12 ms·

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 m

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?

by jbotz 5y ago

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?