7 ms·

I certainly hope this will be the end of coal. It would be the biggest single step forward in reducing GHG emissions.

by Hypx 11y ago

hueving 11y ago
I don't understand your comment. The death of coal is not a single step. It's already been happening because of cheap natural gas. Look at this chart for a coal company[1]. It's already been almost dead and a major chunk of the coal GHG emissions are already cut way back (albeit at the expense of natural gas emissions). http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ACI+Interactive#{"range":"5y"} http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ACI+Interactive#{"range":...
- schainks 11y ago
  This. The number one influencer of grid tech investment is energy prices before politics (not going to discuss nuclear). Cheap gas -> we build more gas generators. Expensive gas -> we build fewer generators and even try to schedule less use of the ones we've already built, and bring online cheaper fuel sources (ie coal), etc.
- Daishiman 11y ago
  Yes, but natural gas is not a magical solution for CO2 reduction. It's substantially better given the reduced particulates emissions, but you're still spewing tremendous amounts of GHG into the atmosphere.
  - stox 11y ago
    Per unit of heat generated, natural gas produces about half the CO2 of coal. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11 That is already a big win.
- rgbrenner 11y ago
  Why post a stock chart for a coal company, when we have actual usage data for coal: 1949-2011: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec7_9.pdf http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec7_9.pdf 2008-2014Q2: http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t32p01p1.pdf http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t32p01p1.pd... Unfortunately, it doesn't back up your claim at all that it's "almost dead"... It looks like we're about 18% off from the peak in 2007.
  - graeme 11y ago
    Is that just US usage? World consumption appears to have risen until 2012. That's the truly meaningful stat. So I agree with you, and it looks like the world situation is worse. http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=2&cid=ww,&syid=2008&eyid=2012&unit=TST http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=1&pi...
  - hueving 11y ago
    >Why post a stock chart for a coal company, when we have actual usage data for coal: Sorry if it wasn't obvious, but coal companies have to make money. They are at the point now where they are on the verge of being wiped out by natural gas. It will reach a point where coal makes absolutely no sense to invest in and the game will stop there. It's already at the point where nobody in their right mind is putting money into new large coal prospects.
    - bmelton 11y ago
      So then, coal consumption is up? http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/HNRG http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/HNRG A single company's stock production does not indicate the state of coal any more than Gateway's stock chart represents the state of technology.
      - hueving 11y ago
        >Hallador has a 45 percent equity interest in Savoy Energy, L.P., an oil and gas company with operations in Michigan. It's a bit daft to point to a company that has a pretty be hedge against the decline of coal. I pointed to ACI because they mostly depend on coal sales in the US so it's a pretty nice reflection of the US domestic coal market.
        bmelton 11y ago
        As has been already pointed out, the domestic coal market is not indicative of the entire coal market. In the ten year period between 2002 and 2012 (the only figure I have the most recent numbers for) coal consumption went from 5 and a half billion tons to over 8 billion tons, and it's slated to hit 9 billion tons by 2019.
brc 11y ago
It will not. Coal generation is still cheap and will remain so because it is simple to build and operate, and capital invested lasts for decades. It is only expensive in places where the government has decided to force it out of business via taxes and regulations. That's not true for most of the world, and the future of coal production is certainly up.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > It is only expensive in places where the government has decided to force it out of business via taxes and regulations. That's not true for most of the world, and the future of coal production is certainly up. You mean "properly include the cost of it's externalities". Coal is the epitome of "tragedy of the commons". The faster a stake is driven through its heart, the better off the world will be.
  - brc 11y ago
    Cost = $ per mwh Drive coal out of production now and you'll cause a lot more problems than you solve. Lots of activists like to do their ten minutes of hate on coal, but they never stop and think about all the good that it does. It's a case of 'what has coal ever done for us'. Apart from all the lighting, refrigeration, production, water distribution, heating, cooling and computing it enables throughout the world. The age of coal will eventually end. It is best managed rather then fervently trying to prevent.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      I don't dispute coal had a time and a place, just as rock did during the stone age. We've evolved past it though, and the time for its graceful bow of the world energy stage has arrived.
      - brc 11y ago
        No, we haven't. When every single village and town has reliable and cheap electricity supply and their productivity has been raised to the point where they can afford cheaper replacements, then coal still has a place. All those TV adverts for villages with no clean water - what they first need is a power station to power pumps and filtration. When you see kids that have no education, what they first need is electricity so their parents don't have to make the kids work all day, and lighting so they can read at night. Those places, if they don't have hydro available, need coal fired electricity capable of being delivered at 10c/kWh. They don't need a tesla battery pack and solar panels any more than they need a tesla model s. I think most of them would trade a bit of coal pollution for the pollution from burning wood and dried out cowshit inside their homes. And it's downright wrong for people in rich countries to out their nose in the air and try and tell them they can't.
ams6110 11y ago
The radioactive particles and soot are probably more harmful

I certainly hope this will be the end of coal. It would be the biggest single step forward in reducing GHG emissions.

by Hypx 11y ago

I certainly hope this will be the end of coal. It would be the biggest single step forward in reducing GHG emissions.

I don't understand your comment. The death of coal is not a single step. It's already been happening because of cheap natural gas. Look at this chart for a coal company[1]. It's already been almost dead and a major chunk of the coal GHG emissions are already cut way back (albeit at the expense of natural gas emissions). http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ACI+Interactive#{"range":"5y"} http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ACI+Interactive#{"range":...

schainks 11y ago
This. The number one influencer of grid tech investment is energy prices before politics (not going to discuss nuclear). Cheap gas -> we build more gas generators. Expensive gas -> we build fewer generators and even try to schedule less use of the ones we've already built, and bring online cheaper fuel sources (ie coal), etc.
Daishiman 11y ago
Yes, but natural gas is not a magical solution for CO2 reduction. It's substantially better given the reduced particulates emissions, but you're still spewing tremendous amounts of GHG into the atmosphere.
- stox 11y ago
  Per unit of heat generated, natural gas produces about half the CO2 of coal. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11 That is already a big win.
rgbrenner 11y ago
Why post a stock chart for a coal company, when we have actual usage data for coal: 1949-2011: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec7_9.pdf http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec7_9.pdf 2008-2014Q2: http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t32p01p1.pdf http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t32p01p1.pd... Unfortunately, it doesn't back up your claim at all that it's "almost dead"... It looks like we're about 18% off from the peak in 2007.
- graeme 11y ago
  Is that just US usage? World consumption appears to have risen until 2012. That's the truly meaningful stat. So I agree with you, and it looks like the world situation is worse. http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=2&cid=ww,&syid=2008&eyid=2012&unit=TST http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=1&pi...
- hueving 11y ago
  >Why post a stock chart for a coal company, when we have actual usage data for coal: Sorry if it wasn't obvious, but coal companies have to make money. They are at the point now where they are on the verge of being wiped out by natural gas. It will reach a point where coal makes absolutely no sense to invest in and the game will stop there. It's already at the point where nobody in their right mind is putting money into new large coal prospects.
  - bmelton 11y ago
    So then, coal consumption is up? http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/HNRG http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/HNRG A single company's stock production does not indicate the state of coal any more than Gateway's stock chart represents the state of technology.
    - hueving 11y ago
      >Hallador has a 45 percent equity interest in Savoy Energy, L.P., an oil and gas company with operations in Michigan. It's a bit daft to point to a company that has a pretty be hedge against the decline of coal. I pointed to ACI because they mostly depend on coal sales in the US so it's a pretty nice reflection of the US domestic coal market.
      - bmelton 11y ago
        As has been already pointed out, the domestic coal market is not indicative of the entire coal market. In the ten year period between 2002 and 2012 (the only figure I have the most recent numbers for) coal consumption went from 5 and a half billion tons to over 8 billion tons, and it's slated to hit 9 billion tons by 2019.

brc 11y ago

It will not. Coal generation is still cheap and will remain so because it is simple to build and operate, and capital invested lasts for decades. It is only expensive in places where the government has decided to force it out of business via taxes and regulations. That's not true for most of the world, and the future of coal production is certainly up.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> It is only expensive in places where the government has decided to force it out of business via taxes and regulations. That's not true for most of the world, and the future of coal production is certainly up. You mean "properly include the cost of it's externalities". Coal is the epitome of "tragedy of the commons". The faster a stake is driven through its heart, the better off the world will be.
- brc 11y ago
  Cost = $ per mwh Drive coal out of production now and you'll cause a lot more problems than you solve. Lots of activists like to do their ten minutes of hate on coal, but they never stop and think about all the good that it does. It's a case of 'what has coal ever done for us'. Apart from all the lighting, refrigeration, production, water distribution, heating, cooling and computing it enables throughout the world. The age of coal will eventually end. It is best managed rather then fervently trying to prevent.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    I don't dispute coal had a time and a place, just as rock did during the stone age. We've evolved past it though, and the time for its graceful bow of the world energy stage has arrived.
    - brc 11y ago
      No, we haven't. When every single village and town has reliable and cheap electricity supply and their productivity has been raised to the point where they can afford cheaper replacements, then coal still has a place. All those TV adverts for villages with no clean water - what they first need is a power station to power pumps and filtration. When you see kids that have no education, what they first need is electricity so their parents don't have to make the kids work all day, and lighting so they can read at night. Those places, if they don't have hydro available, need coal fired electricity capable of being delivered at 10c/kWh. They don't need a tesla battery pack and solar panels any more than they need a tesla model s. I think most of them would trade a bit of coal pollution for the pollution from burning wood and dried out cowshit inside their homes. And it's downright wrong for people in rich countries to out their nose in the air and try and tell them they can't.

ams6110 11y ago

The radioactive particles and soot are probably more harmful