6 ms·

In the US, coal consumption is down 60% since the peak year of 2008.[1] The trend looks linear. Hits zero sometime in the 2030s. Coal is over in the US. Even th

In the US, coal consumption is down 60% since the peak year of 2008.[1] The trend looks linear. Hits zero sometime in the 2030s. Coal is over in the US. Even the coal industry thinks coal is over.[2] Conversion of coal plants to natural gas is proceeding rapidly. China, though, is still adding coal capacity. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/243934/coal-consumption-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/243934/coal-consumption-... [2] https://ieefa.org/resources/nowhere-go-down-us-coal-capacity-generation https://ieefa.org/resources/nowhere-go-down-us-coal-capacity...

defrost 2y ago
Coal has peaked globally, there's no global expansion, 190+ countries are winding back coal save for both India and China which are still expanding at a declining rate and expected to peak and decline in the mid term. WRT China, they can't over produce renewable energy and be the largest global supplier of green energy without coal .. at least not yet.
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  China’s growing coal capacity could be seen as a mix of welfare and bureaucratic waste. Each prefecture is incentivized to build its own redundancy, and in a flagging economy, government spending is up to keep the economy going. The resulting overcapacity could be used for ‘peaking’ to offset intermittency in renewable power, something that’s being experimented with currently. And in the shorter term, coal can have less warming effect than gas, but I’m not sure this would be true of China’s coal plants in particular
  - defrost 2y ago
    China’s growing coal consumption is part of Cina's growing energy demands, their middle class is growing and exceeds the entire popultion of the USA in size. While that middle class has a per capita energy and consumption figure that is lower than the USA per capita figures it is the case that the US has set an aspiration life style expectation that sees demand grow. China's coal use has become increasingly more efficient; much is made of additional new modern coal power houses, little mention is made of the larger numbers of older inefficient far dirtier coal plants have been closed down and are still being closed down. Nuclear and renewables are part of overall energy production in China to a far greater proportion and absolute number than in the US. The scale of China's energy production is substantial and not easily characterised.
    - philipkglass 2y ago
      Nuclear and renewables are part of overall energy production in China to a far greater proportion and absolute number than in the US. China has a smaller nuclear fleet capacity than the US and meets a much smaller percentage of its electricity needs with nuclear power: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=CN https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.... https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=US https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.... As of 2023 US got 18.55% of electricity from nuclear power (775 terawatt hours) while China got 4.86% (433 TWh). As of 2023 China does get a larger share from renewables: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China#Production_and_capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China#Pr... https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 It's 29.1% renewables in China (2,756 TWh) vs. 21.4% (894 TWh) in the United States. Grouping nuclear and renewables together as low-emissions sources, the US gets 47.65% of its electricity from low-emissions sources and China gets 33.96% from low-emissions sources. China is building nuclear and renewable sources faster than the US, so will narrow the gap over the rest of the decade, but it's also growing its total electricity consumption faster.
      - defrost 2y ago
        Fair correction, I was focused more on China's renewable sector than it's nuclear (which China plans to increase to 15% of their projected 2050 electricity production) and on absolute size. I mostly check my figures before comments, this is what I deserve for going off the cuff :-) ( thanks )
        philipkglass 2y ago
        I made a mistake too when I was adding and copy-pasting numbers. US is at 39.55% low-emissions electricity. So I got the ranking right but originally overstated the size of the gap.
      - xbmcuser 2y ago
        China in 2024 is on track to install more solar and wind capacity than it's consumption growth add the fact that of lcoe of solar + battery storage is now cheaper than what retail electricity is selling for in China. So move off coal electricity for China might be a lot faster than people are predicting.
  - tim333 2y ago
    I think there may be a military aspect to it. So they can crack on if they get blockaded for invading Taiwan.
- shash 2y ago
  In India, coal just dipped below 50% for the first time since the 1960s. https://m.economictimes.com/industry/energy/power/coals-share-in-indias-power-generation-capacity-drops-below-50-for-1st-time-since-1960s/amp_articleshow/110136283.cms https://m.economictimes.com/industry/energy/power/coals-shar... EDIT: but apparently it went back up in April. Installed coal capacity is 49.3% but since hydro dropped in April it went up again
- wanderingmind 2y ago
  This is wishful thinking. Large parts of Africa is yet to become a developing economy. Once that happens, coal consumption is going to increase. Unfortunately, it's the easiest and cheapest way to generate electric power.
  - deepnotderp 2y ago
    Nah, nat gas is cheaper The problem is that not all parts of the world have access to cheap nat gas
    - defrost 2y ago
      Is that with or without the external costs of additional CO2 releases?
      - onecommentman 2y ago
        Such external costs should only be included if the uncertainties on estimates of external costs of CO2 emissions are somehow represented. And I’m referring to factoring in all structural and parametric uncertainties inherent in climate models. Cutting to the chase, you can never factor in, or even meaningfully bound, those structural uncertainties. Not a big deal for million dollar investments, a big deal for trillion dollar investments. Modelers of all ilks generally avoid reporting the underlying uncertainties in their results. And when they do report them, they are woefully underestimated. Fine in the abstract, but not acceptable when trillions of dollars are at stake. Dollars that can be spent instead on direct low risk, high impact improvements in third world child health (clean air, clean water, infectious diseases, etc.). Maybe choose those that also mitigate climate impacts (as we currently understand them), but directly save the living children/people first. Keep on improving the models with scientific research, but don’t fool ourselves about the accuracy and completeness of such models for policy analysis. I’m old enough to remember the Club of Rome/Limits to Growth controversies.
        defrost 2y ago
        The geophysics behind, say, the Santos Barrossa gas project appears pretty tight; the C02 emmissions estimates are directly tied to the economic feasibility estimate process .. if one is wrong then so is the other, if so it must be a bad investment and a foolish project? When the project’s offshore and gas processing emissions are factored in, the LNG produced from the Barossa field would have a total emissions intensity of 1.4 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of LNG produced. This makes the Barossa development the most emissions intensive LNG projects in Australia and the world ~ https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Santos-2022-Climate-Change-Report-A-Reality-Check_April-2022.pdf https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Santos-2022-Cli... At this point in time there's a clear understanding of the consequences of the current 11 billion tonne of CO2 equivilant emmissions released annually .. an increase in trapped solar heat energy that directly leads to increased storm intensity, climbing global mean tempretures, and edging closer to positive feedback thresholds which are significantly hard to reverse when crossed.
Terr_ 2y ago
Employment in coal extraction is also an interesting graph. Although a lot of it has dropped due to mechanization over the generations (like, from ~1910 on downwards) it's still pretty clear that the old heights of job-creation people might remember with nostalgia are never[0] coming back. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES1021210001 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES1021210001 [0] Barring a discovery that coal can be converted into the elixir of youth, etc.
cyberax 2y ago
> China, though, is still adding coal capacity. It's a bit misleading because China is mostly _replacing_ old coal power plants now. China has probably passed the peak coal consumption this year, or it will in 2025.
- nicce 2y ago
  The one thing where dictatorship is very efficient. One man says that let's reduce the pollution and others will do it. Let's see if democracy is ever able to do the same.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    I disagree. Pollution in China was terrible. Pretty much everybody hated it, and it was not possible to hide or whitewash it. The US was in the same position during 60-s and 70-s, and it fixed the worst of the pollution rapidly. The EPA was established during the freaking Nixon administration.
    - jfengel 2y ago
      And it had a good fifty years or so before being abolished.
    - 7thpower 2y ago
      I think there were a lot of factors at play behind the will of the leader or form of government, including resources and technologies available to the respective nations.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Another anecdote where a democracy can deal with sufficiently bad pollution… eventually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
      - tim333 2y ago
        Still working on it with ULEZ and Oxford Street.
cbmuser 2y ago
China is also massively building nuclear with 29 reactors being built in parallel. Source: https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/underconstructionreactorsbycountry.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/underconstruction...
- nine_k 2y ago
  Are they varied, or mostly the same model?
  - defrost 2y ago
    Mostly similar but with a lot of breadth, eg: they have three generations of molten salt reactors on the go ATM (one pilot complete, one 10x large half complete, one even bigger on the drawing board being modified on basis of results from first two). See: (for example) https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-china-in-nuclear-power/ https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-c...
- epistasis 2y ago
  And thats small potatoes compared to their wind and solar efforts, something like 339 GW in 2023 and going way up every year.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Or, using percentages: China’s commitment to nuclear power increased significantly with the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025), released in March 2021, which called for a buildout of some 150 new nuclear reactors over the ensuing 15 years to reach a production goal of 200 GW of nuclear energy by 2035 (enough to power more than a dozen cities the size of Beijing). By 2050, China wants nuclear to provide at least 15 percent of its electricity generation (which China envisions as its third overall source of energy by that year, behind wind and solar). ~ https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-china-in-nuclear-power/ https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-c...
scythe 2y ago
It's worth contextualizing that the decline of coal in the US has been fuelled (sorry) more than anything by the rapid expansion of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas extraction. The US is now the world's largest natural gas producer with 60% of that gas being produced by hydraulic fracturing. This isn't going to be easily accessible — or acceptable — everywhere around the world.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Solar and batteries are getting so cheap so fast it won’t matter for the rest of the world. China installed a 3GW solar facility in 14 months, just turned up, second largest in the world [1] [2]. 14 months. And they are not slowing down. [1] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/11/12/worlds-second-largest-solar-plant-goes-online-in-china/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/11/12/worlds-second-largest... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42124253 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42124253
  - anonymousiam 2y ago
    Is there any data on the lifecycle of large-scale solar batteries? Are they any better than the small-scale ones? If they aren't, it would seem impractical to rely on them, because of the costs to replace/recycle them every few years. Just to be clear, I'm referring to the use of electrical batteries for the temporary storage of solar power, so that the power can be available when the sun is not. Non-electrical storage techniques (gravity, hydro) would seem better suited for long-term reliability.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      Lithium batteries typically have a 10-15 year service life, depending on who you buy from (I am most familiar with Tesla's Megapack and Autobidder product in this regard; Tesla will warranty for up to 20 years [1]). CATL has a battery they warranty for 1M miles in EV applications [2], extrapolate to daily stationary storage cycles. Sodium ion is moving very fast, and is likely superior for this use case (both in regards to cost and service life) [3]. Scale up manufacturing, scale up deployment, scale up recycling, and you've got a circular supply chain system. At end of life, new (very likely better) batteries are installed and the old ones (in decades) are shipped back for recycling. In the US, this is Redwood Materials [4], founded by JB Straubel (former Tesla CTO). They have agreements to both recycle batteries with major automakers as well as supply feedstock for new battery components [5]. I'm unsure if this circular supply chain system exists in China yet, but I presume it is straightforward with their nation state resources to encourage along. Pumped hydro is great where you can build it and it is cost superior to batteries, but batteries can be shipped and installed anywhere a concrete pad is waiting for them, very rapidly. [1] https://www.tesla.com/megapack https://www.tesla.com/megapack ("Each Megapack unit ships fully assembled and ready to operate, allowing for quick installation timelines and reduced complexity. Systems require minimal maintenance and include up to a 20-year warranty.") [2] https://electrek.co/2024/09/16/catl-launches-new-ev-battery-lasts-nearly-1-million-miles/ https://electrek.co/2024/09/16/catl-launches-new-ev-battery-... ("CATL launches ultra-high-energy-density EV bus battery that lasts nearly 1 million miles") [3] https://electrek.co/2024/05/17/china-first-large-scale-sodium-ion-battery/ https://electrek.co/2024/05/17/china-first-large-scale-sodiu... ("China’s first large-scale sodium-ion battery charges to 90% in 12 minutes") [4] https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/ https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/ ("Redwood Materials: We’re building a circular supply chain to power a sustainable world") [5] https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/#partners https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/#partners ("Redwood Material: Partners")
KennyBlanken 2y ago
The reason it's over is because wind and solar have become cheaper than anything else. Solar is currently around $23/MWhr. Nuclear is around $70/MWhr, one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity. Solar is highly distributeable so it can be placed closer to where the power is used, reducing transmission losses. It doesn't need to be very carefully sited in terms of where it goes on the grid, and nobody needs to worry about the long term geological stability of the area. It doesn't need to be partnered with another plant for cold starts. It has no safety concerns. It doesn't need any labor to operate - mostly occasional repairs to damage and cleaning. It has no capacity to cause any sort of disaster. It does not generate toxic waste in operation. Nobody has ever said "don't shoot tank rounds near that solar farm or you might cause thousands of square miles of land to be uninhabitable for centuries." Nobody has ever said "we need to be concerned about the potential for that solar farm to be used in a program to create weapons of mass destruction" The administration kowtowing to industry lobbyists to fund nuclear energy when the market was already adding seven times as much renewables as it is decommissioning nuclear capacity...is just corporate welfare, pure and simple.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  > Nobody has ever said "we need to be concerned about the potential for that solar farm to be used in a program to create weapons of mass destruction" Well, if hydrogen from electrolysis really takes off, it would be possible to piggyback an exchange tower on the system to also get heavy water production. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980IJHE....5..409H/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980IJHE....5..409H/abstra... (that's an old reference; the CECE process has since been driven to maturity by Canada.)
- aethr 2y ago
  Solar and wind definitely make the most sense wherever feasible, but it's important to keep in mind you can't just build solar and wind farms anywhere. China has moderately good solar capacity in the north, but generation there will be seasonal due to how far north it is. The north of China is also not close to the majority of the population, so transmission will be an issue. China's high to moderate quality solar capacity will be built out very quickly, and it won't provide enough to close the gap from fossil-based generation. From there, the cost of solar generation will rise as low quality capacity is developed. China will need a way to import some of their energy generation, possibly through by importing goods like iron and steel that have a high energy production cost, from countries like Australia that can produce them using renewable energy (green iron / green steel) using Australia's almost limitless solar resources. Since much of Australia's coal is also used in places like China to smelt their local and imported iron and steel, this could further drive down production of coal.
marcosdumay 2y ago
On the last few years, China's coal consumption has been almost unchanging. What yeah, makes them one of the countries mostly investing in coal out there. But there hasn't been an increase, and it ought to fall fast at some point to one of the cheaper alternatives.
onecommentman 2y ago
I didn’t read where the US is mining out all their coal deposits and dumping them in the ocean. Current exploitation of coal in the US maybe be declining, but it is still an important part of a robust portfolio of energy technologies. The US is, in fact, the Saudi Arabia of coal and, to meet robustness requirements for meeting short and long term US energy demand, coal is a common sense component. Maybe eventually only in some mothballed-annual testing-fast restart sense, but it’s a very cheap insurance policy. Keeping the pilot light on for the US coal industry as well, from a National Security standpoint. Keep improving renewables, but don’t throw away what works. There’s a beauty to a highly diverse portfolio. You sleep better at night.
- Qwertious 2y ago
  >The US is, in fact, the Saudi Arabia of coal No, that's Australia. We do a lot of stupid shit to earn that title. We're the #1 coal exporter in the world (note: exporter, the US beats us on production), despite having a tiny population and economy compared to the USA. We're also mostly desert and have a pop of ~20 million, just like Saudi Arabia, and we also pour our fossil fuel profits into a sovereign wealth fund, just like Saudi Arabia - oh wait no we don't, we're less financially prudent than Saudi "let's build a ski resort here" Arabia.
jillesvangurp 2y ago
There's a lot of speculation about when peak coal and fossil usage is going to be in China. There is some suggestion that that might actually be right now. China's aggressive rollout of solar, wind, and battery is shifting a lot of their plans by years or decades. The official line is still that they want to be carbon neutral by 2060. But they might actually get there a lot sooner if the current trends continue. In any case, the economic case for coal is indeed pretty clear at this point: it's simply too expensive in most markets. Even in markets where coal mining is a big part of the local economy. And while gas has taken up some of the slack (especially in the US), the vast majority of additions to the grid world wide are renewables. Peak gas usage world wide is a bit murky. Projections range from right now to 2030 (IEA). But the bottom line is that we're not really replacing coal with gas. There are a lot of gas peaker plants not running all the time that were designed originally to be running 24/7. That massively changes the economics and profitability of these things and makes them a lot less attractive to investors.
- Animats 2y ago
  Gas peaker plants aren't intended to be run 24/7. That's why they're called "peaker plants". Most of the cost is fuel, so they can be profitable if run only during peak periods. Nuclear plants are all fixed cost. So reducing power produced during off-hours increases cost per KWh.
ProxCoques 2y ago
My understanding on China's coal plants is that it's not the number of them, it's whether they're running that counts. Coal-fired generation is currently cheaper than storage for backing up wind and solar generation and their plants are typically running about 50% of the time right now, expected to run less often as storage and more renewables come online. So China’s coal use could fall despite it adding more capacity. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants
dietr1ch 2y ago
Isn't "natural" gas a scam to keep polluting? Why not nuclear and within a lifetime renewable energies?
- brtkdotse 2y ago
  Natural gas is terrible, but arguably less terrible than coal which aside from CO2 spews out a plethora of other nasty compounds.
  - sahmeepee 2y ago
    One small plus for coal is that it doesn't leak. With better satellite observation now, we're finding out how underreported the emissions of methane from natural gas extraction were.
    - defrost 2y ago
      Of course coal "leaks" .. it's a major issue worldwide. https://www.osmre.gov/programs/mine-fires https://www.osmre.gov/programs/mine-fires Due to thermal insulation and the avoidance of rain/snow extinguishment by the crust, underground coal-seam fires are the most persistent fires on Earth and can burn for thousands of years, like Burning Mountain in Australia. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-seam_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-seam_fire
      - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
        Coal mines also leak methane.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  It very much is natural, it comes right out of the ground. Why not nuclear? Its 10x more expensive than gas
  - dietr1ch 2y ago
    Coal and Asbestos are natural too, the point is that "natural" there is a greenwashing term as it's quite polluting and not the best energy source out there considering global warming.
DennisP 2y ago
Environmentally, converting coal to natural gas isn't that much of a win. Take methane leaks into account and it might even be worse. It'd be interesting to see the cost per ton CO2e of paying to shut down gas plants as well.
screye 2y ago
Isn't China adding all capacity ? As China's power consumption grows, is coal occupying a bigger percent of the energy pie or is it proportional growth? China wants to annex Taiwan. To fight any wau laden with sanctions, it needs energy independence. They don't have natural gas so they're burning coal. It's not ideal, but at least they have a better reason than Germany shuttering nuclear plants or the US keeping coal alive.

defrost 2y ago

Coal has peaked globally, there's no global expansion, 190+ countries are winding back coal save for both India and China which are still expanding at a declining rate and expected to peak and decline in the mid term. WRT China, they can't over produce renewable energy and be the largest global supplier of green energy without coal .. at least not yet.

h0l0cube 2y ago
China’s growing coal capacity could be seen as a mix of welfare and bureaucratic waste. Each prefecture is incentivized to build its own redundancy, and in a flagging economy, government spending is up to keep the economy going. The resulting overcapacity could be used for ‘peaking’ to offset intermittency in renewable power, something that’s being experimented with currently. And in the shorter term, coal can have less warming effect than gas, but I’m not sure this would be true of China’s coal plants in particular
- defrost 2y ago
  China’s growing coal consumption is part of Cina's growing energy demands, their middle class is growing and exceeds the entire popultion of the USA in size. While that middle class has a per capita energy and consumption figure that is lower than the USA per capita figures it is the case that the US has set an aspiration life style expectation that sees demand grow. China's coal use has become increasingly more efficient; much is made of additional new modern coal power houses, little mention is made of the larger numbers of older inefficient far dirtier coal plants have been closed down and are still being closed down. Nuclear and renewables are part of overall energy production in China to a far greater proportion and absolute number than in the US. The scale of China's energy production is substantial and not easily characterised.
  - philipkglass 2y ago
    Nuclear and renewables are part of overall energy production in China to a far greater proportion and absolute number than in the US. China has a smaller nuclear fleet capacity than the US and meets a much smaller percentage of its electricity needs with nuclear power: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=CN https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.... https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=US https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.... As of 2023 US got 18.55% of electricity from nuclear power (775 terawatt hours) while China got 4.86% (433 TWh). As of 2023 China does get a larger share from renewables: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China#Production_and_capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China#Pr... https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 It's 29.1% renewables in China (2,756 TWh) vs. 21.4% (894 TWh) in the United States. Grouping nuclear and renewables together as low-emissions sources, the US gets 47.65% of its electricity from low-emissions sources and China gets 33.96% from low-emissions sources. China is building nuclear and renewable sources faster than the US, so will narrow the gap over the rest of the decade, but it's also growing its total electricity consumption faster.
    - defrost 2y ago
      Fair correction, I was focused more on China's renewable sector than it's nuclear (which China plans to increase to 15% of their projected 2050 electricity production) and on absolute size. I mostly check my figures before comments, this is what I deserve for going off the cuff :-) ( thanks )
      - philipkglass 2y ago
        I made a mistake too when I was adding and copy-pasting numbers. US is at 39.55% low-emissions electricity. So I got the ranking right but originally overstated the size of the gap.
    - xbmcuser 2y ago
      China in 2024 is on track to install more solar and wind capacity than it's consumption growth add the fact that of lcoe of solar + battery storage is now cheaper than what retail electricity is selling for in China. So move off coal electricity for China might be a lot faster than people are predicting.
- tim333 2y ago
  I think there may be a military aspect to it. So they can crack on if they get blockaded for invading Taiwan.
shash 2y ago
In India, coal just dipped below 50% for the first time since the 1960s. https://m.economictimes.com/industry/energy/power/coals-share-in-indias-power-generation-capacity-drops-below-50-for-1st-time-since-1960s/amp_articleshow/110136283.cms https://m.economictimes.com/industry/energy/power/coals-shar... EDIT: but apparently it went back up in April. Installed coal capacity is 49.3% but since hydro dropped in April it went up again
wanderingmind 2y ago
This is wishful thinking. Large parts of Africa is yet to become a developing economy. Once that happens, coal consumption is going to increase. Unfortunately, it's the easiest and cheapest way to generate electric power.
- deepnotderp 2y ago
  Nah, nat gas is cheaper The problem is that not all parts of the world have access to cheap nat gas
  - defrost 2y ago
    Is that with or without the external costs of additional CO2 releases?
    - onecommentman 2y ago
      Such external costs should only be included if the uncertainties on estimates of external costs of CO2 emissions are somehow represented. And I’m referring to factoring in all structural and parametric uncertainties inherent in climate models. Cutting to the chase, you can never factor in, or even meaningfully bound, those structural uncertainties. Not a big deal for million dollar investments, a big deal for trillion dollar investments. Modelers of all ilks generally avoid reporting the underlying uncertainties in their results. And when they do report them, they are woefully underestimated. Fine in the abstract, but not acceptable when trillions of dollars are at stake. Dollars that can be spent instead on direct low risk, high impact improvements in third world child health (clean air, clean water, infectious diseases, etc.). Maybe choose those that also mitigate climate impacts (as we currently understand them), but directly save the living children/people first. Keep on improving the models with scientific research, but don’t fool ourselves about the accuracy and completeness of such models for policy analysis. I’m old enough to remember the Club of Rome/Limits to Growth controversies.
      - defrost 2y ago
        The geophysics behind, say, the Santos Barrossa gas project appears pretty tight; the C02 emmissions estimates are directly tied to the economic feasibility estimate process .. if one is wrong then so is the other, if so it must be a bad investment and a foolish project? When the project’s offshore and gas processing emissions are factored in, the LNG produced from the Barossa field would have a total emissions intensity of 1.4 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of LNG produced. This makes the Barossa development the most emissions intensive LNG projects in Australia and the world ~ https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Santos-2022-Climate-Change-Report-A-Reality-Check_April-2022.pdf https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Santos-2022-Cli... At this point in time there's a clear understanding of the consequences of the current 11 billion tonne of CO2 equivilant emmissions released annually .. an increase in trapped solar heat energy that directly leads to increased storm intensity, climbing global mean tempretures, and edging closer to positive feedback thresholds which are significantly hard to reverse when crossed.

Terr_ 2y ago

Employment in coal extraction is also an interesting graph. Although a lot of it has dropped due to mechanization over the generations (like, from ~1910 on downwards) it's still pretty clear that the old heights of job-creation people might remember with nostalgia are never[0] coming back. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES1021210001 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES1021210001 [0] Barring a discovery that coal can be converted into the elixir of youth, etc.

cyberax 2y ago

> China, though, is still adding coal capacity. It's a bit misleading because China is mostly _replacing_ old coal power plants now. China has probably passed the peak coal consumption this year, or it will in 2025.

nicce 2y ago
The one thing where dictatorship is very efficient. One man says that let's reduce the pollution and others will do it. Let's see if democracy is ever able to do the same.
- cyberax 2y ago
  I disagree. Pollution in China was terrible. Pretty much everybody hated it, and it was not possible to hide or whitewash it. The US was in the same position during 60-s and 70-s, and it fixed the worst of the pollution rapidly. The EPA was established during the freaking Nixon administration.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    And it had a good fifty years or so before being abolished.
  - 7thpower 2y ago
    I think there were a lot of factors at play behind the will of the leader or form of government, including resources and technologies available to the respective nations.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Another anecdote where a democracy can deal with sufficiently bad pollution… eventually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
    - tim333 2y ago
      Still working on it with ULEZ and Oxford Street.

cbmuser 2y ago

China is also massively building nuclear with 29 reactors being built in parallel. Source: https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/underconstructionreactorsbycountry.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/underconstruction...

nine_k 2y ago
Are they varied, or mostly the same model?
- defrost 2y ago
  Mostly similar but with a lot of breadth, eg: they have three generations of molten salt reactors on the go ATM (one pilot complete, one 10x large half complete, one even bigger on the drawing board being modified on basis of results from first two). See: (for example) https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-china-in-nuclear-power/ https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-c...
epistasis 2y ago
And thats small potatoes compared to their wind and solar efforts, something like 339 GW in 2023 and going way up every year.
- defrost 2y ago
  Or, using percentages: China’s commitment to nuclear power increased significantly with the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025), released in March 2021, which called for a buildout of some 150 new nuclear reactors over the ensuing 15 years to reach a production goal of 200 GW of nuclear energy by 2035 (enough to power more than a dozen cities the size of Beijing). By 2050, China wants nuclear to provide at least 15 percent of its electricity generation (which China envisions as its third overall source of energy by that year, behind wind and solar). ~ https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-china-in-nuclear-power/ https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-c...

scythe 2y ago

It's worth contextualizing that the decline of coal in the US has been fuelled (sorry) more than anything by the rapid expansion of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas extraction. The US is now the world's largest natural gas producer with 60% of that gas being produced by hydraulic fracturing. This isn't going to be easily accessible — or acceptable — everywhere around the world.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Solar and batteries are getting so cheap so fast it won’t matter for the rest of the world. China installed a 3GW solar facility in 14 months, just turned up, second largest in the world [1] [2]. 14 months. And they are not slowing down. [1] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/11/12/worlds-second-largest-solar-plant-goes-online-in-china/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/11/12/worlds-second-largest... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42124253 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42124253
- anonymousiam 2y ago
  Is there any data on the lifecycle of large-scale solar batteries? Are they any better than the small-scale ones? If they aren't, it would seem impractical to rely on them, because of the costs to replace/recycle them every few years. Just to be clear, I'm referring to the use of electrical batteries for the temporary storage of solar power, so that the power can be available when the sun is not. Non-electrical storage techniques (gravity, hydro) would seem better suited for long-term reliability.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Lithium batteries typically have a 10-15 year service life, depending on who you buy from (I am most familiar with Tesla's Megapack and Autobidder product in this regard; Tesla will warranty for up to 20 years [1]). CATL has a battery they warranty for 1M miles in EV applications [2], extrapolate to daily stationary storage cycles. Sodium ion is moving very fast, and is likely superior for this use case (both in regards to cost and service life) [3]. Scale up manufacturing, scale up deployment, scale up recycling, and you've got a circular supply chain system. At end of life, new (very likely better) batteries are installed and the old ones (in decades) are shipped back for recycling. In the US, this is Redwood Materials [4], founded by JB Straubel (former Tesla CTO). They have agreements to both recycle batteries with major automakers as well as supply feedstock for new battery components [5]. I'm unsure if this circular supply chain system exists in China yet, but I presume it is straightforward with their nation state resources to encourage along. Pumped hydro is great where you can build it and it is cost superior to batteries, but batteries can be shipped and installed anywhere a concrete pad is waiting for them, very rapidly. [1] https://www.tesla.com/megapack https://www.tesla.com/megapack ("Each Megapack unit ships fully assembled and ready to operate, allowing for quick installation timelines and reduced complexity. Systems require minimal maintenance and include up to a 20-year warranty.") [2] https://electrek.co/2024/09/16/catl-launches-new-ev-battery-lasts-nearly-1-million-miles/ https://electrek.co/2024/09/16/catl-launches-new-ev-battery-... ("CATL launches ultra-high-energy-density EV bus battery that lasts nearly 1 million miles") [3] https://electrek.co/2024/05/17/china-first-large-scale-sodium-ion-battery/ https://electrek.co/2024/05/17/china-first-large-scale-sodiu... ("China’s first large-scale sodium-ion battery charges to 90% in 12 minutes") [4] https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/ https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/ ("Redwood Materials: We’re building a circular supply chain to power a sustainable world") [5] https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/#partners https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/#partners ("Redwood Material: Partners")

KennyBlanken 2y ago

The reason it's over is because wind and solar have become cheaper than anything else. Solar is currently around $23/MWhr. Nuclear is around $70/MWhr, one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity. Solar is highly distributeable so it can be placed closer to where the power is used, reducing transmission losses. It doesn't need to be very carefully sited in terms of where it goes on the grid, and nobody needs to worry about the long term geological stability of the area. It doesn't need to be partnered with another plant for cold starts. It has no safety concerns. It doesn't need any labor to operate - mostly occasional repairs to damage and cleaning. It has no capacity to cause any sort of disaster. It does not generate toxic waste in operation. Nobody has ever said "don't shoot tank rounds near that solar farm or you might cause thousands of square miles of land to be uninhabitable for centuries." Nobody has ever said "we need to be concerned about the potential for that solar farm to be used in a program to create weapons of mass destruction" The administration kowtowing to industry lobbyists to fund nuclear energy when the market was already adding seven times as much renewables as it is decommissioning nuclear capacity...is just corporate welfare, pure and simple.

pfdietz 2y ago
> Nobody has ever said "we need to be concerned about the potential for that solar farm to be used in a program to create weapons of mass destruction" Well, if hydrogen from electrolysis really takes off, it would be possible to piggyback an exchange tower on the system to also get heavy water production. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980IJHE....5..409H/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980IJHE....5..409H/abstra... (that's an old reference; the CECE process has since been driven to maturity by Canada.)
aethr 2y ago
Solar and wind definitely make the most sense wherever feasible, but it's important to keep in mind you can't just build solar and wind farms anywhere. China has moderately good solar capacity in the north, but generation there will be seasonal due to how far north it is. The north of China is also not close to the majority of the population, so transmission will be an issue. China's high to moderate quality solar capacity will be built out very quickly, and it won't provide enough to close the gap from fossil-based generation. From there, the cost of solar generation will rise as low quality capacity is developed. China will need a way to import some of their energy generation, possibly through by importing goods like iron and steel that have a high energy production cost, from countries like Australia that can produce them using renewable energy (green iron / green steel) using Australia's almost limitless solar resources. Since much of Australia's coal is also used in places like China to smelt their local and imported iron and steel, this could further drive down production of coal.

marcosdumay 2y ago

On the last few years, China's coal consumption has been almost unchanging. What yeah, makes them one of the countries mostly investing in coal out there. But there hasn't been an increase, and it ought to fall fast at some point to one of the cheaper alternatives.

onecommentman 2y ago

I didn’t read where the US is mining out all their coal deposits and dumping them in the ocean. Current exploitation of coal in the US maybe be declining, but it is still an important part of a robust portfolio of energy technologies. The US is, in fact, the Saudi Arabia of coal and, to meet robustness requirements for meeting short and long term US energy demand, coal is a common sense component. Maybe eventually only in some mothballed-annual testing-fast restart sense, but it’s a very cheap insurance policy. Keeping the pilot light on for the US coal industry as well, from a National Security standpoint. Keep improving renewables, but don’t throw away what works. There’s a beauty to a highly diverse portfolio. You sleep better at night.

Qwertious 2y ago
>The US is, in fact, the Saudi Arabia of coal No, that's Australia. We do a lot of stupid shit to earn that title. We're the #1 coal exporter in the world (note: exporter, the US beats us on production), despite having a tiny population and economy compared to the USA. We're also mostly desert and have a pop of ~20 million, just like Saudi Arabia, and we also pour our fossil fuel profits into a sovereign wealth fund, just like Saudi Arabia - oh wait no we don't, we're less financially prudent than Saudi "let's build a ski resort here" Arabia.

jillesvangurp 2y ago

There's a lot of speculation about when peak coal and fossil usage is going to be in China. There is some suggestion that that might actually be right now. China's aggressive rollout of solar, wind, and battery is shifting a lot of their plans by years or decades. The official line is still that they want to be carbon neutral by 2060. But they might actually get there a lot sooner if the current trends continue. In any case, the economic case for coal is indeed pretty clear at this point: it's simply too expensive in most markets. Even in markets where coal mining is a big part of the local economy. And while gas has taken up some of the slack (especially in the US), the vast majority of additions to the grid world wide are renewables. Peak gas usage world wide is a bit murky. Projections range from right now to 2030 (IEA). But the bottom line is that we're not really replacing coal with gas. There are a lot of gas peaker plants not running all the time that were designed originally to be running 24/7. That massively changes the economics and profitability of these things and makes them a lot less attractive to investors.

Animats 2y ago
Gas peaker plants aren't intended to be run 24/7. That's why they're called "peaker plants". Most of the cost is fuel, so they can be profitable if run only during peak periods. Nuclear plants are all fixed cost. So reducing power produced during off-hours increases cost per KWh.

ProxCoques 2y ago

My understanding on China's coal plants is that it's not the number of them, it's whether they're running that counts. Coal-fired generation is currently cheaper than storage for backing up wind and solar generation and their plants are typically running about 50% of the time right now, expected to run less often as storage and more renewables come online. So China’s coal use could fall despite it adding more capacity. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants

dietr1ch 2y ago

Isn't "natural" gas a scam to keep polluting? Why not nuclear and within a lifetime renewable energies?

brtkdotse 2y ago
Natural gas is terrible, but arguably less terrible than coal which aside from CO2 spews out a plethora of other nasty compounds.
- sahmeepee 2y ago
  One small plus for coal is that it doesn't leak. With better satellite observation now, we're finding out how underreported the emissions of methane from natural gas extraction were.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Of course coal "leaks" .. it's a major issue worldwide. https://www.osmre.gov/programs/mine-fires https://www.osmre.gov/programs/mine-fires Due to thermal insulation and the avoidance of rain/snow extinguishment by the crust, underground coal-seam fires are the most persistent fires on Earth and can burn for thousands of years, like Burning Mountain in Australia. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-seam_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-seam_fire
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      Coal mines also leak methane.
HDThoreaun 2y ago
It very much is natural, it comes right out of the ground. Why not nuclear? Its 10x more expensive than gas
- dietr1ch 2y ago
  Coal and Asbestos are natural too, the point is that "natural" there is a greenwashing term as it's quite polluting and not the best energy source out there considering global warming.

DennisP 2y ago

Environmentally, converting coal to natural gas isn't that much of a win. Take methane leaks into account and it might even be worse. It'd be interesting to see the cost per ton CO2e of paying to shut down gas plants as well.

screye 2y ago

Isn't China adding all capacity ? As China's power consumption grows, is coal occupying a bigger percent of the energy pie or is it proportional growth? China wants to annex Taiwan. To fight any wau laden with sanctions, it needs energy independence. They don't have natural gas so they're burning coal. It's not ideal, but at least they have a better reason than Germany shuttering nuclear plants or the US keeping coal alive.