3 ms·

Coal consumption has already peaked in the USA, France, UK, Canada, (probably) China, and a number of other countries. Emissions intensity and absolute emission

Coal consumption has already peaked in the USA, France, UK, Canada, (probably) China, and a number of other countries. Emissions intensity and absolute emissions from the electricity sector has already peaked in multiple countries. The cost of electrifying automobiles and generating low-emissions renewable electricity is much lower than a generation ago. On the other hand, global fossil fuel use has not peaked yet. Global population has not peaked yet. Many countries have worse cost-and-schedule problems with attempted deployments of nuclear reactors than they did 40 years ago. We are barely reaching "maybe starting to flatten out emissions" -- actually trending down toward zero is just a mirage in the distance at present. The opportunity to stabilize the climate just by cutting emissions is now in the past. I feel like humanity is moving toward making the changes it needs, and has a better toolset for those changes than before, but is changing much slower and later than it should have. We're out of completely safe options and have to try to navigate between various risky options. I can understand the perspective of people who feel like we're acting too late and there is no chance of industrial civilization surviving into the 22nd century, even though I don't share that perspective.

joe_the_user 8y ago
On the other hand, global fossil fuel use has not peaked yet. Global population has not peaked yet. Indeed, but if solar power is now the preferred energy source, solar power could be being used for all new energy need as well as help us cut back on fossil fuel's original usage. But it's not. That's a world-killing problem. What we're out of is laize faire options. Neither sequestering nor dramatic winding down of fossil fuel consumption is going to happen without a world level authority dictating things. Sadly, that seems unlikely.
- adrianN 8y ago
  Solar power is not the preferred energy source before we figured out storage. Just because the marginal cost of adding a watt of solar is currently lower than adding a watt of coal that doesn't mean that we can switch off coal plants and replace them with solar.
- astrodust 8y ago
  > Sadly, that seems unlikely. Although it seems unlikely today, a military coalition to enforce stricter emissions standards may be something that comes together in the future. Unfortunately the only parties interested in winding down fossil fuel use are Europe and China. If Europe is further disrupted by the infusion of right-wing politics, that might leave China going it alone. At some point this will tip from "wouldn't it be nice" to "this is a battle for survival". A tactical strike on coal plants or other sources of egregious carbon emission seems ridiculous today, but it might be no different than striking a nuclear weapons lab is, something that's got the potential to cause immense harm that needs to be eliminated. That's not a bright future at all.
sopooneo 8y ago
When you say that coal consumption has already peaked in the USA, how do you know that? What is to say that next year we won't be using more coal per day than we are now?
- philipkglass 8y ago
  Coal consumption for power in 2017 was 36% lower than in 2008: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36812 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36812 Coal consumption in 2018 is on track for a 4% decline below 2017: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/coal.php https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/coal.php That same short-term outlook predicts a further 5% drop in 2019 over 2018. It is at least physically possible that the US could consume more coal in 2019 than in 2018, though only a sucker would take that bet. But it's not even in the realm of possibility for the US to consume an all-time-high amount of coal in 2019, greater than 2008. Too many coal plants have already been shut down and scrapped since 2008. It takes years to build a new plant. There would be years of advance warning if the US were going to reach a new peak of coal consumption, because there would have to be a large wave of new coal plant construction first.
  - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
    Renewable energy saw a ~30% growth from 2008 to 2017, but in percentage points of the total energy consumption, that's only a 5%-point increase. The remaining 30%-point reduction in coal consumption was covered primarily by increased natural gas usage.
joe_the_user 8y ago
We're out of completely safe options and have to try to navigate between various risky options. Another way to put this - we're not out of safe options if we're not doing the safe options. We may need to do risky options once we are fully engaged in doing the safe option but today, now, we have not yet acquired the ability to even do the safe options consistently. Sure, maybe the risky options will be necessary but if efforts to do the safe get pissed away with corrupt deceptions, how are we expecting efforts to do the risky efforts won't suffer the safe fate? That some amount of CO2 production is being reduced almost at random isn't much of an argument that human society has the ability to choose a path and follow it effectively. How many fake versions of sequestering do you think scammers will come up with if the money ever appears? A regulatory body capable of doing CO2 reduction might have the competence to then regulate sequestering. Random activity by supposedly concerned citizens or something just invites abuse.

joe_the_user 8y ago

On the other hand, global fossil fuel use has not peaked yet. Global population has not peaked yet. Indeed, but if solar power is now the preferred energy source, solar power could be being used for all new energy need as well as help us cut back on fossil fuel's original usage. But it's not. That's a world-killing problem. What we're out of is laize faire options. Neither sequestering nor dramatic winding down of fossil fuel consumption is going to happen without a world level authority dictating things. Sadly, that seems unlikely.

adrianN 8y ago
Solar power is not the preferred energy source before we figured out storage. Just because the marginal cost of adding a watt of solar is currently lower than adding a watt of coal that doesn't mean that we can switch off coal plants and replace them with solar.
astrodust 8y ago
> Sadly, that seems unlikely. Although it seems unlikely today, a military coalition to enforce stricter emissions standards may be something that comes together in the future. Unfortunately the only parties interested in winding down fossil fuel use are Europe and China. If Europe is further disrupted by the infusion of right-wing politics, that might leave China going it alone. At some point this will tip from "wouldn't it be nice" to "this is a battle for survival". A tactical strike on coal plants or other sources of egregious carbon emission seems ridiculous today, but it might be no different than striking a nuclear weapons lab is, something that's got the potential to cause immense harm that needs to be eliminated. That's not a bright future at all.

sopooneo 8y ago

When you say that coal consumption has already peaked in the USA, how do you know that? What is to say that next year we won't be using more coal per day than we are now?

philipkglass 8y ago
Coal consumption for power in 2017 was 36% lower than in 2008: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36812 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36812 Coal consumption in 2018 is on track for a 4% decline below 2017: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/coal.php https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/coal.php That same short-term outlook predicts a further 5% drop in 2019 over 2018. It is at least physically possible that the US could consume more coal in 2019 than in 2018, though only a sucker would take that bet. But it's not even in the realm of possibility for the US to consume an all-time-high amount of coal in 2019, greater than 2008. Too many coal plants have already been shut down and scrapped since 2008. It takes years to build a new plant. There would be years of advance warning if the US were going to reach a new peak of coal consumption, because there would have to be a large wave of new coal plant construction first.
- semi-extrinsic 8y ago
  Renewable energy saw a ~30% growth from 2008 to 2017, but in percentage points of the total energy consumption, that's only a 5%-point increase. The remaining 30%-point reduction in coal consumption was covered primarily by increased natural gas usage.

joe_the_user 8y ago

We're out of completely safe options and have to try to navigate between various risky options. Another way to put this - we're not out of safe options if we're not doing the safe options. We may need to do risky options once we are fully engaged in doing the safe option but today, now, we have not yet acquired the ability to even do the safe options consistently. Sure, maybe the risky options will be necessary but if efforts to do the safe get pissed away with corrupt deceptions, how are we expecting efforts to do the risky efforts won't suffer the safe fate? That some amount of CO2 production is being reduced almost at random isn't much of an argument that human society has the ability to choose a path and follow it effectively. How many fake versions of sequestering do you think scammers will come up with if the money ever appears? A regulatory body capable of doing CO2 reduction might have the competence to then regulate sequestering. Random activity by supposedly concerned citizens or something just invites abuse.