16 ms·

Reducing CO2 emissions by targeting the world's hyper-polluting power plants

289 points by jbotz 5y ago

jbotz 5y ago
According to this article just 5% of the world’s power plants account for almost three-quarters of carbon emissions from electricity generation. I think this may be one of the most encouraging bits of news about AGW that I've seen in a long time. 5% of electric power plants (about 1500 plants) is a lot, but it's a manageable lot. This gives us a clearly defined area of attack with a very high ROI. It seems to say: if we're going to get serious about saving ourselves, start here and go all in. The paper lists the top 10 polluting plants... unsurprisingly many of them are in China and India, but at least one is in Germany. If Germany wants to set an example, there's where to start.
- wrycoder 5y ago
  Germany was setting an example, until they shut down their nuclear and went back to coal.
  - cogman10 5y ago
    That was such a terrible move. It made no sense.
    - edhelas 5y ago
      Don't worry, they are planning to turn off coal completely around 2035… and replace them with natural gas plants imported from Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream
      - merpnderp 5y ago
        It's not like Russia has a long history of having "pipeline malfunctions" during periods of intense international disagreements. What could go wrong with Germans being firmly under the thumb of Putin or his successor?
      - glogla 5y ago
        Yeah, improving nothing as natural gas has similar OC2e to coal (with much smaller CO2 - but the methane makes up for it, to it comes up the same), while giving money to Europe's enemies. Perfect.
      - imtringued 5y ago
        Natural gas will cut emissions in half and the new plans for the coal exit are going to be 2030.
    - zeristor 5y ago
      On the flipside didn't Germany really jump start solar power?
  - defaultname 5y ago
    Fossil fuel's use in German power production is falling faster than their nuclear mix is. They never "went back to coal". In reality renewables now account for almost double nuclear's output at its peak. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2a-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2020-source.png?itok=i-kda7MS https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... Germany is absolutely a great example, even if it somehow became the target for the weird cadre of nuclear boosters.
    - edhelas 5y ago
      They can thanks Sweden, Finland, France and a few other neighboors to provide them with plenty of electricity and hydraulic backup when they need it (no wind at night). France is sending around 2 to 4 GW of electricity (so mostly nuclear) to Germany all the time, "except" when there is plenty of wind, then France is buying for a really cheap price (sometimes negative) what Germany can't use. See https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/les-echanges-commerciaux-aux-frontieres https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/les-echanges-commerciaux-... 2 to 4 GW is roughly 2 to 4 nuclear reactors at 100%, so one/two nuclear powerplants "on an average usage". You can't say that you exited nuclear (or any other kind of energy) when you're massively, and really often, importing electricity from this source from across the borders. And your graph is pretty clear. Germany didn't "removed fossil fuel", they replaced around 100GW of coal with 50GW of natural gas + renewable. To me natural gas is still a fossil fuel (with a lighter co2 impact than coal indeed). And in the end the result is https://www.electricitymap.org/map https://www.electricitymap.org/map 5 to 10x more CO² impact than France per kwh, even with 2x the nuclear plants setup in France (60GW of nuclear in France against 60GW of wind turbines and 60GW of solar panels in Germany).
      - cool_dude85 5y ago
        >(no wind at night) No, wind at night!
      - pydry 5y ago
        The data shows natural gas usage has been pretty much static for a decade: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2a-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2020-source.png?itok=i-kda7MS https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... Germany is also a net exporter of electricity and exported 13.7Twh more than it imported from France.
  - bildung 5y ago
    > Germany was setting an example, until they shut down their nuclear and went back to coal. No idea why this gets repeated here so often, but this statement is simply wrong. From 2013 to 2020 nuclear as share of Germany's energy mix went from 17% to 13%. https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&year=2020&interval=year https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&... During the same time, coal went from 45% to 23%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany So yes, nuclear is 4% lower, but coal is 22% lower.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      > nuclear as share of Germany's energy mix went from 17% to 13% > During the same time, coal went from 45% to 23% Although it's true, it could go like this: Nuclear as share went from 17% to 20%; coal from 45% to 20%.
      - ben_w 5y ago
        Sure it could be better, but it’s neither shutting down all the nuclear nor failing to set a good example about reducing coal-based electricity.
        fsflover 5y ago
        Germany actually is going to shut down all the nuclear: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27961243 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27961243
    - wrycoder 5y ago
      Coal: per Wikipedia: Germany has been opening new coal power plants until recently, following a 2007 plan to build 26 new coal plants. This has been controversial in light of Germany's commitment to curbing carbon emissions. But they changed direction - I didn't know that: On 26 January 2019, [a decision was made] to close all 84 coal plants in the country by 2038...Coal was used to generate almost 40% of the country's electricity in 2018 and is expected to be replaced by renewable energy and natural gas. 24 coal plants are planned to be closed by 2022 with all but 8 closed by 2030. Nuclear: per Wikipedia: A coalition government of Gerhard Schroeder took the decision in 2002 to phaseout all nuclear power by 2022...Within days of the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, large anti-nuclear protests occurred in Germany...Merkel's government announced that it would close all of its nuclear power plants by 2022. Eight of the seventeen operating reactors in Germany were permanently shut down following Fukushima in 2011. German coal consumption has risen during 2011, 2012 and 2013. (but is now decreasing) Germany nuclear is 13%, but most of that is imported from France at this point, I think. So, no coal, no nuclear, hate natural gas - depend on renewables.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Prairie State Energy Station [1] in Southern Illinois is one of these plants. Roughly 200 municipalities bought into it ~10-12 years ago with the promise of locking in cheap electricity for decades. Now, those who own shares of it (both municipalities and electric co ops [2]) are kicking and screaming that they're entitled to continue to operate the plant because it would raise electrical rates for their citizens to retire it early. "Illinois lawmakers are still debating a statewide energy proposal that would shutter the state’s coal-fired power plants by 2035. A local utility cooperative is asking its members to lobby lawmakers to keep it open. Illinois Electric Cooperative has issued letters to their members asking to keep the plants open because they say it will cost utility rate payers more money and provide an unreliable electric grid of power. IEC’s general manager Randy Long says it will also saddle the state with significant outstanding debt: “We believe it is probably going to reduce grid reliability and it’s going to cause good energy jobs to leave the State of Illinois along with the tax base to neighboring states and it’s going to increase our [utility] rates also. In 2035, the Prairie State plant will still have about $188 million worth of debt, and that is still going to have to be paid off. We’ll no longer be getting energy from that plant either, so we’ll have to replace that energy from another source. We are just very concerned about that – the increased costs to our members and also the reliability on the grid, which is really in the forefront after the blackouts we have just heard about in Texas and California recently.”" (my note: it has been proven that the blackouts in California and Texas were not caused by renewables, but by grid mismanagement; solar and wind backed by storage is also cheaper than coal, so this is clearly not about cost but maintaining the status quo) "PSEC started delivering electricity in 2012 at prices well above market rates. Some of its investors resell the energy at a loss, some raise consumer rates, and two backed out of the project. PSEC's original $2 billion estimated cost attracted municipal electric utilities to invest and to sign 28 year contracts. However, as of early 2010 the estimated cost had increased to $4.4 billion, requiring investors to borrow more money and raising the projected cost of electricity to undesirable levels. Peabody in response capped construction costs at "approximately $4 billion" excluding some costs such as coal development and transmission lines. In January 2013, with many municipalities adversely impacted by the high prices, the SEC subpoenaed information from Peabody. In a bid to exit its share of the Prairie State project, the City of Hermann, MO filed a lawsuit in March, 2015 against the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission and the Missouri Public Energy Pool, claiming that its share of $1.5 billion in debt issued to support Prairie State imposed an unconstitutionally high level of debt on the city. Peabody divested its 5.06% stake in the project in 2016, accepting $57 million for its original investment of nearly $250 million. The buyer was Wabash Valley Power Association, a Midwest cooperative." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_State_Energy_Campus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_State_Energy_Campus [2] https://wlds.com/rural-electric-coops-face-uncertainty-with-prairie-state-energy-campus-closure-on-the-table/ https://wlds.com/rural-electric-coops-face-uncertainty-with-...
- criddell 5y ago
  > 5% of the world’s power plants account for almost three-quarters of carbon emissions from electricity generation I don't have any idea for what that really means. I Any idea how big a part of the overall carbon emissions problem that is?
  - icegreentea2 5y ago
    Global electricity production is currently estimated to be about a quarter of human CO2 production (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...).
    - criddell 5y ago
      Wow! Thanks for that.
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      That's shockingly low given the amount I hear renewables pitched as a cure for climate change. Not that they don't help, but if we woke up tomorrow to a completely renewable global grid, looks like we'll have barely made headway into ending climate change.
      - icegreentea2 5y ago
        Right, so there are a bunch of other fossil fuel burning CO2 sources that get lumped into industrial, housing, transportation, and "other" categories (basically, all decentralized fossil fuel burning doesn't get lumped into the quarter I initially stated). A sufficiently capable renewable grid (or cheap enough off-grid generation and storage) could displace many of those uses. Skimming through the page, I'd eyeball roughly 25% (from electricity and heating), 12% (~60% of 21% industrial), 10% (of the 14% from transport), 4% (from the 6% of buildings... note that this is only counting heating and onsite energy production, not life-cycle costs), and say 5% (from the 10% of other...). That works out to ~55%. Agriculture, Forestry and Land use takes a massive piece of the pie at 25% by itself. That alone makes it difficult for renewables alone to make things work. That's why most models for net-zero include significant carbon capture projects, and why agriculture and land-use reform and conservation is so important.
- dan-robertson 5y ago
  Is this 5% by number of power plants or is this 5% of the generating capacity? E.g. maybe these most-polluting plants are just massive and make up 50% of energy generation?
  - icegreentea2 5y ago
    It's 5% of power plants. These plants are massive. The paper does state (and shows data for the top 10) indicating that the largest emitters also happen to be generally more inefficient (in terms of CO2 per power) than their national average (for fossil fuel plans). EDIT: I just wanted to draw out the implications. Based on paper figures, we can ballpark then that those 5% of plants produce on the order of 30-40% of fossil fuel production energy. Shutting down those 5% of plants would be relatively efficient in terms of % CO2 reduction vs energy production size needed. That being said, since the goal long-term goal is basically 0 fossil fuels before 2050, what would be important to have policies that ensure that replacement capacity is meant with major decrease in emissions. Like, we could for example get a ~33% reduction in emissions by replacing some of these plants 1 for 1 with more efficient gas plants. But ideally we want even more draw down - that means having policies in place to ensure a significant amount of capacity is replaced with renewable sources. That's really the challenge (and has been the challenge the entire time).
    - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
      Saying that the largest coal plants are more carbon intensive than the average of coal and gas plants in the same country is such an absurdly strange stat to use that I believe this paper was funded by natural gas interests. Nothing else makes any sense to me. For those unfamiliar, gas plants are much less carbon intensive than coal plants. It gets a bit murkier if you include methane leaks, though gas is less dirty in terms of non greenhouse pollutants but basically both should be phased out and coal should generally go first.
  - ihuk 5y ago
    5% of the plants; shutting them down will not be easy. For example the one in Poland generates about 20% of Poland's electricity and was recently expanded.
- Al-Khwarizmi 5y ago
  I wouldn't say that "unsurprisingly many of [the top 10 polluting plants] are in China and India", when there is one in China (at rank 6, below a Polish plant, two South Korean plants and only slightly above the German one) and India has two. Especially when each of those countries has over one billion people, more than an order of magnitude more than Poland, Germany or South Korea.
  - Robotbeat 5y ago
    It's unsurprising because China burns a LOT of coal and has a per capita emissions about the same as the UK, even taking into account exports vs imports (!) in spite of the much lower per capita income. China burns ~51% of the world's coal, in spite of not having even close to 51% of the world's population. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-coal-consumption-by-country-in-2014-unit-Source-China-Coal-Industry_fig1_312407486 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-coal-consumption-... (I think China's coal plants tend to be smaller and so don't show up on these lists.) If everyone else drops their emissions to zero (which needs to happen) and goes autarkic, cutting off all trade with China, assuming China maintains its stability and current energy mix, we'll still be screwed from a climate perspective. We need everyone to reduce emissions, including China and the West both.
    - rocknor 5y ago
      > has a per capita emissions about the same as the UK, even taking into account exports vs imports Wrong! https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$filter$dimensions$country$country$/$in@=usa&=chn&=che&=can&=fra&=gbr&=deu&=aus&=ind;;;;;;&encoding$y$data$concept=consumption_emissions_tonnes_per_person&space@=country&=time;;&scale$type=linear&domain:null&zoomed:null;;&frame$value=2017;;;;;&chart-type=linechart&url=v1 https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$fi...
      - Robotbeat 5y ago
        Your data only goes to 2016. In just 4-5 years, the UK’s per capita emissions have continued to fall (thanks to retiring coal very quickly!) while China’s has risen to above that of the OECD average for the first time: https://rhg.com/research/chinas-emissions-surpass-developed-countries/ https://rhg.com/research/chinas-emissions-surpass-developed-...
- ihuk 5y ago
  I am less optimistic. Those plants are *massive*. Shutting them down will not be easy. For example the one in Poland accounts for about 20% of the total power generation in Poland and was recently expanded[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%C5%82chat%C3%B3w https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%C5%82chat%C3%B3w
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    You mean to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%C5%82chat%C3%B3w_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%C5%82chat%C3%B3w_Power_Stat...
- wishawa 5y ago
  > unsurprisingly many of them are in China and India Of the ten plants just one is in China and two are in India. South Korea, having three, might be a better target here. I agree that Germany should set an example. The German plant is 40 years old already anyway. Other countries with newer plants would be more reluctant.
  - justicezyx 5y ago
    I cannot believe the parent was not flagged yet... I mean the whole point is based on a wrong read on the paper...
- mistrial9 5y ago
  > This gives us a clearly defined area of attack with a very high ROI I object to this language, and war generally
- baron_harkonnen 5y ago
  > if we're going to get serious about saving ourselves If we were serious about saving ourselves we would have started controlled scaling down of economic activity 30-40 years ago. If we were serious about saving ourselves we would immediately start scaling down fossil fuel usage, but we currently are using more of every fossil fuel on Earth than we were 5 years ago. As I pointed out in another comment, if we take aggressive action and make the most optimistic estimates regarding this path we'll see us reset our emissions back to 2010. Which is nice but not anywhere near enough in a short enough time span to make a difference. If this is the "most encouraging bits of news" then we are in extreme danger. edit: the irrational downvotes comments like this gets would crack me up if it wasn't so sad. We've tried to solve climate change through "more production" for decades now and have only see things get worse. If you disagree with me, please show me some basic estimates about how you have a solution that scales up to working.
- soperj 5y ago
  If we were able to eliminate that 5% of plants, that would bring the world back to 1999-2000 levels without any other change.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > The paper lists the top 10 polluting plants... unsurprisingly many of them are in China and India And China isn't slowing down. Coal is incredibly cheap when there's no carbon tax or emission standards. One of the many reasons it's cheaper to manufacture in China and why North Americans and Europeans can't compete. Time to add tariffs on goods produced by states who made the decision of going all-in on polluting power generation, and potentially apply immigration quotas to citizens of these countries.
  - joecool1029 5y ago
    We should look at countries like Australia, they are among the worst with no reason to be. China has a still growing economy and while they continue to bring coal online they are the world's leading solar producer and have heavy investment into bringing more nuclear online. Contrast this with Australia that is a fully developed economy, has the easiest location to install and generate solar, has tons of uranium in the ground that it doesn't have a single reactor to use, and still burns and ships coal to act as an enabler to other coal burning nations.
    - 908B64B197 5y ago
      > they are the world's leading solar producer and have heavy investment into bringing more nuclear online. And yet their emissions are growing at an out of control pace [0]. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-a-per-capita-basis-report-finds.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis...
      - justicezyx 5y ago
        It's leveling off. And it's still well below Japan in per capita emission. Japan is quite an advanced green economy. I don't think any reason to put China front and center in this discussion "who should start closing coal power plant". Edit: > Focusing on per-capita data inevitably leads to whataboutism Well, energy usage is a key indicator of human wellbeing. I see no reason this leads to whataboutism. It's a key part of the discussion. Without this, humans are not going to unit in full strength. > that's exactly the narrative the CCP wants to push! CCP lifted 600MM+ people out of poverty. I guess they can make a few correct statement, right? > But when looking at emissions over time, it becomes pretty obvious that some countries are working hard doing their parts while some others are simply polluting at an accelerating pace. Yes, we can clearly see that China committed to carbon neutral at the critical juncture of economy development [1], and the only large developing country. And we are waiting India [2]. Meanwhile, despite enjoying the most from the carbon emission industry in 20 century, the advanced & developed country continuously insist on equal responsibility for all nations. It's like I eat most of the lunch, and grow so big, now I say that everyone on the table should cut their food consumption by certain percentage... Not fair. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2021/03/08/chinas-carbon-neutral-opportunity-economic-growth-driven-by-ambitious-climate-action/?sh=4cb8b80e734d https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2021/03/08/chi... [2] https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-change/is-india-in-a-position-to-announce-a-target-of-net-zero-emissions-by-2050--76377#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20third%20Biennial,reduce%20the%20emission%20intensity%20of https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-change/is-india-...
- justicezyx 5y ago
  Hmm, I read the paper, on page 12, showing the top 10 polluting power plants in 2018 and 2009, in 2018, the lists goes, there is only 1 from China and India, respectively, how is that translate to "The paper lists the top 10 polluting plants... unsurprisingly many of them are in China and India" 1 Belchatow Poland 37,600,000 Coal 27 5298 1.756 2 Vindhyachal India 33,877,953 Coal 14 4760 1.485 3 Dangjin South Korea 33,500,000 Coal 10 6115 1.473 4 Taean South Korea 31,400,000 Coal 12 6100 1.481 5 Taichung Taiwan 29,900,000 Coal 22 5834 1.282 6 Tuoketuo China 29,460,000 Coal 10 6720 1.450 7 Niederaussem Germany 27,200,000 Coal 38 3826 1.451
  - futhey 5y ago
    Coal is deeply unpopular in most areas where good alternatives exist. 5 & 7 already are now operating at reduced capacity, as alternative power plants have come online, and over a decade or so, the plan is to reduce operational capacity and possibly decommission. I suspect if you dig into some of the rest of these, you'll find similar situations.
    - justicezyx 5y ago
      Sure, but how that translate to the statement that among the top 10, "many are from China and India". China is the target everyone wants to beat. But for India, India's per capita emission is so small. That means Indian people are living a far lower standard than average. And put the label on such a nation, ask them to continuously living a bad life. Isn't that malicious?
shoto_io 5y ago
We need more analyses like that. As an ex-consultant I always amazed by how people try to optimize the smallest blocks. The Pareto principle is universally applicable. Let's tackle the biggest carbon blocks first.
- JPKab 5y ago
  Excellent point. As I've commented elsewhere, there is a Puritanical, moralistic urge in many climate activists that focuses on as many individuals as possible changing their consumption habits for small gains over targeting the super-polluters like these power plants or the individual cargo ships which emit more CO2 than entire cities. My father is one of these. He used to be a religious fundamentalist in the 80's, and over time has replaced his need to be a part of a religion that polices people's sexual/linguistic habits with being a part of an ideology that polices people's consumption/linguistic habits instead. It clearly fills the same void. Whenever I mention things like this to him, it clearly bothers him that we can help the climate WITHOUT calling on individuals to sacrifice the way he already does.
  - sitkack 5y ago
    > moralistic urge in many climate activists I don't know how prevalent this attitude is, your proximity to your father could be affecting your perceptions.
  - wiz21c 5y ago
    nope... If you improve the efficiency of coal plants say by 25%, then you have a choice : either you keep those 25% as CO2 that's not produced anymore in the future, either you say that for the same amount of CO2 you can have 25% more appliances. In the first case, it means that the 25% kept for the future shall not be used : you cap consumption to 25% less than what it is today (great, but many people unhappy because you stop producing more electricty). In the second case, you accept to use those 25% but then you stay at today's CO2 production level, which is known to be too high. Whatever scenario, you'll have (you, me and other individuals) to use less electricity.
    - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Glench 5y ago
Yes, huge win! As we clean up the electric grids we as consumers also have to transition all our fossil-fuel things (cars, furnaces, driers, etc) to electric things (electric cars, heat pumps). Around 42% of energy-related carbon emissions are from decisions we make about the few big appliances in our homes that we replace every 10-15 years.
RosanaAnaDana 5y ago
These are the kind of places to put effort into eliminating/ changing. Its can be managed from a more 'top-down' regulatory mechanism. It represents a significant chunk of the emissions. It doesn't require individual buy-in (not to the extent promoting vegetarianism would). People effected would/ could see no appreciable difference in their quality of life (maybe a slight uptick in power costs, but even that could be mitigated/ subsidized). These are the right kinds of solutions to focus our efforts on for reducing carbon consumption.
- tomtomistaken 5y ago
  Progress in this respect can also be bottom-up -> sabotage.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
baron_harkonnen 5y ago
Let's look at some optimistic back of the envelop estimates: > We also find that 17% to 49% of the world's CO2 emissions from electricity generation Let's go with a whole 50% reduction. It's important to recognize that electricity generation is only 25% of US energy GHG emissions (and less globally but it's hard to find a source so let's stick with that)[0] We're then looking at 12.5% reduction in global emissions if these plans where implemented. If you assume that there's a pretty strong correlation between energy production and emissions (there is because renewables don't account for much global energy production), then that is roughly equivalent of rewinding our emissions to ... 2010 [1] Add in that energy consumption globally continues to rise, and it would take a least a few years to complete these projects, even a massive effort like this doesn't amount to all that much of a difference. Even waving magic wand and completely replacing our grid power to 0 emissions sources would only push us back to 2003. The only viable pathway to radically reducing GHG emissions is to aggressively descale our economies (we can see emissions drop in 2008 and 2020), but since no one will even remotely consider that at this point we've chosen our path. [0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... [1] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  Targeting the worst CO2/kWh power plants makes a pretty big difference because our best chance at decarbonizing most of the rest of that 75% of global emissions is to electrify them. (Biofuels, etc, are not better than electrification.)
  - baron_harkonnen 5y ago
    That's a nice idea, but can you do some similar back of the envelope estimation for how much we'd have to grow the renewable/low-emissions energy grid to meet those other demands? For example we'll need hydrogen fuel cells for any serious replacement of current oil since light trucks and beyond cannot run on lithium batteries (batteries become the cargo). But 95% of hydrogen production is currently based on fossil fuels[0]. So to come anywhere close to meeting the transport needs we would have to not only radically ramp up hydrogen production, but would need to even more extremely ramp up electrolysis. I'd really like an insight into how we're going to achieve carbon free concrete production as well... It's insane that HN downvotes aggressively any basic math of how dire the situation is, and always responds with hand wavy solutions that won't hold up to even the most basic back of the envelope estimates. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
frankbreetz 5y ago
This is great. I would love to see this kind of reporting in the mainstream media. It is so frustrating to see media reports about climate change and "what you can do". This sort of thing puts zero responsibility in the hands of individuals and highlights the real culprits.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
I'm fairly sure this is the exact strategy used by basically everyone, yet everyone in this thread seems to think this is some new innovation and those damn hippies are finally doing something sensible. Obama's Clean Power plan for example, just says "we want you to come up with a plan to reduce Carbon, do whatever is easiest for you". Paris agreement, basically the same. Carbon prices, fees, taxes or caps? Same thing. Possibly this is even less sensible than those approaches as it seems to be talking about "powerplants" which naturally biases against large, efficient plants. If you had 10 small but inefficient coal plants it may make sense to shut them all and use one highly efficient plant. I believe the coal plants in China are generally of the super-critical variety and so much better in terms of carbon per MWh than your average American plant. In fact the more I think of it the more this stat seems custom designed to make China the bad guy for some reason. The focus on moving to gas and carbon capture in the abstract is also ringing alarm bells for me. Yep, I assumed they couldn't be so stupid because they were being vague about it but they specifically target powerplants rather than carbon intensity: > Figure 1 displays the locations of the world’s operative fossil-fueled power plants, their primary fuels, and the tons of carbon dioxide they released in 2018. Some past studies have defined super polluting power plants using intensity metrics (pollutants per unit of output or capacity) (e.g., Tong et al. 2018a). Further, their explanation of why they do this makes absolutely no sense: > Although this provides a straightforward way to compare the performance of operators of different sizes, we focus instead on total emissions because to contain global warming there must be severe cuts in emission levels So to be clear they have applied machine learning to someone else's database of powerplants and instead of recommending to close the ones that pollute most per KWh, that are nearing the end of their life, that would need expensive upgrades, that can easily be replaced by renewables, the ones that the local population don't like, the most expensive to run or any other sensible approach for getting the most bang per buck, they have concluded _Close the ones that are biggest and are run the most as they produce more carbon than old inefficient plants that only run occasionally_ I don't know if it possible to be that stupid without malicious intent, even by the standards of sociologists funded by the US Government. They seem to make some attempt to argue that it's easier to demonize a single big plant as a "bad guy", but surely that's a bad idea even if it actually worked in principle?
- 5y ago
mrfusion 5y ago
IMO this makes so much more sense than asking consumers to drive less and eat less meat or whatever they’re pushing.
- nicpottier 5y ago
  It's not an either OR, it's an AND.
  - mrfusion 5y ago
    Have consumers ever come together to solve a global problem?
    - thehappypm 5y ago
      We phased out CFCs without a consumer rebellion.
- foobiekr 5y ago
  Those are religious, not practical, movements.
punnerud 5y ago
One ways to do this is by reducing the “Imbalance Settlement Period”. Scandinavia and UK is changing from 60 to 15minutes. Scandinavia within summer/Q3 2022. Because the power plants using heat (coal and nuclear) is so slow to adapt, they have a disadvantage when the energy price is fluctuating. Before this is possible you have to change the electricity meters to support lower than 60minutes, or stipulate the energy (money incentive to change meter). This require a national coordination before the change take place. Norway was finished in 2019, Sweden is on their way.
gambiting 5y ago
Speaking of worst polluting power plants in the world - where I'm from(Poland), the largest power plant in the country(Bełchatów Power Plant) burns lignite for power - and I can't believe the emissions per kWh from that plant are estimated at slightly above 1kg of CO2 per kWh!!!!! Seeing as Tesla Model 3 uses around 150Wh per kilometer travelled, if you exclusively charged it using electricity from that power plant, it would be worse than many diesel or petrol vehicles on the road currently. And that's a stupidly efficient EV, there are many which everage 300-400Wh per km travelled, you'd need to buy a petrol Range Rover to even compete in terms of CO2/km emissions with that.
- petre 5y ago
  It's moving the source of the issue elsewhere, just like with moving manufacturing to China.
  - Retric 5y ago
    EV’s are a net reduction in normal usage patterns. First extradition, manufacturing, and transporting gasoline releases significant CO2. Most power plants are actually very efficient due with many in the 60% efficiency range, because unlike ICE they don’t idle or need to be portable. On top of that a large fraction of EV electricity is coming from ultra low CO2 sources.
    - edhelas 5y ago
      > On top of that a large fraction of EV electricity is coming from clean sources. I'd need a source on that one.
      - dn3500 5y ago
        Worldwide, about a quarter of our electricity comes from renewables. https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy
        5y ago
gdevenyi 5y ago
What a concept, targeting the places you can make the most impact first.
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
It is easier said than done. While the discourse in the media is often skewed towards accusing the West, the elephant in the room is China with its 30% of global CO2 emissions.[0] Discussions with China aren't particularly easy, especially if you start from the position "you must stop doing what we've been doing for a couple of decades." [0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
- space_rock 5y ago
  China has great electric public transportation and are more aggressive than USA in adopting EVs. I don't think it'll be long before USA is left behind in terms of transforming their economy
- vimy 5y ago
  To add to this: 87% of Chinese emissions are attributable to domestic consumption.
kingsloi 5y ago
Why do I get the feeling everything is too little or too late? I agree though, let's make them do better. I live in Gary Indiana, and while we have 2 smaller power plants near us (25-50 miles ish), there's about a million steel mills, oil refineries, and a bunch of other polluters thrown in for good measure, all either on or near Lake Michigan, which is our main source of drinking water. Can't we just target all mega polluters? I wish we could just force industry to spend a shit tonne of their profits on R&D to offset their damage, not improve their product, but improve their processes for something other than cost, efficiency, speed, and just did shit in the least destructive way possible. I've been tracking air pollution in Gary (and also cargo ships, flights, etc) on my lil community website: https://millerbeach.community https://millerbeach.community for the past two years. I'm trying to fund a proper air quality sensor/monitoring system that does more than just PM2.5/10, but until then it's just PM.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  thank you for your community service tracking air pollution in Gary, Indiana! that data you gather could be presented politically, socially, legally. By preparing a modern data environment with summary and random access, you are doing a LOT of prep ! it is needed now. best from California
  - kingsloi 5y ago
    Thank you, I'm trying! I actually have good reason to fight pollution too, my 8 month old daughter passed away from her battle with heart disease and a very rare genetic condition called Kabuki syndrome a few months ago. Pollution is linked to both congenital heart disease, genetic conditions, and more. My wife and I are not carriers. Her specific conditions were very rare, the odds of all were 1 in 700 million to 1 in 2 billion+. The year prior, Ben Watkins, a teen who lived a few blocks from me, died from an extremely rare cancer that only a few people in the world have/get. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/18/us/ben-watkins-masterchef/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/18/us/ben-watkins-masterchef/ind...
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Roughly what amount do you need in order to fund the air quality sensor fabric desired?
Robotbeat 5y ago
One thing I realized recently is that we have "coal power plants" that produce zero electricity: coal seam fires. This gets very little attention given the importance. I think it's low-hanging fruit for climate mitigations. On the order of 1 Gigatonne of CO2 per year is emitted from coal seam fires, versus ~14 Gigatonnes of CO2 from coal as useful fuel globally. This post on Effective Altruism had the same idea I had (ignore the right-leaning arguments contained therein and focus on the factual statements): https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2nrx8GdtobScoAZF8/extinguishing-or-preventing-coal-seam-fires-is-a-potential https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2nrx8GdtobScoAZF8/... It shouldn't proportionally cost a whole lot to stop these coal seam fires (which are mostly human caused, although ALL contribute to climate change), and they are really terrible for other reasons as well (safety, local air pollution, literally wasting fossil resources, etc). The issue deserves more attention. It's incredibly low hanging fruit.
- throwaway31425 5y ago
  Hey! I’d love to collaborate on this with you. Do you have a favored mode of contact?
tomtomistaken 5y ago
These power plants are also responsible for most of the local NO2 in the air. NO2, on the other hand, can be measured well with satellites. This calls for a performance indicator as proof-of-decarbonization.
lazyjones 5y ago
This focus on CO₂ as a "pollutant" saddens me, since it's by far not the worst substance emitted by power plants. Can we ever go back to a sensible environmentalism that considers all harmful effects on the planet and its inhabitants?
- bttrfl 5y ago
  even if it would be the worst one, optimisation based on just one metric is usually a bad idea.
hannob 5y ago
Just by reading the abstract this seems a bit strange. Ok, they identify some of the worst CO2 emitters and propose to start tackling those. But then their proposal is that these "lowered their emission intensities, switched to gas fuels, and incorporated carbon capture and storage systems." Like they propose three things that still depend on fossil fuels, from which one is vague, one is something that hasn't worked anywhere although it's been proposed as a solution for more than a decade (CCS) and one that at best provides minor emisison reductions if looking at full lifecycle emissions (gas).
- lvs 5y ago
  I found this bizarre as well, but I didn't delve deeper than the abstract. The senior author is a sociologist.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
41b696ef1113 5y ago
Why did they not release their collected raw data, R code, and the table of predicted data? Would be so much more useful if we could all quickly glance at where our local power plants rank on the scale.
- thangalin 5y ago
  Did you ask? Here's a template to get you started: Hi Don, Would you be willing to release the raw data you used for the environmental research article? Thank you, 41b696ef1113
- thangalin 5y ago
  Don replied: Thank you for your email and interest in our research. The larger dataset that we plan to make publicly available is not yet fully assembled. Feel free to check back in the future about its availability.
andred14 5y ago
The big climate LIE is that CO2 is a problem when in fact it is essential for life. Sure pollution is not cool and we can work on it but THERE IS NO EMERGENCY.
hikerclimber1 5y ago
Hopefully this doesn’t work

289 points by jbotz 5y ago

According to this article just 5% of the world’s power plants account for almost three-quarters of carbon emissions from electricity generation. I think this may be one of the most encouraging bits of news about AGW that I've seen in a long time. 5% of electric power plants (about 1500 plants) is a lot, but it's a manageable lot. This gives us a clearly defined area of attack with a very high ROI. It seems to say: if we're going to get serious about saving ourselves, start here and go all in. The paper lists the top 10 polluting plants... unsurprisingly many of them are in China and India, but at least one is in Germany. If Germany wants to set an example, there's where to start.

wrycoder 5y ago
Germany was setting an example, until they shut down their nuclear and went back to coal.
- cogman10 5y ago
  That was such a terrible move. It made no sense.
  - edhelas 5y ago
    Don't worry, they are planning to turn off coal completely around 2035… and replace them with natural gas plants imported from Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream
    - merpnderp 5y ago
      It's not like Russia has a long history of having "pipeline malfunctions" during periods of intense international disagreements. What could go wrong with Germans being firmly under the thumb of Putin or his successor?
    - glogla 5y ago
      Yeah, improving nothing as natural gas has similar OC2e to coal (with much smaller CO2 - but the methane makes up for it, to it comes up the same), while giving money to Europe's enemies. Perfect.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      Natural gas will cut emissions in half and the new plans for the coal exit are going to be 2030.
  - zeristor 5y ago
    On the flipside didn't Germany really jump start solar power?
- defaultname 5y ago
  Fossil fuel's use in German power production is falling faster than their nuclear mix is. They never "went back to coal". In reality renewables now account for almost double nuclear's output at its peak. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2a-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2020-source.png?itok=i-kda7MS https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... Germany is absolutely a great example, even if it somehow became the target for the weird cadre of nuclear boosters.
  - edhelas 5y ago
    They can thanks Sweden, Finland, France and a few other neighboors to provide them with plenty of electricity and hydraulic backup when they need it (no wind at night). France is sending around 2 to 4 GW of electricity (so mostly nuclear) to Germany all the time, "except" when there is plenty of wind, then France is buying for a really cheap price (sometimes negative) what Germany can't use. See https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/les-echanges-commerciaux-aux-frontieres https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/les-echanges-commerciaux-... 2 to 4 GW is roughly 2 to 4 nuclear reactors at 100%, so one/two nuclear powerplants "on an average usage". You can't say that you exited nuclear (or any other kind of energy) when you're massively, and really often, importing electricity from this source from across the borders. And your graph is pretty clear. Germany didn't "removed fossil fuel", they replaced around 100GW of coal with 50GW of natural gas + renewable. To me natural gas is still a fossil fuel (with a lighter co2 impact than coal indeed). And in the end the result is https://www.electricitymap.org/map https://www.electricitymap.org/map 5 to 10x more CO² impact than France per kwh, even with 2x the nuclear plants setup in France (60GW of nuclear in France against 60GW of wind turbines and 60GW of solar panels in Germany).
    - cool_dude85 5y ago
      >(no wind at night) No, wind at night!
    - pydry 5y ago
      The data shows natural gas usage has been pretty much static for a decade: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2a-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2020-source.png?itok=i-kda7MS https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... Germany is also a net exporter of electricity and exported 13.7Twh more than it imported from France.
- bildung 5y ago
  > Germany was setting an example, until they shut down their nuclear and went back to coal. No idea why this gets repeated here so often, but this statement is simply wrong. From 2013 to 2020 nuclear as share of Germany's energy mix went from 17% to 13%. https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&year=2020&interval=year https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&... During the same time, coal went from 45% to 23%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany So yes, nuclear is 4% lower, but coal is 22% lower.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > nuclear as share of Germany's energy mix went from 17% to 13% > During the same time, coal went from 45% to 23% Although it's true, it could go like this: Nuclear as share went from 17% to 20%; coal from 45% to 20%.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Sure it could be better, but it’s neither shutting down all the nuclear nor failing to set a good example about reducing coal-based electricity.
      - fsflover 5y ago
        Germany actually is going to shut down all the nuclear: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27961243 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27961243
  - wrycoder 5y ago
    Coal: per Wikipedia: Germany has been opening new coal power plants until recently, following a 2007 plan to build 26 new coal plants. This has been controversial in light of Germany's commitment to curbing carbon emissions. But they changed direction - I didn't know that: On 26 January 2019, [a decision was made] to close all 84 coal plants in the country by 2038...Coal was used to generate almost 40% of the country's electricity in 2018 and is expected to be replaced by renewable energy and natural gas. 24 coal plants are planned to be closed by 2022 with all but 8 closed by 2030. Nuclear: per Wikipedia: A coalition government of Gerhard Schroeder took the decision in 2002 to phaseout all nuclear power by 2022...Within days of the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, large anti-nuclear protests occurred in Germany...Merkel's government announced that it would close all of its nuclear power plants by 2022. Eight of the seventeen operating reactors in Germany were permanently shut down following Fukushima in 2011. German coal consumption has risen during 2011, 2012 and 2013. (but is now decreasing) Germany nuclear is 13%, but most of that is imported from France at this point, I think. So, no coal, no nuclear, hate natural gas - depend on renewables.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
Prairie State Energy Station [1] in Southern Illinois is one of these plants. Roughly 200 municipalities bought into it ~10-12 years ago with the promise of locking in cheap electricity for decades. Now, those who own shares of it (both municipalities and electric co ops [2]) are kicking and screaming that they're entitled to continue to operate the plant because it would raise electrical rates for their citizens to retire it early. "Illinois lawmakers are still debating a statewide energy proposal that would shutter the state’s coal-fired power plants by 2035. A local utility cooperative is asking its members to lobby lawmakers to keep it open. Illinois Electric Cooperative has issued letters to their members asking to keep the plants open because they say it will cost utility rate payers more money and provide an unreliable electric grid of power. IEC’s general manager Randy Long says it will also saddle the state with significant outstanding debt: “We believe it is probably going to reduce grid reliability and it’s going to cause good energy jobs to leave the State of Illinois along with the tax base to neighboring states and it’s going to increase our [utility] rates also. In 2035, the Prairie State plant will still have about $188 million worth of debt, and that is still going to have to be paid off. We’ll no longer be getting energy from that plant either, so we’ll have to replace that energy from another source. We are just very concerned about that – the increased costs to our members and also the reliability on the grid, which is really in the forefront after the blackouts we have just heard about in Texas and California recently.”" (my note: it has been proven that the blackouts in California and Texas were not caused by renewables, but by grid mismanagement; solar and wind backed by storage is also cheaper than coal, so this is clearly not about cost but maintaining the status quo) "PSEC started delivering electricity in 2012 at prices well above market rates. Some of its investors resell the energy at a loss, some raise consumer rates, and two backed out of the project. PSEC's original $2 billion estimated cost attracted municipal electric utilities to invest and to sign 28 year contracts. However, as of early 2010 the estimated cost had increased to $4.4 billion, requiring investors to borrow more money and raising the projected cost of electricity to undesirable levels. Peabody in response capped construction costs at "approximately $4 billion" excluding some costs such as coal development and transmission lines. In January 2013, with many municipalities adversely impacted by the high prices, the SEC subpoenaed information from Peabody. In a bid to exit its share of the Prairie State project, the City of Hermann, MO filed a lawsuit in March, 2015 against the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission and the Missouri Public Energy Pool, claiming that its share of $1.5 billion in debt issued to support Prairie State imposed an unconstitutionally high level of debt on the city. Peabody divested its 5.06% stake in the project in 2016, accepting $57 million for its original investment of nearly $250 million. The buyer was Wabash Valley Power Association, a Midwest cooperative." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_State_Energy_Campus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_State_Energy_Campus [2] https://wlds.com/rural-electric-coops-face-uncertainty-with-prairie-state-energy-campus-closure-on-the-table/ https://wlds.com/rural-electric-coops-face-uncertainty-with-...
criddell 5y ago
> 5% of the world’s power plants account for almost three-quarters of carbon emissions from electricity generation I don't have any idea for what that really means. I Any idea how big a part of the overall carbon emissions problem that is?
- icegreentea2 5y ago
  Global electricity production is currently estimated to be about a quarter of human CO2 production (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...).
  - criddell 5y ago
    Wow! Thanks for that.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    That's shockingly low given the amount I hear renewables pitched as a cure for climate change. Not that they don't help, but if we woke up tomorrow to a completely renewable global grid, looks like we'll have barely made headway into ending climate change.
    - icegreentea2 5y ago
      Right, so there are a bunch of other fossil fuel burning CO2 sources that get lumped into industrial, housing, transportation, and "other" categories (basically, all decentralized fossil fuel burning doesn't get lumped into the quarter I initially stated). A sufficiently capable renewable grid (or cheap enough off-grid generation and storage) could displace many of those uses. Skimming through the page, I'd eyeball roughly 25% (from electricity and heating), 12% (~60% of 21% industrial), 10% (of the 14% from transport), 4% (from the 6% of buildings... note that this is only counting heating and onsite energy production, not life-cycle costs), and say 5% (from the 10% of other...). That works out to ~55%. Agriculture, Forestry and Land use takes a massive piece of the pie at 25% by itself. That alone makes it difficult for renewables alone to make things work. That's why most models for net-zero include significant carbon capture projects, and why agriculture and land-use reform and conservation is so important.
dan-robertson 5y ago
Is this 5% by number of power plants or is this 5% of the generating capacity? E.g. maybe these most-polluting plants are just massive and make up 50% of energy generation?
- icegreentea2 5y ago
  It's 5% of power plants. These plants are massive. The paper does state (and shows data for the top 10) indicating that the largest emitters also happen to be generally more inefficient (in terms of CO2 per power) than their national average (for fossil fuel plans). EDIT: I just wanted to draw out the implications. Based on paper figures, we can ballpark then that those 5% of plants produce on the order of 30-40% of fossil fuel production energy. Shutting down those 5% of plants would be relatively efficient in terms of % CO2 reduction vs energy production size needed. That being said, since the goal long-term goal is basically 0 fossil fuels before 2050, what would be important to have policies that ensure that replacement capacity is meant with major decrease in emissions. Like, we could for example get a ~33% reduction in emissions by replacing some of these plants 1 for 1 with more efficient gas plants. But ideally we want even more draw down - that means having policies in place to ensure a significant amount of capacity is replaced with renewable sources. That's really the challenge (and has been the challenge the entire time).
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    Saying that the largest coal plants are more carbon intensive than the average of coal and gas plants in the same country is such an absurdly strange stat to use that I believe this paper was funded by natural gas interests. Nothing else makes any sense to me. For those unfamiliar, gas plants are much less carbon intensive than coal plants. It gets a bit murkier if you include methane leaks, though gas is less dirty in terms of non greenhouse pollutants but basically both should be phased out and coal should generally go first.
- ihuk 5y ago
  5% of the plants; shutting them down will not be easy. For example the one in Poland generates about 20% of Poland's electricity and was recently expanded.
Al-Khwarizmi 5y ago
I wouldn't say that "unsurprisingly many of [the top 10 polluting plants] are in China and India", when there is one in China (at rank 6, below a Polish plant, two South Korean plants and only slightly above the German one) and India has two. Especially when each of those countries has over one billion people, more than an order of magnitude more than Poland, Germany or South Korea.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  It's unsurprising because China burns a LOT of coal and has a per capita emissions about the same as the UK, even taking into account exports vs imports (!) in spite of the much lower per capita income. China burns ~51% of the world's coal, in spite of not having even close to 51% of the world's population. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-coal-consumption-by-country-in-2014-unit-Source-China-Coal-Industry_fig1_312407486 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-coal-consumption-... (I think China's coal plants tend to be smaller and so don't show up on these lists.) If everyone else drops their emissions to zero (which needs to happen) and goes autarkic, cutting off all trade with China, assuming China maintains its stability and current energy mix, we'll still be screwed from a climate perspective. We need everyone to reduce emissions, including China and the West both.
  - rocknor 5y ago
    > has a per capita emissions about the same as the UK, even taking into account exports vs imports Wrong! https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$filter$dimensions$country$country$/$in@=usa&=chn&=che&=can&=fra&=gbr&=deu&=aus&=ind;;;;;;&encoding$y$data$concept=consumption_emissions_tonnes_per_person&space@=country&=time;;&scale$type=linear&domain:null&zoomed:null;;&frame$value=2017;;;;;&chart-type=linechart&url=v1 https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$fi...
    - Robotbeat 5y ago
      Your data only goes to 2016. In just 4-5 years, the UK’s per capita emissions have continued to fall (thanks to retiring coal very quickly!) while China’s has risen to above that of the OECD average for the first time: https://rhg.com/research/chinas-emissions-surpass-developed-countries/ https://rhg.com/research/chinas-emissions-surpass-developed-...
ihuk 5y ago
I am less optimistic. Those plants are *massive*. Shutting them down will not be easy. For example the one in Poland accounts for about 20% of the total power generation in Poland and was recently expanded[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%C5%82chat%C3%B3w https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%C5%82chat%C3%B3w
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  You mean to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%C5%82chat%C3%B3w_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%C5%82chat%C3%B3w_Power_Stat...
wishawa 5y ago
> unsurprisingly many of them are in China and India Of the ten plants just one is in China and two are in India. South Korea, having three, might be a better target here. I agree that Germany should set an example. The German plant is 40 years old already anyway. Other countries with newer plants would be more reluctant.
- justicezyx 5y ago
  I cannot believe the parent was not flagged yet... I mean the whole point is based on a wrong read on the paper...
mistrial9 5y ago
> This gives us a clearly defined area of attack with a very high ROI I object to this language, and war generally
baron_harkonnen 5y ago
> if we're going to get serious about saving ourselves If we were serious about saving ourselves we would have started controlled scaling down of economic activity 30-40 years ago. If we were serious about saving ourselves we would immediately start scaling down fossil fuel usage, but we currently are using more of every fossil fuel on Earth than we were 5 years ago. As I pointed out in another comment, if we take aggressive action and make the most optimistic estimates regarding this path we'll see us reset our emissions back to 2010. Which is nice but not anywhere near enough in a short enough time span to make a difference. If this is the "most encouraging bits of news" then we are in extreme danger. edit: the irrational downvotes comments like this gets would crack me up if it wasn't so sad. We've tried to solve climate change through "more production" for decades now and have only see things get worse. If you disagree with me, please show me some basic estimates about how you have a solution that scales up to working.
soperj 5y ago
If we were able to eliminate that 5% of plants, that would bring the world back to 1999-2000 levels without any other change.
908B64B197 5y ago
> The paper lists the top 10 polluting plants... unsurprisingly many of them are in China and India And China isn't slowing down. Coal is incredibly cheap when there's no carbon tax or emission standards. One of the many reasons it's cheaper to manufacture in China and why North Americans and Europeans can't compete. Time to add tariffs on goods produced by states who made the decision of going all-in on polluting power generation, and potentially apply immigration quotas to citizens of these countries.
- joecool1029 5y ago
  We should look at countries like Australia, they are among the worst with no reason to be. China has a still growing economy and while they continue to bring coal online they are the world's leading solar producer and have heavy investment into bringing more nuclear online. Contrast this with Australia that is a fully developed economy, has the easiest location to install and generate solar, has tons of uranium in the ground that it doesn't have a single reactor to use, and still burns and ships coal to act as an enabler to other coal burning nations.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > they are the world's leading solar producer and have heavy investment into bringing more nuclear online. And yet their emissions are growing at an out of control pace [0]. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-a-per-capita-basis-report-finds.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis...
    - justicezyx 5y ago
      It's leveling off. And it's still well below Japan in per capita emission. Japan is quite an advanced green economy. I don't think any reason to put China front and center in this discussion "who should start closing coal power plant". Edit: > Focusing on per-capita data inevitably leads to whataboutism Well, energy usage is a key indicator of human wellbeing. I see no reason this leads to whataboutism. It's a key part of the discussion. Without this, humans are not going to unit in full strength. > that's exactly the narrative the CCP wants to push! CCP lifted 600MM+ people out of poverty. I guess they can make a few correct statement, right? > But when looking at emissions over time, it becomes pretty obvious that some countries are working hard doing their parts while some others are simply polluting at an accelerating pace. Yes, we can clearly see that China committed to carbon neutral at the critical juncture of economy development [1], and the only large developing country. And we are waiting India [2]. Meanwhile, despite enjoying the most from the carbon emission industry in 20 century, the advanced & developed country continuously insist on equal responsibility for all nations. It's like I eat most of the lunch, and grow so big, now I say that everyone on the table should cut their food consumption by certain percentage... Not fair. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2021/03/08/chinas-carbon-neutral-opportunity-economic-growth-driven-by-ambitious-climate-action/?sh=4cb8b80e734d https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2021/03/08/chi... [2] https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-change/is-india-in-a-position-to-announce-a-target-of-net-zero-emissions-by-2050--76377#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20third%20Biennial,reduce%20the%20emission%20intensity%20of https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-change/is-india-...
justicezyx 5y ago
Hmm, I read the paper, on page 12, showing the top 10 polluting power plants in 2018 and 2009, in 2018, the lists goes, there is only 1 from China and India, respectively, how is that translate to "The paper lists the top 10 polluting plants... unsurprisingly many of them are in China and India" 1 Belchatow Poland 37,600,000 Coal 27 5298 1.756 2 Vindhyachal India 33,877,953 Coal 14 4760 1.485 3 Dangjin South Korea 33,500,000 Coal 10 6115 1.473 4 Taean South Korea 31,400,000 Coal 12 6100 1.481 5 Taichung Taiwan 29,900,000 Coal 22 5834 1.282 6 Tuoketuo China 29,460,000 Coal 10 6720 1.450 7 Niederaussem Germany 27,200,000 Coal 38 3826 1.451
- futhey 5y ago
  Coal is deeply unpopular in most areas where good alternatives exist. 5 & 7 already are now operating at reduced capacity, as alternative power plants have come online, and over a decade or so, the plan is to reduce operational capacity and possibly decommission. I suspect if you dig into some of the rest of these, you'll find similar situations.
  - justicezyx 5y ago
    Sure, but how that translate to the statement that among the top 10, "many are from China and India". China is the target everyone wants to beat. But for India, India's per capita emission is so small. That means Indian people are living a far lower standard than average. And put the label on such a nation, ask them to continuously living a bad life. Isn't that malicious?

shoto_io 5y ago

We need more analyses like that. As an ex-consultant I always amazed by how people try to optimize the smallest blocks. The Pareto principle is universally applicable. Let's tackle the biggest carbon blocks first.

JPKab 5y ago
Excellent point. As I've commented elsewhere, there is a Puritanical, moralistic urge in many climate activists that focuses on as many individuals as possible changing their consumption habits for small gains over targeting the super-polluters like these power plants or the individual cargo ships which emit more CO2 than entire cities. My father is one of these. He used to be a religious fundamentalist in the 80's, and over time has replaced his need to be a part of a religion that polices people's sexual/linguistic habits with being a part of an ideology that polices people's consumption/linguistic habits instead. It clearly fills the same void. Whenever I mention things like this to him, it clearly bothers him that we can help the climate WITHOUT calling on individuals to sacrifice the way he already does.
- sitkack 5y ago
  > moralistic urge in many climate activists I don't know how prevalent this attitude is, your proximity to your father could be affecting your perceptions.
- wiz21c 5y ago
  nope... If you improve the efficiency of coal plants say by 25%, then you have a choice : either you keep those 25% as CO2 that's not produced anymore in the future, either you say that for the same amount of CO2 you can have 25% more appliances. In the first case, it means that the 25% kept for the future shall not be used : you cap consumption to 25% less than what it is today (great, but many people unhappy because you stop producing more electricty). In the second case, you accept to use those 25% but then you stay at today's CO2 production level, which is known to be too high. Whatever scenario, you'll have (you, me and other individuals) to use less electricity.
  - 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Glench 5y ago

Yes, huge win! As we clean up the electric grids we as consumers also have to transition all our fossil-fuel things (cars, furnaces, driers, etc) to electric things (electric cars, heat pumps). Around 42% of energy-related carbon emissions are from decisions we make about the few big appliances in our homes that we replace every 10-15 years.

RosanaAnaDana 5y ago

These are the kind of places to put effort into eliminating/ changing. Its can be managed from a more 'top-down' regulatory mechanism. It represents a significant chunk of the emissions. It doesn't require individual buy-in (not to the extent promoting vegetarianism would). People effected would/ could see no appreciable difference in their quality of life (maybe a slight uptick in power costs, but even that could be mitigated/ subsidized). These are the right kinds of solutions to focus our efforts on for reducing carbon consumption.

tomtomistaken 5y ago
Progress in this respect can also be bottom-up -> sabotage.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

baron_harkonnen 5y ago

Let's look at some optimistic back of the envelop estimates: > We also find that 17% to 49% of the world's CO2 emissions from electricity generation Let's go with a whole 50% reduction. It's important to recognize that electricity generation is only 25% of US energy GHG emissions (and less globally but it's hard to find a source so let's stick with that)[0] We're then looking at 12.5% reduction in global emissions if these plans where implemented. If you assume that there's a pretty strong correlation between energy production and emissions (there is because renewables don't account for much global energy production), then that is roughly equivalent of rewinding our emissions to ... 2010 [1] Add in that energy consumption globally continues to rise, and it would take a least a few years to complete these projects, even a massive effort like this doesn't amount to all that much of a difference. Even waving magic wand and completely replacing our grid power to 0 emissions sources would only push us back to 2003. The only viable pathway to radically reducing GHG emissions is to aggressively descale our economies (we can see emissions drop in 2008 and 2020), but since no one will even remotely consider that at this point we've chosen our path. [0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... [1] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix

Robotbeat 5y ago
Targeting the worst CO2/kWh power plants makes a pretty big difference because our best chance at decarbonizing most of the rest of that 75% of global emissions is to electrify them. (Biofuels, etc, are not better than electrification.)
- baron_harkonnen 5y ago
  That's a nice idea, but can you do some similar back of the envelope estimation for how much we'd have to grow the renewable/low-emissions energy grid to meet those other demands? For example we'll need hydrogen fuel cells for any serious replacement of current oil since light trucks and beyond cannot run on lithium batteries (batteries become the cargo). But 95% of hydrogen production is currently based on fossil fuels[0]. So to come anywhere close to meeting the transport needs we would have to not only radically ramp up hydrogen production, but would need to even more extremely ramp up electrolysis. I'd really like an insight into how we're going to achieve carbon free concrete production as well... It's insane that HN downvotes aggressively any basic math of how dire the situation is, and always responds with hand wavy solutions that won't hold up to even the most basic back of the envelope estimates. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

frankbreetz 5y ago

This is great. I would love to see this kind of reporting in the mainstream media. It is so frustrating to see media reports about climate change and "what you can do". This sort of thing puts zero responsibility in the hands of individuals and highlights the real culprits.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

I'm fairly sure this is the exact strategy used by basically everyone, yet everyone in this thread seems to think this is some new innovation and those damn hippies are finally doing something sensible. Obama's Clean Power plan for example, just says "we want you to come up with a plan to reduce Carbon, do whatever is easiest for you". Paris agreement, basically the same. Carbon prices, fees, taxes or caps? Same thing. Possibly this is even less sensible than those approaches as it seems to be talking about "powerplants" which naturally biases against large, efficient plants. If you had 10 small but inefficient coal plants it may make sense to shut them all and use one highly efficient plant. I believe the coal plants in China are generally of the super-critical variety and so much better in terms of carbon per MWh than your average American plant. In fact the more I think of it the more this stat seems custom designed to make China the bad guy for some reason. The focus on moving to gas and carbon capture in the abstract is also ringing alarm bells for me. Yep, I assumed they couldn't be so stupid because they were being vague about it but they specifically target powerplants rather than carbon intensity: > Figure 1 displays the locations of the world’s operative fossil-fueled power plants, their primary fuels, and the tons of carbon dioxide they released in 2018. Some past studies have defined super polluting power plants using intensity metrics (pollutants per unit of output or capacity) (e.g., Tong et al. 2018a). Further, their explanation of why they do this makes absolutely no sense: > Although this provides a straightforward way to compare the performance of operators of different sizes, we focus instead on total emissions because to contain global warming there must be severe cuts in emission levels So to be clear they have applied machine learning to someone else's database of powerplants and instead of recommending to close the ones that pollute most per KWh, that are nearing the end of their life, that would need expensive upgrades, that can easily be replaced by renewables, the ones that the local population don't like, the most expensive to run or any other sensible approach for getting the most bang per buck, they have concluded _Close the ones that are biggest and are run the most as they produce more carbon than old inefficient plants that only run occasionally_ I don't know if it possible to be that stupid without malicious intent, even by the standards of sociologists funded by the US Government. They seem to make some attempt to argue that it's easier to demonize a single big plant as a "bad guy", but surely that's a bad idea even if it actually worked in principle?

5y ago

mrfusion 5y ago

IMO this makes so much more sense than asking consumers to drive less and eat less meat or whatever they’re pushing.

nicpottier 5y ago
It's not an either OR, it's an AND.
- mrfusion 5y ago
  Have consumers ever come together to solve a global problem?
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    We phased out CFCs without a consumer rebellion.
foobiekr 5y ago
Those are religious, not practical, movements.

punnerud 5y ago

One ways to do this is by reducing the “Imbalance Settlement Period”. Scandinavia and UK is changing from 60 to 15minutes. Scandinavia within summer/Q3 2022. Because the power plants using heat (coal and nuclear) is so slow to adapt, they have a disadvantage when the energy price is fluctuating. Before this is possible you have to change the electricity meters to support lower than 60minutes, or stipulate the energy (money incentive to change meter). This require a national coordination before the change take place. Norway was finished in 2019, Sweden is on their way.

gambiting 5y ago

Speaking of worst polluting power plants in the world - where I'm from(Poland), the largest power plant in the country(Bełchatów Power Plant) burns lignite for power - and I can't believe the emissions per kWh from that plant are estimated at slightly above 1kg of CO2 per kWh!!!!! Seeing as Tesla Model 3 uses around 150Wh per kilometer travelled, if you exclusively charged it using electricity from that power plant, it would be worse than many diesel or petrol vehicles on the road currently. And that's a stupidly efficient EV, there are many which everage 300-400Wh per km travelled, you'd need to buy a petrol Range Rover to even compete in terms of CO2/km emissions with that.

petre 5y ago
It's moving the source of the issue elsewhere, just like with moving manufacturing to China.
- Retric 5y ago
  EV’s are a net reduction in normal usage patterns. First extradition, manufacturing, and transporting gasoline releases significant CO2. Most power plants are actually very efficient due with many in the 60% efficiency range, because unlike ICE they don’t idle or need to be portable. On top of that a large fraction of EV electricity is coming from ultra low CO2 sources.
  - edhelas 5y ago
    > On top of that a large fraction of EV electricity is coming from clean sources. I'd need a source on that one.
    - dn3500 5y ago
      Worldwide, about a quarter of our electricity comes from renewables. https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy
      - 5y ago

gdevenyi 5y ago

What a concept, targeting the places you can make the most impact first.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

It is easier said than done. While the discourse in the media is often skewed towards accusing the West, the elephant in the room is China with its 30% of global CO2 emissions.[0] Discussions with China aren't particularly easy, especially if you start from the position "you must stop doing what we've been doing for a couple of decades." [0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...

space_rock 5y ago
China has great electric public transportation and are more aggressive than USA in adopting EVs. I don't think it'll be long before USA is left behind in terms of transforming their economy
vimy 5y ago
To add to this: 87% of Chinese emissions are attributable to domestic consumption.

kingsloi 5y ago

Why do I get the feeling everything is too little or too late? I agree though, let's make them do better. I live in Gary Indiana, and while we have 2 smaller power plants near us (25-50 miles ish), there's about a million steel mills, oil refineries, and a bunch of other polluters thrown in for good measure, all either on or near Lake Michigan, which is our main source of drinking water. Can't we just target all mega polluters? I wish we could just force industry to spend a shit tonne of their profits on R&D to offset their damage, not improve their product, but improve their processes for something other than cost, efficiency, speed, and just did shit in the least destructive way possible. I've been tracking air pollution in Gary (and also cargo ships, flights, etc) on my lil community website: https://millerbeach.community https://millerbeach.community for the past two years. I'm trying to fund a proper air quality sensor/monitoring system that does more than just PM2.5/10, but until then it's just PM.

mistrial9 5y ago
thank you for your community service tracking air pollution in Gary, Indiana! that data you gather could be presented politically, socially, legally. By preparing a modern data environment with summary and random access, you are doing a LOT of prep ! it is needed now. best from California
- kingsloi 5y ago
  Thank you, I'm trying! I actually have good reason to fight pollution too, my 8 month old daughter passed away from her battle with heart disease and a very rare genetic condition called Kabuki syndrome a few months ago. Pollution is linked to both congenital heart disease, genetic conditions, and more. My wife and I are not carriers. Her specific conditions were very rare, the odds of all were 1 in 700 million to 1 in 2 billion+. The year prior, Ben Watkins, a teen who lived a few blocks from me, died from an extremely rare cancer that only a few people in the world have/get. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/18/us/ben-watkins-masterchef/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/18/us/ben-watkins-masterchef/ind...
toomuchtodo 5y ago
Roughly what amount do you need in order to fund the air quality sensor fabric desired?

Robotbeat 5y ago

One thing I realized recently is that we have "coal power plants" that produce zero electricity: coal seam fires. This gets very little attention given the importance. I think it's low-hanging fruit for climate mitigations. On the order of 1 Gigatonne of CO2 per year is emitted from coal seam fires, versus ~14 Gigatonnes of CO2 from coal as useful fuel globally. This post on Effective Altruism had the same idea I had (ignore the right-leaning arguments contained therein and focus on the factual statements): https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2nrx8GdtobScoAZF8/extinguishing-or-preventing-coal-seam-fires-is-a-potential https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2nrx8GdtobScoAZF8/... It shouldn't proportionally cost a whole lot to stop these coal seam fires (which are mostly human caused, although ALL contribute to climate change), and they are really terrible for other reasons as well (safety, local air pollution, literally wasting fossil resources, etc). The issue deserves more attention. It's incredibly low hanging fruit.

throwaway31425 5y ago
Hey! I’d love to collaborate on this with you. Do you have a favored mode of contact?

tomtomistaken 5y ago

These power plants are also responsible for most of the local NO2 in the air. NO2, on the other hand, can be measured well with satellites. This calls for a performance indicator as proof-of-decarbonization.

lazyjones 5y ago

This focus on CO₂ as a "pollutant" saddens me, since it's by far not the worst substance emitted by power plants. Can we ever go back to a sensible environmentalism that considers all harmful effects on the planet and its inhabitants?

bttrfl 5y ago
even if it would be the worst one, optimisation based on just one metric is usually a bad idea.

hannob 5y ago

Just by reading the abstract this seems a bit strange. Ok, they identify some of the worst CO2 emitters and propose to start tackling those. But then their proposal is that these "lowered their emission intensities, switched to gas fuels, and incorporated carbon capture and storage systems." Like they propose three things that still depend on fossil fuels, from which one is vague, one is something that hasn't worked anywhere although it's been proposed as a solution for more than a decade (CCS) and one that at best provides minor emisison reductions if looking at full lifecycle emissions (gas).

lvs 5y ago
I found this bizarre as well, but I didn't delve deeper than the abstract. The senior author is a sociologist.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

41b696ef1113 5y ago

Why did they not release their collected raw data, R code, and the table of predicted data? Would be so much more useful if we could all quickly glance at where our local power plants rank on the scale.

thangalin 5y ago
Did you ask? Here's a template to get you started: Hi Don, Would you be willing to release the raw data you used for the environmental research article? Thank you, 41b696ef1113
thangalin 5y ago
Don replied: Thank you for your email and interest in our research. The larger dataset that we plan to make publicly available is not yet fully assembled. Feel free to check back in the future about its availability.

andred14 5y ago

The big climate LIE is that CO2 is a problem when in fact it is essential for life. Sure pollution is not cool and we can work on it but THERE IS NO EMERGENCY.

hikerclimber1 5y ago

Hopefully this doesn’t work