3 ms·
Getting the big power plant and mine operators to agree to a 2038 deadline is meaningful. They were involved in the process for coming up with the phase-out pat
by xxgreg 8y ago
Getting the big power plant and mine operators to agree to a 2038 deadline is meaningful. They were involved in the process for coming up with the phase-out path.
I can't imagine Peabody or Koch signing off on a 2038 deadline in the US.
- adventured 8y agoThey don't need to sign off on a deadline in the US, it has been and will go away regardless. That's obviously due to the US having enormous reserves of cheap natural gas. You effectively have one big energy segment happy to squeeze another to death. Coal use will get more and more expensive in the US as its decline reaches a cost inflection point in the near future, if we're not already there now. Every aspect of coal electricity generation gets more expensive as it loses economies of scale. By 2038 natural gas + wind + solar will push coal to well below 10% in the US, without any additional government intervention. If the Feds apply pressure, it'll go that much faster / lower.
- StavrosK 8y agoDoesn't burning natural gas produce just as much CO2 as coal?
- Robotbeat 8y agoNo. It can be about half as much CO2 for the same power output due to natural gas plants also being more efficient. ...this is somewhat counter-acted by accidental leakage of methane (itself a potent greenhouse gas), but not entirely.
- StavrosK 8y agoOh, that's good to know, thanks.
- _ph_ 8y agoNo, to create the same amount of thermal energy, burning gas produces about 30% less CO2. The main reason is, that coal is pretty much pure carbon while gas is mostly CH4, so you are burning carbon and hydrogene. That is also the reason, hydrogene is mostly produced by splitting natural gas and producing CO2 along.