sheer volume of pollutants released from them? It seems like a great thing that California hasn't approved a new one in 40 years.
- scarmig 10y ago
  Fun fact: a coal plant releases more radiological pollution in a day than a nuclear plant releases in a year.
  - vkreso 10y ago
    Measured when and on what coal plant design? It's not like all coal plants can be generalised in such a way.. or can they?
    - dsr_ 10y ago
      Per megawatt: see http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-r...
    - howlin 10y ago
      Coal involves burning tons of minerals, concentrating the non-carbon elements of those minerals into coal ash and exhaust. A lot of those other minerals are radioactive or otherwise toxic. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-r... However, to make a fair comparison you should also consider the toxic byproducts of uranium extraction and purification. Coal is not refined in anywhere near the same degree as reactor-grade uranium.
      - koenigdavidmj 10y ago
        > However, to make a fair comparison you should also consider the toxic byproducts of uranium extraction and purification. Coal is not refined in anywhere near the same degree as reactor-grade uranium. If I understand correctly, these waste products are liquid or solid that can be stored, rather than dispersed into the atmosphere like coal byproducts. (Of course, storage poses its own technical challenges, like warning people in fifty thousand years not to mess with them, and the Hanford site's current leakage problems.)
whyenot 10y ago
> California has not approved a coal plant since at least 1978, mainly due to NIMBY concerns wherever they tried to build them. This seems like a misleading statistic. Since you have looked at the numbers, how many natural gas power plants were built over the same time period? I can think of at least two just in my county.

outworlder 10y ago

According to the same source: > In 2014, less than 5% of California's total energy demand was served by coal and petroleum coke-fired plants, nearly all of it from plants outside the state Which is followed by what you quoted: > At times... So, according to that source, out of state coal consumption can range from 5% to 50%. It doesn't say exactly when the 50% figure was hit, or why.

biot 10y ago
Peak use vs. average use. A dramatic spike in usage means you need to get power from somewhere (or put up with brownouts), and on occasion that means 50% comes from coal even if it's only for 30 minutes a few times a month.
Symmetry 10y ago
Stocks versus flows. You integrate power over time to get energy. 5% of the energy comes from coal but up to 50% of the power. That means that much of the time the use of coal power has to be less than 5%. Probably but not necessarily much less.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Can you elaborate? I can't remember that month of Physics when we learned how equations relating to power.
  - arcticfox 10y ago
    Average contribution from coal: 5% Max contribution from coal: 50%
  - Symmetry 10y ago
    Power is the rate at which energy is flowing. You can get the same amount of energy by either a large amount of power for a short time or a small amount of power for a short time. A way you could have up to 50% coal power but only 5% coal energy is if you use 0% coal for power 90% of the time but 10% of the time use 50% coal power.

Gratsby 10y ago

Per the article there is one coal power plant still active. It's run by Argus (the sometimes good, sometimes bad company from Arrow) near San Bernadino.

dang 10y ago

Ok, we've attempted to make the title more accurate. If anybody suggests a better title, we can change it again.

kinofcain 10y ago
But the article does address both the in-state generation and consumption. It doesn't do a great job of clearly separating the two, but it mentions that both are down dramatically. Here it explicitly refers to all power fueled by coal as different from power generated by coal in-state: "Second, in a report that the agency released last week, California saw a 96% decrease in coal-fueled electric power consumption during the same time frame." And goes into the reasons why this shift is affecting not just in-state generation but consumption of out-of-state coal power: "“What the bill basically said is, if you’re going to sell power in California, you have to be as clean as the power that we burn here in California,” said Dan Jacobson, legislative director for the advocacy group Environment California." It even calls out a plant in Nevada as one of the plants providing power to CA that was taken offline: "For example, the 1,636-megawatt coal-fired Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nev., shut down at the end of 2005. Southern California Edison had a 56% interest in the plant." Even the article that OP links to supports the LA Times article, rather than refuting it.
- dang 10y ago
  We're happy to change the title to a more accurate one, or back to the original if it's best. But we need user help to figure these things out—it's impossible to study all the articles well enough to get the nuances right.
  - kinofcain 10y ago
    Ok, the original title was accurate and describes what's in the article.
dredmorbius 10y ago
My suggestion: California's minimal coal-generated elecricity imports fall another 96% Problems with title as it stands: 1. Suggests California has (or had) considerable coal-based generation. It doesn't and didn't. 2. Suggests California's reliance on coal-fired electricity was high. It wasn't. 3. Fails to disclose that a small quantity of imported power has been reduced yet further. It's actually almost a perfectly anti-informative headline. Reading it you'd form a mental state nearly perfectly counter to reality.

fisherjeff 10y ago

> First, the share of California's total megawatt hours of power generated by burning coal dropped from 1% in 2007 to just 0.2% in 2015. > Second, in a report that the agency released last week, California saw a 96% decrease in coal-fueled electric power consumption during the same time frame. That is the steepest fall by percentage of any state. That reads to me like the title is correct but incomplete - coal energy production and consumption are both down significantly.

secabeen 10y ago

Yep. LA uses a lot of power from the Intermountain plant, in Utah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermountain_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermountain_Power_Plant