US Utilities Are Cleaning Up Their Act With Emissions Down 8% (bloomberg.com) 57
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: U.S. utilities are producing less greenhouse gases as they continue to shift away from coal. Carbon dioxide emissions from the 100 biggest U.S. electricity producers fell 8% last year, according to a report (PDF) Wednesday from the environmental group Ceres. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, two other key pollutants produced by burning coal, declined by 23% and 14%, respectively.
The results reflect the increasing impact of the green transition as power producers shutter coal plants in favor of cheaper and cleaner natural gas and renewables. More than 9 gigawatts of coal capacity is expected to be permanently retired this year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Utilities' carbon emissions have declined 28% since 2000 even as U.S. gross domestic product climbed, a sign that cutting pollution need not constrain economic development. The declines may be even larger this year as the coronavirus pandemic slows power consumption. Emissions will continue to come down in future years as power companies use more wind and solar, coupled with increasing installation of energy storage systems.
The results reflect the increasing impact of the green transition as power producers shutter coal plants in favor of cheaper and cleaner natural gas and renewables. More than 9 gigawatts of coal capacity is expected to be permanently retired this year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Utilities' carbon emissions have declined 28% since 2000 even as U.S. gross domestic product climbed, a sign that cutting pollution need not constrain economic development. The declines may be even larger this year as the coronavirus pandemic slows power consumption. Emissions will continue to come down in future years as power companies use more wind and solar, coupled with increasing installation of energy storage systems.
Wait.. What!? (Score:3, Funny)
Surely he wasn't just making shit up, to get elected?
Re:Wait.. What!? (Score:5, Funny)
I am sure I remember Trump telling the coal miners they would be "Working their asses off."
Coal miners ARE working their asses off. They learned to code and they're all javascript programmers now.
Re: (Score:3)
I am sure I remember Trump telling the coal miners they would be "Working their asses off."
Coal miners ARE working their asses off. They learned to code and they're all javascript programmers now.
That would explain the deplorable condition of web sites nowadays.
Re: (Score:3)
I am sure I remember Trump telling the coal miners they would be "Working their asses off."
Coal miners ARE working their asses off. They learned to code and they're all javascript programmers now.
That would explain the deplorable condition of web sites nowadays.
Nowadays??? Are you new around here?
Re: (Score:3)
Coal miners ARE working their asses off. They learned to code and they're all javascript programmers now.
Just send them back to the mines. It will do less harm to the world in the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Coding is easy!!!
Re: (Score:1)
Well, "coding" is easy. So easy, in fact, that children under 10 can and do teach themselves.
I'd even be willing to bet that the majority of people here learned to program computers on their own before the age of 13.
It really is a skill that anyone can learn. Sure, not everyone will like it or enjoy it, but coal mining isn't exactly the kind of job you enjoy doing either!
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure I remember Trump telling the coal miners they would be "Working their asses off."
Surely he wasn't just making shit up, to get elected?
The coal miners realized all the asses are in DC ...
[ Could they be the miners? Sure, they're like three years old. Miners not minors. You lost me. ]
Re: Wait.. What!? (Score:1)
Emissions have been going down for a long time even though weâ(TM)ve been pumping and burning more carbon in the US than ever. Technology gets better not just in computers, emissions are a waste product and waste is bad, it means lost energy and investment. As prices and demand go up, there will be more incentive to invest in cleaner energy sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Emissions have been going down due to not burning as much coal. Even at the most efficient, burning carbon, which is what coal mostly is, produces CO2. Whereas burning natural gas, which includes a lot of hydrogen, produces some CO2 and lots of H2O.
As natural gas has many advantages over coal, including price, power companies are motivated to switch.
You can thank Byrd for it taking so long. (Score:3, Informative)
Everyone's favorite Demokkkrat Cyclops was one the primary government antagonists throughout the 80's and 90's to nuclear power and pushed coal as the alternative at every opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Meanwhile in China the mothballed most of the new plants and coal consumption has been declining since 2014. Most new nuclear was cancelled to but a massive amount of wind power was installed.
China is trying, the USA is denying (Score:5, Insightful)
China is actively building large quantities of non-carbon sources.
The USA is only reducing carbon by accident because fracking has made gas cheaper than coal. Very little of it is due to government policy.
The president of the United States is actively promoting carbon emissions and has made zero attempt at their reduction.
There are many things that China can be criticized on (Uyghurs makes a good start), but not on their carbon emissions. There are a lot of Chinese, but they only emit a fraction per capita that the USA does. And that is not counting all the carbon emitted over the last century.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: China is trying, the USA is denying (Score:2)
Perhaps you don't understand the US's form of government. Our President does not have the power to reduce emissions. He does not set budgets. He does not write laws. If the President had such power then Obama should have and likely would have done something about it. We don't have a king or emperor here.
Re: China is trying, the USA is denying (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps you don't understand the US's form of government. Our President does not have the power to reduce emissions. He does not set budgets. He does not write laws. If the President had such power then Obama should have and likely would have done something about it. We don't have a king or emperor here.
But he does have the power to tell California that their emissions laws are too strict and forbid them from trying to clean up the air: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com], so at least he's doing his part to make the air dirtier.
Re: China is trying, the USA is denying (Score:2)
No. He has the authority to cancel my state's special privileges which my state abuses at every opportunity.
It's cute you'd use the NYT as a source and then feel the need to twist the truth even further than even the NYT is willing to go.
But it's slashdot so karma whoring virtue signaling is expected. I don't come here to get facts from you.
Re: (Score:1)
Claiming Trump can't do anything to reduce emissions isn't getting you off to a good start.
Re: China is trying, the USA is denying (Score:2)
Poor silly little AC. If you weren't so afraid of me I'd continue this discussion. But I don't engage long term with blank walls. Stand by your words. If you don't believe in what you're saying enough to put whatever silly slashdot login name you use next to your words then you've already made my point for me. Silly. That sums you up.
Re: (Score:2)
He sets policy, and often his party follows his lead. You should really look at how your government works.
Re: China is trying, the USA is denying (Score:2)
Policy is not law. If policy was everything then why didn't Obama fix everything?
Because it doesn't work that way.
Re: (Score:2)
He's the leader, he could try leading. It works or it doesn't but if he doesn't lead, no one will follow.
Re: (Score:1)
While President Donald Trump obsesses about his reelection hopes in his White House bubble, state and local leaders are frantically reversing state reopenings that he demanded, which turned America into the world's biggest coronavirus hotspot.
Trump demands something. If it works out you give him all the credit. But if it's a complete failure. Well he's not a King you shouldn't have listened to him. It's someone else's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Meanwhile... (Score:2)
Meanwhile statistics say youâ(TM)re a Chinese/communist shill: https://www.carbonbrief.org/an... [carbonbrief.org]
Quote: The growth of global emissions in 2019 was almost entirely due to China, which increased its CO2 output by 0.26GtCO2.
Re: (Score:2)
The same China that is comparable to EU amounts of CO2 per person... Who are both half of America's... Maybe don't throw too many stones living in that glass house of yours.
Someone please mod the above post up +100 insightful
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile in China the mothballed most of the new plants and coal consumption has been declining since 2014. Most new nuclear was cancelled to but a massive amount of wind power was installed.
Yes , China is replacing fairly new subcritical plants, by western standards , with ultra-supercritical ones. https://www.americanprogress.o... [americanprogress.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Meanwhile in China the mothballed most of the new plants and coal consumption has been declining since 2014.
False [csis.org]. China's coal consumption continues to grow.
Most new nuclear was cancelled
False [world-nuclear.org]. China's nuclear power is up significantly.
It's too bad fracked natural gas (Score:2)
So switching coal to gas quickly plateaus the overall GHG reduction curve, delaying the substantially more meaningful reductions that other energy solutions such as wind, solar, grid storage, deep-well geothermal etc. by competing with them economically.
The great irony is that frackers could legitimatel
Re: (Score:3)
Not fast enough. Need more nuclear, solar, wind (Score:5, Informative)
The three things which right now can most reduce CO2 use are nuclear, solar and wind. Wind power and solar power are both getting cheaper. Nuclear power is great in general, but the time it takes to make new nuke plants is massive. Unfortunately, making things even worse, nuclear plants in the US are in the process of being shut down, in part due to "environmentalists" who don't appreciate the massive size of the threat that is climate change. This includes the Diablo plant in California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant [wikipedia.org] and the Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrim_Nuclear_Power_Station [wikipedia.org] . Even if one thinks (as I do), that nuclear power takes too long to build given what we need to do, turning it off is clearly counterproductive.
So, what can one do as an individual? There are three things one can do, personal, political, and charitable.
At a personal level, you can reduce your carbon footprint. This can include eating less meat; meat production involves a lot of CO2 production compared to most other foods. You can get solar panels for your house or get better insulation for your house. You can turn the heat down more during the winter and use the AC less when it is hot. All of these things can not only help the environment, but they save you money. If you can, avoid buying a car, or go car less. Unfortunately, given COVID-19, public transit right now is not very safe, so I can't reasonably recommend using it (as I would at other times). If you must by a new car, strongly consider buying either an electric or a hybrid. In most of the US, they are better in terms of CO2 than an ICE. (There are some areas which are still coal heavy like West Virginia where this may not the case).
At a political level, you can support candidates who favor system environmental change. In the US, this mostly means supporting Democrats. While there are some Republicans who have strong environmental records, like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Christie Todd Whitman, they've been largely run out of the party.
Finally, one can engage in charitable giving. Right now, in the short-term, the way to offset the most carbon per a dollar spent is arguably Cool Earth https://www.coolearth.org/ [coolearth.org] . By some estimates it takes around $15 to Cool Earth to offset the carbon of a coast-to-coast plane flight. My wide and Iand I regularly donate to Cool Earth when we travel to help offset carbon use. More long-term issues center around solar and wind power (I unfortunately don't know any good charity for nuclear power.) The two best solar charities in general are Everybody Solar http://www.everybodysolar.org/ [everybodysolar.org] which gets solar panels for non-profits like museums and homeless shelters, and the Solar Electric Light Fund which gets solar panels for developing countries https://self.org/ [self.org] . SELF's work is particularly important because it helps mitigate the increasing carbon of developing countries as their economies ramp up while itself further stimulating those economies. For wind power I don't have a specific one that I'm 100% happy with, but the best right now seems to be the Mass Wind Fund
Re: (Score:2)
You can turn the heat down more during the winter and use the AC less when it is hot.
You can also wear a cilice year round for additional pennance.
Re:Not fast enough. Need more nuclear, solar, wind (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not fast enough. Need more nuclear, solar, wind (Score:4, Informative)
Being an industrialized society is great. The entire goal is to keep being an industrialized society without having massive amounts of damage which would in the next 50-100 years likely substantially reduce our ability to be an industrialized society. That primarily means switching to carbon neutral power or very low carbon power systems. If we had done this on the timeline we should have, the US would have built 100s of nuclear plants 30-40 years ago, and would have been expanding solar and wind as well then. But we didn't, so now we need to deal with the current situation while we do a much delayed transition.
Neither any possible disapproval of you by, nor your enjoyment of that potential disapproval alter the underlying facts. The laws of physics are not impacted by what you or I personally feel.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, if one has solar panels and has enough solar power that one can power the entire house with AC, then by all means, use all of the AC.
I don't have solar panels, and I'm still going to use the AC. I pay to maintain and operate a climate control system in my house for the sole and express purpose of being comfortable, year round. I'm not going to purposely be less comfortable in the misguided notion I am saving the world. I'm certainly not going to wear a sweater indoors in the winter. I doubt even my cat would like that and she has fur.
The Tesla is an enjoyable car and really fun.
My 335 is really fun too, but I really like the new mid-engined Corvette. I'm struggling to resist.
The entire goal is to keep being an industrialized society without having massive amounts of damage which would in the next 50-100 years likely substantially reduce our ability to be an industrialized society.
Y
Re: (Score:3)
You needn't worry. 100 years from now society will be so much more industrialized than you can even comprehend, completely irrespective of whatever the climate does. Like people in the 1920s could never have imagined today, you really shouldn't bother.
I am curious what makes you so incredibly confident about this when so many scientists and economists deeply disagree with you. Let me ask you one question: what if you're wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
Let me ask you one question: what if you're wrong?
They know. They just don't care. The world can burn and they'll remain perfectly content as long as they can avoid any mild inconvenience. Selfishness and greed are all that matters to them.
Re:Not fast enough. Need more nuclear, solar, wind (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I am curious what makes you so incredibly confident about this when so many scientists and economists deeply disagree with you. Let me ask you one question: what if you're wrong?
The last century and a half just happens to coincide with the greatest improvements in the human condition in all of history. I see no indication whatsoever that such progress is going to slow, if anything it continues to accelerate - of course I don't see every storm or flood as some sort of harbinger of global calamity either.
I read much science and economics on both sides of the debate. I like science and most of it on this subject leaves me underwhelmed. I would not bet any money on those predictions
Re: (Score:2)
The last century and a half just happens to coincide with the greatest improvements in the human condition in all of history.
Yes, and that's because we've listened to scientists and engineers and doctors carefully. And because when we've realized a technology was causing damage we replaced it with other, better technologies. When we realized our sewer systems were causing cholera to become more common we replaced them. When we realized that leaded gasoline and leaded paint were making people dumb
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Social and personal responsibility not on your radar then.
Sure, just not your particular definition of same.
Re: (Score:2)
The same type of response can be seen when people smirk and say "you can punish yourself with that rabbit food, while I'll enjoy a nice fat hamburger and another bucket-sized portion of sugar water. The fact
Re: (Score:1)
Is this an improvement? (Score:2)
Ok, so what comes out of the smokestack is cleaner but given all the methane that is spilled into the atmosphere before the natural gas even reaches the electric company is this really going to reduce global warming or increase it?