Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Earth Government United States

Bloomberg To Put $500 Million Into Closing All Remaining Coal Plants By 2030 (cbsnews.com) 195

Posted by BeauHD from the taking-matters-into-your-own-hands dept.
In what marks the largest ever philanthropic effort to combat climate change, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is pledging $500 million to close all of the nation's remaining coal plants by 2030 and put the United States on track toward a 100% clean energy economy. The New York Times reports: The new campaign, called Beyond Carbon, is designed to help eliminate coal by focusing on state and local governments. The effort will bypass Washington, where Mr. Bloomberg has said national action appears unlikely because of a divided Congress and a president who denies the established science of climate change. "We're in a race against time with climate change, and yet there is virtually no hope of bold federal action on this issue for at least another two years," Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement before the announcement, which he made in a commencement address at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Mother Nature is not waiting on our political calendar, and neither can we."

A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg said most of the money would be spent over the next three years, though the time frame could be extended. It will fund lobbying efforts by environmental groups -- in state legislatures, City Councils and public utility commissions -- that aim to close coal plants and replace them with wind, solar and other renewable power. Part of the cash also will go toward efforts to elect local lawmakers who prioritize clean energy. The campaign will be based on the need to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change, but will also emphasize the economic benefits of switching to clean energy.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bloomberg To Put $500 Million Into Closing All Remaining Coal Plants By 2030 More

Bloomberg To Put $500 Million Into Closing All Remaining Coal Plants By 2030

Comments Filter:

  • Yep (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 07, 2019 @09:13PM (#58728650)

    Fuck coal, useless. Leave it in the ground. Good move. RENEWABLE INVESTMENTS ARE EXPLODING!

    • nuclear power!!

      • Re:nuclear power!! (Score:5, Funny)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Friday June 07, 2019 @09:15PM (#58728656) Homepage

        I'm not sure that "NUCLEAR INVESTMENTS ARE EXPLODING!" is the best slogan one could go with...

        • Nuclear Investments Reach Critical Mass?

      • What we should be doing. And not with old, incredibly unsafe designs.

        The gross quantity of potential energy alone, clean and on-demand, justifies it.

        • What we should be doing. And not with old, incredibly unsafe designs.

          Hmm, I take it that rather than using the old, incredibly unsafe nuclear plants that have killed about 100 people in all of history, we should use something safe, like coal plants, which have only killed 500,000 or so people so far this century?

          • I think perhaps you misunderstand my hesitations. I am very much in favor of nuclear power. ORNL did great work on the MSRE design that can fail into a safer state, as well as tons of materials engineering.

            I want better for us. That said, I agree with you: even the worst nuclear plants don't kill people like coal plants do.

            • even the worst nuclear plants don't kill people like coal plants do.

              Hell, the worst nuclear plants don't kill people like bicycles do. More fatal biking accidents every year than nuclear fatalities in all of history....

              That said, I agree that we should always build to the safest design we know. What I was disagreeing with was the notion that we've ever built a design that was unsafe by any sane measure (if the worst case for any existing design is fewer deaths per century than we have bicycling deaths pe

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by SirSlud ( 67381 )

            unsafe nuclear plants that have killed about 100 people in all of history

            This is obviously the dumbest way you could have gone with your point.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Investors look at accidents like Fukushima, where the investment went up in smoke and the power company was practically nationalized and is still facing tens of billions more in costs and compensation pay-outs. Reassuring them that it can't happen again with your shiny new design doesn't really help, when the next guy is offering a much safer renewable investment that starts showing an ROI in a few years and where all potential accidents can be covered by insurance.

      • nuclear power!!

        Chernobyl!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

      Fuck coal, useless. Leave it in the ground. Good move.

      Dumb move actually. It is silly to put money into closing coal plants in America, while NEW coal plants are still being built in India, Indonesia, and Africa. Bloomberg's money could be spent far more effectively there, since there would be no sunk costs to offset.

      It isn't like Indian and African CO2 is going into a different atmosphere. We are all in this together.

      • "India, Indonesia, and Africa. Bloomberg's money could be spent far more effectively there"

        How would that be more effective at fucking over deplorable redneck proles and further immiserating their white trash flyover communities?

      • Time for a car metaphor?

        My neighbour burns more car tyres than I do so I should concentrate on getting him to stop but carry on as usual myself?

      • Coal releases a lot of harmful stuff, and much of it falls locally, leading to lead exposure and such ailments. Lead exposure in turn leads to increased crime.

        Regardless, "someone else is doing it" is shitty logic to oppose a positive change.

      • Dumb move actually. It is silly to put money into closing coal plants in America, while NEW coal plants are still being built in India, Indonesia, and Africa. Bloomberg's money could be spent far more effectively there, since there would be no sunk costs to offset.

        It isn't like Indian and African CO2 is going into a different atmosphere. We are all in this together.

        Actually I will at least give him credit for not being one of those people trying to stop those projects in the underdeveloped world, where coal may be the best chance at actually even having electricity that they get.

  • So what 's the replacement? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Friday June 07, 2019 @09:21PM (#58728682)

    It's fine and all to talk about wanting to get rid of coal plants (though shouldn't his effort be focused on China here to really help the climate??).

    But shouldn't you have an idea for what WILL BE rather than just trying to stop what is, or is being built?

    They say they are trying to help, but what is really happening on is they are throwing money at political races. How on earth does that "help" anyone but political organizations? Couldn't they use that money on the homeless or to clean up NYC a little, or maybe provide free Uber to all the New Yorkers he has screwed out of reliable transit?

    • (though shouldn't his effort be focused on China here to really help the climate??).

      I'm not saying it's not a problem but this kind of dilemma has been around a long time: ""You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

    • Anything but coal (Score:2, Insightful)

      by UpnAtom ( 551727 )

      It's widely agreed that coal is by far the most polluting fuel.

      Solar is much cheaper already.

      Just build electrolysis plants to turn excess into hydrogen that can be used as jet fuel or returned to the grid if needed.

      • Oh bullshit (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Solar isn't cheaper. Solar is subsidized and coal is grossly penalized to make solar "cheaper". There was an (illegal) 8 year Obama imposed moratorium on repairing coal plants, building coal plants and maintaining coal plants, while the operators were forced to hide the costs of providing the mandated "renewables". Additionally, solar is only cheaper in places with net metering, where the power distributors are forced to pay residential solar providers the highest of retail rates, which is forcing everyone

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Uh, oil/coal/gas has been subsidized since before there WERE power plants, and nuclear's subsidized UP THE WAZOO. Renewables like solar are relatively under-subsidized by comparison given their lower cost anyway.

          Solar panels pay for themselves in a dozen years on average. There's no point in upgrading coal plants that are getting shuttered, that's stupid. You are stupid. You are defending stupid because you are stupid.

          ALL new houses in some states are being required to have renewable power sources. Tha

          • Re:Oh bullshit (Score:5, Informative)

            by blindseer ( 891256 ) <blindseer@noSPAm.earthlink.net> on Friday June 07, 2019 @11:52PM (#58729168)

            Uh, oil/coal/gas has been subsidized since before there WERE power plants, and nuclear's subsidized UP THE WAZOO. Renewables like solar are relatively under-subsidized by comparison given their lower cost anyway.

            Do you have a citation for that bullshit? Here's a source I found.

            A study by the University of Texas projected that U.S. energy subsidies per megawatt hour in 2019 would be $0.5 for coal, $1- $2 for oil and natural gas, $15- $57 for wind and $43- $320 for solar. Many of the renewable energy subsidies come in the form of a Production Tax Credit (PTC) of 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour. Wholesale prices for electricity in 2017 were between approximately 2.9 cents to 5.6 cents per kilowatt hour. Therefore the wind production tax credit covers 30% to 60% of wholesale electricity prices.

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/u... [forbes.com]

            Compared to what wind and solar get in subsidies everything else gets nothing.

            You lose.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Are you serious, you think oil / gas / nuclear have never gotten subsidies in the history of the US, or any country? Are you high or just stupid?

              You lose by virtue of being unable to read, your study doesn't say that actually.

            • Your tour guide probably didn't teach you how to read, or how economics or facts work. Pity. Nuclear is heavily subsidized, it's massive and not only directly from the Fed. You need to pick up a clue at the gift shop, tour over.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by bazorg ( 911295 )

              I know it's changing the goalposts, but renewables haven't received any subsidies in the form of military support for securing the resources needed to produce energy from solar/wind.
              The OP may have lost as you say, but there's a win to be had for everyone if oil is left for making plastics and stuff like that.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by trawg ( 308495 )

              For every study there seems to be an equal and opposite study :D this one [reuters.com] is from a few years ago. It's possible in that time the situation has changed, but - coal has had many decades of all sorts of support.

              I don't really have a problem with solar/wind/renewables in general getting ludicrous amounts of subsidies in the short term to help get them off the ground - the benefits seem obvious (in fact I'd argue this is literally one of the most important roles of government if they're going to dick around in

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Coal penalties are mostly off the table now. Coal plants are still shutting down. The real problem with coal is that the scrubbers that make coal plants produce significantly less toxic/radioactive particulate pollution result in huge coal ash holdings full of . . . you guessed it, toxic/radioactive coal ash.

          Dealing with those holding ponds/ash dumps is getting expensive. Various utilities that manage such sites are having to deal with investigations into whether their ash dumps are leeching pollutants i

        • Solar is cheaper ...

          There was an (illegal) 8 year Obama imposed moratorium on repairing coal plants
          That is a lie.

          Additionally, solar is only cheaper in places with net metering,
          You have a strange idea what cheaper means.

          A kWh produced by solar costs about 3cents. A kWh produced by coal is around 4cents. No idea what metering, net metering, other metering has to do with it.

    • It's fine and all to talk about wanting to get rid of coal plants (though shouldn't his effort be focused on China here to really help the climate??). But shouldn't you have an idea for what WILL BE rather than just trying to stop what is, or is being built?

      Most likely natural gas (supplemented by wind and solar). And frankly, natural gas is better than coal so that's ok.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by SirSlud ( 67381 )

      Couldn't they use that money on the homeless or to clean up NYC a little

      They could also use it on the moronic, like you. But that seems like false dichotomy. I love the notion from morons that you can throw millions at anything and not be political. Even millions on solving morons can't solve this truism.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The summary says they want to replace them with renewable energy. There is a clear and viable way to do that, with well understood costs. What is the problem?

  • Bullshit. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Friday June 07, 2019 @09:23PM (#58728694) Homepage
    According to summary all the money goes to lobbyists and political campaigns. Yea, I get that's how you get anything done in the current mess we live in, but it just looks like another special interest group to me. Is he running for president or something?

    • it just looks like another special interest group to me

      Well... sort of. A special interest group is one which focuses on advancing it's own agenda, usually an agenda which benefits the interest group a lot and has less benefit for others. Climate change is something which effects literally everyone, and so isn't well described by this label.

    • Yes (Score:2)

      by tomhath ( 637240 )

      Is he running for president or something?

      Bloomberg is running for president.

  • What a maroon (Score:4, Informative)

    by ArhcAngel ( 247594 ) on Friday June 07, 2019 @09:36PM (#58728732)
    Coal mines are dying already because natural gas is now cheaper and easier to obtain. Of all the hand waving and grandstanding about killing coal it was low cost fracking that did coal in. It is no longer profitable to do coal so coal is shutting down.

    • Coal mines are dying already because natural gas is now cheaper and easier to obtain. Of all the hand waving and grandstanding about killing coal it was low cost fracking that did coal in. It is no longer profitable to do coal so coal is shutting down.

      And yet,,,coal plants aren't being shut down due to cheap natural gas plants. What's happening is that the gas plants are being built instead of solar/wind/"renewables", and the coal plants just keep chugging along providing baseload....

      • What's happening is BOTH renewable and nat gas are cheaper than coal. I should know. I am IT support for the #1 owner of wind energy in the US and even they see the wisdom in keeping net gas around.
  • Biomass [worldbioenergy.org] - what will become coal in a few million years - is what dominates "renewables". In an effort to avoid coal, we're cutting down trees, grinding them into pellets, packing into ships, sailing across oceans, then burning them. Yep, we've regressed to what caused the deforestation of much of the world. Rather than renewables, we should be doing more nuclear. For example, California gets 9% of its electricity from a SINGLE nuclear plant. We could build 10 more of those plants and have 100% of our e

    • Re:We're replacing coal with - not-yet-coal? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aaarrrgggh ( 9205 ) on Friday June 07, 2019 @10:33PM (#58728934)

      California gets 2.3GW or its ~18GW base load from nuclear, but nowhere near 9% of its average peak consumption of ~32-40GW. The capacity for nuclear in California is limited to about 8GW more, maximum— and that would need to be cost-competitive with hydroelectric power at $25/MWh, which equates to a maximum construction cost of around $4B per reactor... which simply isn’t going to happen. Oh, and there is the decommissioning cost not factored in, which really drops your budget to around $3B.

      As much as I think nuclear power is neat from an engineering perspective, it simply doesn’t make economic (or environmental) sense.

      • The State of California [ca.gov] says you are wrong, and that about 9% of electricity generation is nuclear. That's quite a bit more than wind - and that is a single nuclear power plant versus thousands of windmills...

        • I trust California Independent System Operator more: http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOut... [caiso.com]

          Nuclear currently runs about 8-9% of base load, but not 8-9% of energy, peak, or average power. This is consistent sinceSan Onofre was shut down.

          Fewer reactors are needed than wind turbines (by a factor of 120 for best available technology), but the wind turbines provide a lower lifetime cost of energy. Personally, I think we are stuck with gas “peaker” designs for a while— 15-20 years at current rates,

          • Lynnwoodrooster and that other Lyn guy don't know what basel oad means ... they are just idiots, forget them.

            • Because I posted actual, you know, facts? Just because you don't like the facts doesn't make them go away. But you live with power costs even higher than we have here in California, and you still burn more coal than we do - and you claim "biomass" is clean at that!

      • Stop Lying (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        > Oh, and there is the decommissioning cost not factored in, which really drops your budget to around $3B.

        No, fuckface, Nuclear is fully burdened with decommissioning costs included in the bill. We're about 8 years out from a plague of abandoned wind farms, because there's no reserve for decommissioning and the legislation puts all of the liability on the landowners.

        • If the past is any indicator, wind farms get “re-powered” at the end of their useful/economic life. You do have a few years intervening between they run to shit and get re-powered (to allow for permitting and EIRs), but sites with good wind resources are ideal for upgrading with larger turbines when available. (And when the new towers are being constructed there happens to be a crane on site to assist with removal of the old unit.)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      10 more nuclear plants. Let's say conservatively $100bn, and what do you get for it? Well you still need fossil fuel plants because the nuclear ones can't react to changes in demand fast enough.

      Instead of concentrating all that money in the hands of a few people, you could distribute it more widely with say wind power. Throw in some storage too. Lots of jobs, lots of manufacturing, lots of technology and expertise you can export. Batteries can react to demand better than anything else, in milliseconds inste

    • Yep, we've regressed to what caused the deforestation of much of the world.

      If Biomass is causing deforestation you're doing it wrong. The whole point of Biomass being carbon neutral is that you plant new trees and only cut down the trees you've planted thereby closing the carbon cycle to the atmosphere. Quite frankly the CEO of any company selling biomass that didn't come completely from trees they have themselves planted should have their pubic hairs individually plucked.

      • Most biomass in Germany is actually farm waste. In other words, there is nothing special planted or farmed to have biomass, aka methane, aka small gas plants.

        Trees are only used for house heating.

    • No, going 100% nuclear won't work.

      Reason 1 - it takes too long to build the plants. By the time they are running 30 years from now the tipping point will have passed and you missed the opportunity to do other things. We can do other things in the meantime, but that also means we don't need to build the nuclear plants.

      Reason 2 - look at the estimated world supply of feasible uranium sources. Known viable sources will last about 70 years, and the estimate is that we'll *eventually* triple that, lasting about

      • ... also doesn't the idea of processing huge amounts of seawater, extracting the 1 part per million that is uranium, then processing that into fuel rods, all so we can *** BOIL WATER *** (which is how nuclear reactors work) sound like it's going to be an inherently wasteful process?

    • - what will become coal in a few million years -
      No, it would not ... remember: fungi. They developed a few hundred million years ago from algae ... they eat wood. All the coal in the ground is from wood that was not eaten by fungi .... because they did not exist that time.

      Biomass ... In an effort to avoid coal, we're cutting down trees, grinding them into pellets, packing into ships, sailing across oceans, then burning them.
      Then do what sane countries do: forbid import of chopped wood.
      Wow that was easy ag

  • ... always saving the world.

  • Didn't Bloomberg get the memo? The future is nuclear power.

    I just saw on the Scott Adams vlog that Joe Biden's climate change plan includes nuclear power.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
    Talk of Biden starts about 19:50.

    Joe Biden is a weathervane, he won't do anything unless he thinks that is where the wind is blowing. The "Green New Deal" was a laughingstock, it's a plan for driving the economy into the ground. How does anyone respond to that? With a plan that might actually work. That means nuclear p

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Nuclear's problem is that it's too expensive. Back in the 50's there were predictions that it would make electricity so readily available that it would be too cheap to meter (the same way my ISP just charges me a fixed monthly fee and doesn't both charging by the bit).

      Unfortunately it has turned out that nuclear plants are expensive to build and operate, but the thing they are good at doesn't bring in the money. Nuclear plants are only useful for baseload, while the big money is in peaking.

      Natural gas has a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It doesn't matter what they want, it matters what people are willing to invest it. It's the same problem coal has - Trump backs it, but Trump will be around at most until 2024 so investing billions in new coal is risky and most people can see that it's very likely on the way out no matter what what.

      Nuclear is the same. It takes so long to get built and has to run for decades to show a decent return, so POTUS supporting it for a guaranteed maximum of 8 years isn't all that helpful. Especially when there are

  • Coal plants are easily converted to gas powered ones.
  • Wait till we start doing in-place coal gasification. Its way cheaper than mining it and then gasifying it. The depth allows for higher pressures to get to the 15kJ needed for the reaction (carbon and water yields methane and carbon dioxide) ... I haven't done the math for the pressures/depths required, but I suspect it has been.

    The Ford Model T could use methanol and ethanol... flex fuel isn't a new thing.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Coal gassification has been tried and debunked as an alternative fuel for carbon reduction. It's incredibly leaky with the methane. It probably does more harm than it would replace.

    • Most coal is in shallow seams. In-situ gasification is unlikely to work, and even less likely to work cleanly. It is a dumb idea, with a poor track record [wikipedia.org].

  • He's just buying off politicians (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday June 08, 2019 @12:17AM (#58729210)
    and using climate change and shutting down coal plants as cover. Bloomberg is no friend of the left. He has consistently campaigned against any real, substantive policy that would address climate change much less the problems face by working class Americans that cause them to ignore climate change.

    If the guy actually wanted to solve anything he wouldn't just spend $500 million lobbying, he'd be building wind & solar plants. And besides, Natural Gas already killed coal. We all know this.

    I mean, I feel insulted that Bloomberg though nobody would notice this is just more of the same big money corruption couched in pretty terms.

    • If the guy actually wanted to solve anything he wouldn't just spend $500 million lobbying, he'd be building wind & solar plants.

      'Nuff said.

  • You wont need to heat your home... thus... no need for coal plants :)

  • What about the workers? (Score:3)

    by Epeeist ( 2682 ) on Saturday June 08, 2019 @02:29AM (#58729438) Homepage

    Coal is effectively dead here in the UK, courtesy of Margaret Thatcher. The way she did it was brutal, destroying whole communities. Many have still to recover, decades later.

    Let the US get rid of coal mines by all means, but make sure that there is something for the displaced workers and their communities.

    • By all means, let them sell MP3s online, but make sure that there is something for the displaced workers and their communities. -- Tower Records guy.

      Fastest growing job in America:

      Key Findings

      And the winner is – The fastest-growing occupation in the country is solar photovoltaic installer. Never heard of it? These are the people who maintain, assemble and install solar panels on roofs. This occupation only requires a high school education, as much of the training occurs on

  • None of this money will help build any infrastructure, or do any research at all. It will fund some of the most despicable types in modern professions: lobbyists, politicians, and PR agencies.

  • You could literally shut off every motor vehicle, every power plant, every cigarette, every cow fart, every backyard incinerator, every factory furnace, all forms of combustion really, every wood fire, you could stop it all, right now. You still wouldn't stop what we've started. It's too far gone.

    I don't like really referencing xkcd generally but this simple cartoon does put it in to perspective.

    https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]

    How about, we literally kill 90% of all humans, put 0.1% in charge of cleaning up, do ev

  • Is this what a presidential campaign looks like? (Score:3)

    by petes_PoV ( 912422 ) on Saturday June 08, 2019 @05:01AM (#58729746)

    So, a year and a half out from the 2020 election. A billionaire spends a small fortune and gets an enormous amount of publicity.

    Hmmmmmm.

  • You can't be an Environmentalist while you're breathing.

  • What will Nawth Ca'lina do without its beloved coal ash?

    Oh, and that "clean coal" didn't work out so good either.

    https://www.reuters.com/invest... [reuters.com]

  • .. that he needs to spend hundreds of millions on lobbying, instead of solutions?

  • I'm thinking the fossil fuel industry can outdo that with ease

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close