15 ms·
Big Coal Plants Begin to Close
- rossdavidh 7y agoThe coal industry is, over the next decade, going to go the way of Venezuela, and the parts of America still dependent on it economically will go with it. We are not ready.
- CydeWeys 7y agoIt feels like it's already mostly gone this way; the vast majority of the coal-associated jobs (those involved in mining) are already gone. Automation plus large closures already gutted the industry.
- JauntTrooper 7y agoYeah. There are only ~80,000 coal miners in the US now, which is 0.06% of the full-time employee population.
- tasty_freeze 7y agoAccording to wikipedia [1], the figure is 50,000. The peak headcount was 883,000, but due to mechanization, those 50,000 way out-produce those 883,000. Looking at the graph on that page, coal production is down but is still higher than what it was 50 years ago. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Stat...
- rkimmel 7y agoI’m ready to breathe clean air though.
- isostatic 7y ago> the parts of America still dependent on it economically will go with it. We are not ready. And you'll never be. You didn't learn from the lessons in the UK of the 60s through 80s when output dropped dramatically. It's taken decades of EU investment for places like the Welsh valleys to begin to recover.
- adrianN 7y agoTime to retrain the coal workers to build wind turbines instead. We'll need a lot of those in the next ten to twenty years.
- StavrosK 7y agoBetter yet, nuclear plants.
- adrianN 7y agoIf you look at how long it takes to build a nuclear plant and compare it to the carbon budget we have left you'll find out that you can't build enough nuclear plants in the remaining time.
- StavrosK 7y agoThat's assuming we won't get better at building them. Also, wind/solar have terrible energy density and are very bursty, so it sounds like we're screwed.
- pfdietz 7y agoGiven the history of the industry, that's a good assumption. Solar and wind are cheap and are getting cheaper, which will make up for a lot of intermittency. If you want a career in energy, look into ways to exploit intermittent cheap sources. There's free money waiting to be picked up if you can do that.
- wahern 7y agoAmericans are just slow. The Japanese and South Koreans can build nuclear plants in a jiffy: https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/2027347/south-korea-second-fastest-nuclear-plant-building-country https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/2027347/south-korea-s... Maybe that's why Toshiba thought it was a good idea to buy Westinghouse; that they could better manage American mega projects.
- godtoldmetodoit 7y agoArby's already employs more then the coal industry. Coal is already dead, and they are already dealing with it (poorly).
- thinkcontext 7y agoThere are going to be big bills to the taxpayer. Pensions, retiree health care, site cleanup, etc. The Black Lung Fund which operates off of a coal tax already has a ballooning deficit, we're going to be paying for those people for decades.
- perfunctory 7y agoComparing industries to countries is absurd. What do you even mean by that?
- m23khan 7y agothis is great news -- proud of USA and Americans! Americans truly teach the World when it comes to technology and advancement. Also, it is great to see more and more usage of coal in products ranging from toothpaste all the way to food products.
- mav3rick 7y agoSuch a cynical take. Things need to start somewhere. It can't be all or nothing.
- alanbernstein 7y agoAre you talking about charcoal?
- PhasmaFelis 7y agoWhat?
- alexk307 7y agoGood.
- hsbaut76 7y agoYeah, not in Australia though.
- jasoncartwright 7y agoFrom the UK... "A decade ago, coal plants generated almost a third of the UK’s electricity, but in the first half of this year they have provided only 3%." https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/21/zero-carbon-energy-overtakes-fossil-fuels-as-the-uks-largest-electricity-source https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/21/zero-carbon... https://electricityproduction.uk/from/coal/?t=8y https://electricityproduction.uk/from/coal/?t=8y
- maxk42 7y agoIn the US it's approximately 30%.
- philipkglass 7y agoThat was true a few years ago. In 2018 it was down to 28%. Now it's about 24%: "Short Term Energy Outlook -- 2019-08-06" EIA forecasts that the share of U.S. generation from coal will average 24% in 2019 and in 2020, down from 28% in 2018. EIA expects electric power sector demand for coal to fall by 2% in 2020, compared with an expected decline of 15% in 2019. However, planned coal plant retirements will continue to put downward pressure on overall electricity demand for the fuel. Almost 13 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity generation capacity has retired this year or is scheduled to retire by the end of 2020, accounting for 5% of the capacity existing at the end of 2018. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/electricity.php https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/electricity.php
- scarejunba 7y agoIn California, it's 3.3% and that's all imported power that's on existing contracts. We will be free of this very soon https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_sys...
- jhayward 7y agoCalifornia is an outlier, having the advantage of being a low-demand (per capita) state with access to abundant hydro power from the NW area. As well as some of the highest power costs in the US.
- lifeisstillgood 7y agoOne of the great ironies of political life in the UK is that we are now celebrating generating electricity for "X days without Coal". This is of course a positive thing, but it was arrived at by the politically motivated near-total destruction of UK's mining industry in the 1980s (the then right wing Tory government wanted to destroy the heartland support of its left wing Labour opponents). What was a socially divisive, bitter class struggle for years and years, that nearly brought down the government, is now a strategic masterstroke of climate change planning. Life is odd. [#] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984%E2%80%9385) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984%E2%8...
- _bxg1 7y agoHere in the U.S. the right wing has instead managed to convince the Labor demographic that it's on their side.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoHere in the US, the party that corresponds to Labour has abandoned labor.
- Marazan 7y agoThe shift from coal in the UK wasn't caused by the miners strike. Britain kept on using coal post strike and pit closures, it just bought foreign coal (not even necessarily cheaper) instead. The Dash for Gas is what killed the use of coal for generation.
- lifeisstillgood 7y agoIt's a lot easier to stop using imported foreign coal over the last decade than to stop using unionised voting coal mines in your home country - just ask Mr Trump. The decline in home coal use was directly correlated to the strike - and the decline in imported coal use is as much old plant and expensive marginal costs as the shift to gas. At some point replacing the coal fired infrastructure stopped making economic sense - and with no political leverage the whole thing collapsed really quickly. Something we might be happy to learn when looking at oil and gas generation - once solar prices and volume are there the industry just vanishes.
- nathanaldensr 7y agoHow is this submission going to generate intellectual curiosity? It's posted so environmentalists can gloat.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- okmokmz 7y agoIt's sad that there are genuinely people that have this kind of reaction to an article about a reduction in coal plants. Taking care of the environment isn't some weird competition, what would anyone be gloating about and to whom....
- _bxg1 7y agoUnfortunately it's not as big a win as it sounds like. Per the article much of the economic force can be attributed to natural gas, which is better but not much, and most of the really huge coal plants have just adapted to regulation and don't show signs of imminent closure.
- wpasc 7y agoI was under the impression that natural gas was twice as good as coal[1]? 50-60% less CO2. not perfect but far from "not much better" in my opinion [1] https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/environmental-impacts-of-natural-gas https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fu...
- DebtDeflation 7y agoDon't forget the heavy metals (lead, arsenic, mercury), radiation (coal ash is literally more radioactive than some nuclear waste) and particulate matter releases that come from burning coal. Natural gas isn't optimal but it is FAR better than coal.
- jhayward 7y ago> coal ash is literally more radioactive than some nuclear waste Please do not repeat this nonsense. It either compares non-power-plant waste (lab gloves used in isotope labelling, for instance), or is so wrong as to be ludicrous. Used nuclear fuel is billions of times more radioactive than coal ash.
- ecpottinger 7y agoYes, but that nuclear waste is in storage pools. The waste from the coal plants is in the air we breath and the ash-spills effect the water we drink. Or better yet, walk around an operating nuke plant with a radiation detector and then do the same walk around an operating coal plant. I am willing to bet the coal plant will spike higher.
- 40acres 7y agoGreat to see coal phasing out but I feel like the risks of natural gas have not been well publicized, data regarding methane leaks from natural gas is sketchy at best and fracking has almost certainly caused more frequent earthquakes (albeit small on the Richter scale) at sites. Big oil pushes natural gas as a bridge energy, and despite lots of skepticism towards them I think they're correct. The window where natural gas is a plurality of global energy consumption has to be as small as possible.
- mhh__ 7y agoHas there been any earthquakes which are actually significant? No matter how bad fracking is, coal is much worse (the goal needs to be to get China and India onto Natural Gas and then renewables)
- gibolt 7y agoThe Methane leaking is a huge unknown. It isn't regulated, but is known to be quite high for any given site and along pipelines. As it is a very potent greenhouse gas, the effects could be significant. To be clear, both are bad and I hope renewables eat their lunch, breakfast, and dinner in short order.
- ghouse 7y agoThe Energy Policy Act of 2005 excluded hydraulic fracturing from both the Clean Air and Clean Water acts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemptions_for_hydraulic_fracturing_under_United_States_federal_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemptions_for_hydraulic_fract... If it's as safe as we're led to believe, why does it need to be exempted from the laws that protect the environment we all share?
- thinkcontext 7y agoOklahoma put restrictions in place after earthquakes threatened critical infrastructure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009–19_Oklahoma_earthquake_swarms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009–19_Oklahoma_earthquake_sw... I believe the Netherlands is phasing out its industry because of concerns. I also recall reading about problems in China as they begin trying to frack.
- cmrdporcupine 7y agoHere in Ontario all coal plants were shut down over a decade ago. The difference in air quality seems to have been forgotten by many people, but it was a drastic and obvious improvement. The power mix here is now 90% nuclear & hydro, so not emitting CO2 (directly), with the remainder being a mix of natural gas, wind, and solar.
- Fogest 7y agoI am happy these changes were pushed forward before a politician like Doug Ford got into power as I think we know these would have been reversed as we saw with the carbon tax.
- cmrdporcupine 7y agoProbably these changes are what ultimately caused the liberal gov't to collapse as the closing of the coal plants (along with a myriad other factors, including some the previous conservative gov't are at fault for) at least indirectly led to higher electricity costs and the stupid gas plant scandal, and those things were used as a battering ram by the opposition in the last 2-3 provincial elections, until they finally won.
- CalRobert 7y agoIf only you could charge the government for giving your kid asthma, to give a sound comparison.
- Gibbon1 7y agoA carbon tax to me seems like something designed to generate political blowback. The problem is a carbon tax punishes people for decisions they made previously where they didn't have a choice. With the hope that they'll suck it up and find a way out somehow. It's stupid to assume that 'somehow' isn't going to be toss those dicks out on their ear.
- cmrdporcupine 7y ago
- JauntTrooper 7y agoMuch of this is due to the fracking tech revolution of the early 2000s, which dropped the price of energy from natural gas below coal in the US. Shale gas has been replacing coal: https://images.app.goo.gl/zb2bBfkBuAvWePVU6 https://images.app.goo.gl/zb2bBfkBuAvWePVU6
- Gibbon1 7y agoA friends dad who is a retired nuclear engineering professor said said as much, coal can't compete with natural gas on price. He said his former department and others were heavily dependent on grants from coal, oil, and the nuclear industry and those have all but disappeared. Quote: I got out at the right time.
- resters 7y agoKeeping the coal plants online is just another way of paying welfare to the workers and the firms that own them. Taking money from everyone else and giving it to the outdated machines and workers with outdated skills. Note that I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with being on welfare. But as a society I think we should decouple our determination of who deserves to be on welfare from our decision about how rapidly we want to destroy our environment. In other words, let's just pay them normal food stamps or welfare checks, not keep the polluting plants open for decades longer than necessary. For some reason many American workers feel totally proud being the indirect recipients of corporate welfare, yet would feel ashamed simply getting food stamps every month. There is zero difference between the two, except that in this case the food stamps are a LOT better for the environment.
- Ma8ee 7y agoAnd instead of either keeping dying industries alive or giving out food stamps, why not employ the people to do something about ,e.g., US infrastructure. It’s not there’s a lack of work if you have the money to pay someone.
- resters 7y agoEven better, to the extent that the government can identity useful things that need to be done (it has a very poor track record so far)
- raphaelsaunier 7y agoOn the topic of coal, as a more worrying counterpoint, the NY Times just published an article about the actions of the Adani Group in Australia under the clickbaity yet accurate title “How One Billionaire Could Keep Three Countries Hooked on Coal for Decades”: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/climate/coal-adani-india-australia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/climate/coal-adani-india-...
- Havoc 7y agoWouldn't it make sense to build a solar farm there instead. I mean the power lines etc are all there already
- willvarfar 7y agoIn other news, Australia just sank a climate treaty meeting by refusing give up coal mining: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49365918 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49365918 And also on the BBC today, on a lighter note: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-49165336 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-49165336
- golemiprague 7y agoWhy stop mining when there are so many countries that still using it? Why not sell them and make some money instead of some other country doing it? When people stop buying coal Australia naturally will stop producing it but it is just stupid to not produce it if there is a demand for it.
- robocat 7y agoWhy is Australia part of a Pacific Islands Forum? Did they include other Asian Island Nations? Was Hawaii included? I think New Zealand also refused. NZ exports about two small trainloads a day from Christchurch I think.
- sumedh 7y agoWhy is Australia part of a Pacific Islands Forum? Some small Pacific Islands are part of Australia and Australia also provides aid to some of the Pacific island nations.
- thoughtstheseus 7y agoJust look at the companies who provide maintance...they're leaving the business.
- bwb 7y agoNice to feel a little hope and see this :)
- beat 7y agoI've said it before and I'll say it again... market forces are accomplishing what regulation and public awareness never accomplished, in terms of reducing greenhouse emissions. I am so glad the market is on our side for once.
- Andrex 7y agoWe wouldn't be at this point (this early) without large public investments, regulation, and advocacy. Simply saying "oh the market's got it, we cool" is misguided thinking.
- beat 7y agoPublic awareness and advocacy matter more, I think. We're not regulating coal out of existence, or they'd be closing from regulation, not cost. And the public investment isn't what's driving the radical drop in wind/solar manufacturing and installation costs. That's regular economy of scale stuff.
- threeseed 7y agoNot at all. It's been government regulations promoting renewables around the world which have helped drive demand. This in turn has led to Chinese factories ramping up and the overall cost dropping. Same thing with electric cars. The current explosion in new models is being driven by EU regulations not consumer demand.
- alkonaut 7y agoThey are closing because alternatives are cheaper, which has multiple reasons, some of which are policy (subsidies/penalties, publicly funded research in alternatives, stricter mining regulation driving resource prices up, stricter emissions regulations requiring expensive plant upgrades or more expensive new construction etc.)
- beat 7y agoI did a little googling, and new coal plants in the US are no more expensive - price/mwh held steady at $95-100 from 2010-1015 (after which no one built any more). Meanwhile, in 2010-1019, natural gas plants dropped in cost/mwh by about 50%, from around $80 to $40. And onshore wind dropped 71%, from $149 to around $43. Solar dropped even more (88%), from $396 to $49! As an aside, new nuclear dropped from $119 to $90, and there are no new plants planned - small wonder, considering the massive cost and long time frame to build nuclear when wind and solar cost half as much and prices are still dropping like rocks.
- kenned3 7y agoIt can be done, Ontario shut down Nanticoke (largest coal genrator in North AMerica) and repalced it with solar.. But something seems off with the capacity?? The Nanticoke Generating Station is a 44 MW solar power station which started operation in April 2019.[2] Previously from 1972 to 2013, it was the largest coal-fired power plant in North America. At full capacity, it could provide 3,964 MW of power into the southern Ontario power grid from its base in Nanticoke, Ontario, Canada,[3] and provided as much as 15% of Ontario's electricity.