The Worst 5% of Power Plants Produce 73% of Their Emissions (arstechnica.com) 154
Ars Technica reports on a paper investigating how much each power plant contributes to global emissions, using data from 2018. "The study finds that many countries have many power plants that emit carbon dioxide at rates well above either the national or global average.
"Shutting down the worst 5 percent of this list would immediately wipe out about 75 percent of the carbon emissions produced by electricity generation." It should surprise nobody that all the worst offenders are coal plants. But the distribution of the highest polluting plants might include a bit of the unexpected.
For example, despite its reputation as the home of coal, China only has a single plant in the top-10 worst (bottom-10?). In contrast, South Korea has three on the list, and India has two. In general, China doesn't have many plants that stand out as exceptionally bad, in part because so many of its plants were built around the same time, during a giant boom in industrialization. As such, there's not much variance from plant to plant when it comes to efficiency. In contrast, countries like Germany, Indonesia, Russia, and the US all see a lot of variance, so they're likely to have some highly inefficient plants that are outliers.
Put a different way, the authors looked at how much of a country's pollution was produced by the worst 5 percent when all of the country's power plants were ranked by carbon emissions. In China, the worst 5 percent accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total emissions. In the US, the worst 5 percent of plants produced about 75 percent of the power sector's carbon emissions. South Korea had similar numbers, while Australia, Germany, and Japan all saw their worst 5 percent of plants account for roughly 90 percent of the carbon emissions from their power sector. When it comes to carbon emissions, the worst 5 percent of power plants account for 73 percent of the total power sector emissions globally. That 5 percent also produces over 14 times as much carbon pollution as it would if the plants were merely average...
Simply boosting each plant's efficiency to the average for the country would drop power sector emissions by a quarter and up to 35 percent in countries like Australia and Germany. Switching them to natural gas, which produces less carbon dioxide per amount of energy released, would drop global emissions by 30 percent, with many countries (including the US) seeing drops of over 40 percent. Again, because China doesn't see a lot of variance among its plants, these switches would have less of an impact, being in the area of 10 percent drops in emissions. But the big winner is carbon capture and storage. Outfitting the worst of the plants with a capture system that was 85 percent efficient would cut global power sector emissions in half and total global emissions by 20 percent. Countries like Australia and Germany would see their power sector emissions drop by over 75 percent.
Overall, these are massive gains, considering that it's not unreasonable to think that the modifications could be done in less than a decade. And they show the clear value of targeting the easiest wins when it comes to lowering emissions.
"Shutting down the worst 5 percent of this list would immediately wipe out about 75 percent of the carbon emissions produced by electricity generation." It should surprise nobody that all the worst offenders are coal plants. But the distribution of the highest polluting plants might include a bit of the unexpected.
For example, despite its reputation as the home of coal, China only has a single plant in the top-10 worst (bottom-10?). In contrast, South Korea has three on the list, and India has two. In general, China doesn't have many plants that stand out as exceptionally bad, in part because so many of its plants were built around the same time, during a giant boom in industrialization. As such, there's not much variance from plant to plant when it comes to efficiency. In contrast, countries like Germany, Indonesia, Russia, and the US all see a lot of variance, so they're likely to have some highly inefficient plants that are outliers.
Put a different way, the authors looked at how much of a country's pollution was produced by the worst 5 percent when all of the country's power plants were ranked by carbon emissions. In China, the worst 5 percent accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total emissions. In the US, the worst 5 percent of plants produced about 75 percent of the power sector's carbon emissions. South Korea had similar numbers, while Australia, Germany, and Japan all saw their worst 5 percent of plants account for roughly 90 percent of the carbon emissions from their power sector. When it comes to carbon emissions, the worst 5 percent of power plants account for 73 percent of the total power sector emissions globally. That 5 percent also produces over 14 times as much carbon pollution as it would if the plants were merely average...
Simply boosting each plant's efficiency to the average for the country would drop power sector emissions by a quarter and up to 35 percent in countries like Australia and Germany. Switching them to natural gas, which produces less carbon dioxide per amount of energy released, would drop global emissions by 30 percent, with many countries (including the US) seeing drops of over 40 percent. Again, because China doesn't see a lot of variance among its plants, these switches would have less of an impact, being in the area of 10 percent drops in emissions. But the big winner is carbon capture and storage. Outfitting the worst of the plants with a capture system that was 85 percent efficient would cut global power sector emissions in half and total global emissions by 20 percent. Countries like Australia and Germany would see their power sector emissions drop by over 75 percent.
Overall, these are massive gains, considering that it's not unreasonable to think that the modifications could be done in less than a decade. And they show the clear value of targeting the easiest wins when it comes to lowering emissions.
USA again? (Score:2)
The only surprise on the list is Germany.
"Switching them to natural gas, which produces less carbon dioxide per amount of energy released, would drop global emissions by 30 percent, with many countries (including the US) seeing drops of over 40 percent. "
This needs to start tomorrow morning (Monday).
Or just start shutting them down in order.
Re: (Score:3)
The only surprise on the list is Germany.
"Switching them to natural gas, which produces less carbon dioxide per amount of energy released, would drop global emissions by 30 percent, with many countries (including the US) seeing drops of over 40 percent. "
This needs to start tomorrow morning (Monday).
Or just start shutting them down in order.
There are no American plants in the list
Table 2. Top ten polluting power plants in 2018 and 2009.a
2018
Plant name Country Tons of CO2 Fuel Age MW Relative Intensity
1 Belchatow Poland 37,600,000 Coal 27 5298 1.756
2 Vindhyachal India 33,877,953 Coal 14 4760 1.485
3 Dangjin S. Korea 33,500,000 Coal 10 6115 1.473
4 Taean S. Korea 31,400,000 Coal 12 6100 1.481
5 Taichung Taiwan 29,900,000 Coal 22 5834 1.282
6
The article is incoherent. (Score:2)
The numbers in the summary seem to be inconsistent.
The opening statement says "Shutting down the worst 5 percent of this list would immediately wipe out about 75 percent of the carbon emissions produced by electricity generation."
So, these "worst" powerplants must produce three times more carbon dioxide than all the other plants in the nation put together! Which means that each of them must be producing an astonishing sixty times as much carbon output as the average output of one of the other plants.
But
Re:The article is incoherent. (Score:5, Insightful)
So while they may make up 5% of the total generating sites, they probably make up more like 15-20% of electrical production, something a well done research paper would note.
Anyhow, these are all coal plants, replacing them with Nat Gas plants would be the cheapest and fastest way to significantly reduce CO2 emissions. But we'll fail to even make that progress due to those that hate gas more than they hate CO2 emissions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In TFA, "bad" means "big".
If one power plant produces twice the power of another, then all other things equal, it will emit twice the CO2.
But it is absurd to think that a "bad" 10 GW plant can be replaced by a "good" 1 GW plant. The 1 GW plant produces a tenth the CO2, but it also produces a tenth of the power.
Re: (Score:3)
If one power plant produces twice the power of another, then all other things equal, it will emit twice the CO2.
If I read the article correctly, what they are measuring is CO2 output relative to power output. Inefficient plants of any size are bad on this measure. Coal fired plants are worse than natural gas fuelled plants, because coal is pretty much pure carbon, whereas burning hydrocarbons produces energy from oxidising hydrogen as well as carbon.
I don't think the league table of the ten worst polluting plants in terms of total CO2 output was very helpful, because that obviously focuses on the biggest plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are no American plants in the list
Did you read the paper or just look at the single table on that web page?
Try looking at table 4 on page 18 of the paper:
https://iopscience.iop.org/art... [iop.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There are no American plants in the list
Did you read the paper or just look at the single table on that web page?
Try looking at table 4 on page 18 of the paper:
https://iopscience.iop.org/art... [iop.org]
Sure did, but that's not what the title of this submission is about. It clearly is talking about the top ten list of high emitting plants, and they aren't in the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
First off, the post's title says "The Worst 5% of Power Plants Produce 73% of Their Emissions," NOT top ten worst polluting power plants in the world. The paper actually says, the top 5% of polluters, and not worst polluters (and it is pretty understandable in context, which you don't seem to be good with, that this is with respect to electrical generation). The paper found that there were 29,265 thermoelectric generating stations (seems reasonable), of which 5% amounts to around 3,100 generating stations,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
5% of 29,265 is 1,463, not 3,100.
Re:USA again? (Score:5, Insightful)
All of these need to be shut down and replaced with nuclear plants asap
Re: (Score:2)
Lignite is one of the few natural resources that Germany has somewhat in abundance, so they've been using them extensively for some time.
But with the recent floods causing a lot of damage in places where no similar event has been recorded for over half a millennia, this should put the scare enough into politicians to phase out at least some of the dirtiest lignite plants faster than they planned before.
Re: (Score:3)
But with the recent floods causing a lot of damage in places where no similar event has been recorded for over half a millennia, this should put the scare enough into politicians to phase out at least some of the dirtiest lignite plants faster than they planned before.
Yep. The silver lining is that Germany is one of the very few countries that will do something about it when it's brought to light.
Re: (Score:3)
But with the recent floods causing a lot of damage in places where no similar event has been recorded for over half a millennia, this should put the scare enough into politicians to phase out at least some of the dirtiest lignite plants faster than they planned before.
Yep. The silver lining is that Germany is one of the very few countries that will do something about it when it's brought to light.
Absolutely I'm sure they are going through the list of poor neighboring countries to outsource the problem to as we speak.
Re:USA again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The pipeline that transports Putin farts straight from his ass to Germany is also quite shady.
But at least this way Germany's energy sector is going to be pretty safe from arbitrary ransomware attacks. So they've got that going for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, the states with the most nuclear power plants refuse to do just that, so German nuclear waste has nowhere to go.
Re: (Score:3)
In the ground Uranium would just be subject to decay and the very odd fission, leading mainly to decaying into elements in that are in the decay chain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
But in a fission reactor the fission process produces elements that do not occur due to normal decay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Here's some additional reading material: https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
That being said, if they paid me
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Fly ash" from coal power plants is much bulkier than nuclear waste, and it's also radioactive. Fly ash spills are truly awful. Oh, and the exhaust from coal power plants is radioactive too! This also has the nasty property of being airborne, unlike nuclear waste which does at least stay in the cask where it is put :-)
Of course, ideally, we would have neither, but I just wanted to point out that it's not just nuclear power generation which creates hazardous radioactive waste material.
Re: (Score:2)
Lignite is so much water by volume that its burning processes naturally emit more CO2. There's no known economical way to remove this problem. This isn't SO2 or NOx, where altering burning temperatures can significantly impact amount of gasses emitted per power generated. This is a natural outcome of the burning process and therefore extraction of energy from lignite by oxidizing it.
But that was the political decision in Germany to shut down nuclear plants, and the nation desperately needs base power with e
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
For those of you unaware, this is the propaganda sleight of hand by German anti-scientific Green movement to justify it's worst failure by far: their efforts resulting in ceasing of trend in Germany of relatively speedy CO2 emissions reductions, and their change for growth as more and more lignite fired plants were put online to replace nuclear and current state of slow reduction, mainly riding on the fact that France has a lot of nukes still open feeding them electricity that isn't CO2 intensive.
The overall reduction in CO2 emissions since 1990 has still been impressive, more so than that of the USA (which is about on a par with 1990). The effect of the loss of nuclear on the overall reduction has worked its way out and the acceleration of renewables has got things back on track. You are also ignoring the fact, which I noted, is the trading of energy with Denmark. It is correct to note that France's nuclear capacity is important, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just going to leave this here and let you keep lying otherwise:
https://apnews.com/article/eur... [apnews.com]
As usual, I call the situation exactly as it is and get downvoted by zealots for it.
Re:USA again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Analysis Dangerously Naive (Score:2)
Or just start shutting them down in order.
That might make things much worse if people then turn on less efficient plants to make up the shortfall. The best way to improve things is to shut down the plants that generate the most CO2 per MW. All of the plants in their list rank amongst the most powerful on the planet and number 6 on their list [wikipedia.org] is actually the most powerful coal-fired station on the planet but note that it is not generating the most CO2.
Indeed, if accurate the Chinese Tuoketuo plant (number 6) generates less than 87% of the emissi
Re: (Score:3)
This would require taking way more natural gas in. And they have been having this massive fight with Poland, Ukraine and US over it over last few years if you missed it.
It's also because Germany's coal plants are primarily lignite plants. That fuel is what, 20% water by volume or close to it. It's burning processes are ridiculously high in CO2 emissions compared to pretty much all other coal types.
But there are also some fun assumptions on that list, such as that "we don't care how much emissions per energy
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the water itself adding carbon, but what its presence does to the burning process.
I bet there's money being left on the table (Score:2)
If they're using more coal per kwatt, they're losing money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Lignit
Re: (Score:3)
The best coal is almost non e instant, and bad
Re: (Score:2)
If they're using more coal per kwatt, they're losing money.
This is something I don't understand from the article. Why do all these inefficient power plants exist? Surely they are not competitive. I got the impression that large power plants burning fuel to generate steam are about as efficient as thermodynamics will allow. A friend of mine worked in the engine room on large merchant ships, and believe me, they squeeze the last drop of power out of the fuel, starting with red-hot steam pipes and turbines, and multi-stage power extraction.
And this is why you don't kill off nat gas (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to actually fix things you approach a problem from an open minded science and engineering based perspective, not a religious perspective (this includes much of environmentalism), not a political perspective (politics ruins anything and everything it touches, don't let it in the door).
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for everyone "against gas" out there but I'm not actually against natural gas.
I have issues with people acting like natural gas was a green source of energy and by switching to it all our problems are instantly solved.
Just like I am for keeping nuclear on the table to discuss as a potential source of energy where feasible and efficient, I too think if coal plants can be cheaply retrofitted it most certainly would be better than to just keep on burning coal.
Where I am REALLY skeptical is when t
Re: (Score:2)
I have issues with people acting like natural gas was a green source of energy and by switching to it all our problems are instantly solved.
Well there is being politically "green" -- buzzword, greenwashing -- and there is reducing carbon emissions. Replacing a coal or oil plant with nat gas reduces emissions, it is thereby green in practice if not politically.
Just like I am for keeping nuclear on the table to discuss as a potential source of energy where feasible and efficient, I too think if coal plants can be cheaply retrofitted it most certainly would be better than to just keep on burning coal.
Or oil. I've seen various industrial users convert over the decades.
Regarding nuclear, politics screwed that up, and politics is screwing up nat gas. Both would help with carbon emissions. "All of the above" for now, until renewables are practical.
Where I am REALLY skeptical is when they want to build new gas plants and then act like nature should kiss their feet for the idea.
Well there is politics on both sides, b
Re: (Score:2)
Shutting down any and every fossil fuel plant is naive.
Only if you shut them down without a suitable replacement.
Renewables can't meet 100% of the need, especially as our demands grow as we add even more demand for electricity,
There is a way to balance the two. Simple require companies that generate electricity using fossil fuels to pay for another company to remove their emissions from the atmosphere. This will make pollution based energy much more expensive and thus greatly incentivize the production an installation of non-polluting energy sources as well as energy efficient goods.
Polluting our atmosphere is unsustainable.
Re: (Score:2)
Polluting our atmosphere is unsustainable.
It's the one thing that's guaranteed to be economy-wreckingly expensive in the long term.
(Not even the long term any more, these days it's more like "medium term").
Re:And this is why you don't kill off nat gas (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Shutting down any and every fossil fuel plant is naive.
Only if you shut them down without a suitable replacement.
Which seems to be the current plan, one motivated by politics not science nor engineering.
Renewables can't meet 100% of the need, especially as our demands grow as we add even more demand for electricity,
There is a way to balance the two. Simple require companies that generate electricity using fossil fuels to pay for another company to remove their emissions from the atmosphere.
Unless they are displacing a dirtier plant with a cleaner plant. Ex nat gas replacing coa or oil. In such a scenario they are reducing atmospheric emissions, don't impede this.
This will make pollution based energy much more expensive and thus greatly incentivize the production an installation of non-polluting energy sources as well as energy efficient goods. Polluting our atmosphere is unsustainable.
Seriously, move away from the politics and imagery. There should be one question, does this plant make things better or worse, better being displaces coal or oil, worse being displaces renewables. Only displacing renewables should face consequenc
Re: (Score:2)
Renewables can't meet 100% of the need, especially as our demands grow as we add even more demand for electricity
A diverse set of renewables combined with power storage can meet almost all demand.
We can keep some dirty old plants around for the 1% of the time when they can't.
Re: (Score:3)
Renewables can't meet 100% of the need, especially as our demands grow as we add even more demand for electricity
A diverse set of renewables combined with power storage can meet almost all demand.
Someday, not today. And not in the very near future with our increasing demand. More in developing world joining middle class. More in the first world increasing consumption via all electric vehicles, etc. Which is why today is not the day to turn off nat gas. Someday yes, not today, not in the near future.
Re: (Score:2)
If you cut down the coal today then you'd have to increase the natgas, and increased natgas comes from the same place increased oil comes from... fracking. And that has the potential to pollute aquifers, and can even trigger seismic activity. So while we totally should cut down the coal, we shouldn't do it by increasing natgas. We need to do it by increasing renewables.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That and you accelerate latest gen nuclear power deployment. Wait, no, no, no, you can't do THAT. How can you control a population when they have access to vast amounts of cheap, clean energy?
5% of plants is not particularly interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I need to know what percentage of MWh output is creating what percentage of pollution. For example, I can't work out from this report how much of Germany's power capacity would be lost if they turned off the Niederaussem plant. Would that be crippling? Not a problem? What?
We can turn individual plants off any time we want, but we can't replace needed supply so quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
I need to know what percentage of MWh output is creating what percentage of pollution. For example, I can't work out from this report how much of Germany's power capacity would be lost if they turned off the Niederaussem plant. Would that be crippling? Not a problem? What?
We can turn individual plants off any time we want, but we can't replace needed supply so quickly.
For real time data you can look at: https://www.electricitymap.org... [electricitymap.org] (coal is producing 14.11% of German electricity running at 18.4% of installed capacity producing 61.36% of emissions. Right now they could easily cover that with natural gas as there's well over the 8.1 GW produced in free capacity (if they have the power transmission to support it). How this would fare in the winter I don't know and keep in mind that power generation in Europe is mainly from private companies on a common market and the E
Re: (Score:2)
About a third of its capacity will be shut down by the end of the next year anyway. It is only a big deal because it is fed by domestic lignite. This is more or less the only reason why brown coal power plants are still being operated in Germany while black coal power generation has been winding down for years.
Re: (Score:3)
I found 200 GW capacity here (https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts). Compared to 4 GW in TFA, that's 2%.
I also found 740 million tonnes here (https://globalhappenings.com/germany-is-expected-to-emit-47-million-tons-more-greenhouse-gases/). Compare do 27 million in TFA, that's 3.6%.
Back of the napkin with 40% renewable representing 0% of the greenhouse, 27 / (.6 * 740) = 6% of greenhouse for 3.3% of non-renewable capacity. Replacing it with another non-r
Re: (Score:2)
I can't work out from this report how much of Germany's power capacity would be lost if they turned off the Niederaussem plant.
Germany is producing 50% of its power with renewables. That plant is probably the next to shut down.
Re:5% of plants is not particularly interesting (Score:5, Informative)
3 The relative high Gini for the U.S. contrasts with the findings of Galli and Collins (2019) that suggest disparities in coal-fired plants' CO2 emissions are small after accounting for differences in their electrical output. We suspect part of the discrepancy may be because our analysis also includes plants fueled by oil and natural gas.
So, I looked up Galli and Collins [tandfonline.com], and their abstract contained the following interesting words:
Although facility-based disproportionality patterns are largely attributable to the amount of electricity a power plant generates, this proxy for size does less to explain disproportionality patterns at the parent company level: we find that a small group of parent companies generates a disproportionate share of the industry’s total emissions, even when accounting for each company’s relative contribution to the electric grid.
Sounds like some companies have found that it's easier to be good at politics than to be good at emissions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:5% of plants is not particularly interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the largest emitters is not an *invalid* way of looking at the problem. It's just different, it gives you a different *piece* of context. Yes, the most polluting plants should be replaced, but size does matter too.
It's particularly interesting in the context of nuclear power. The idea of addressing our climate problems by replacing *all* our fossil generating plants with nuclear is, or should be scary, not because nuclear energy is inherently dangerous, but because huge crash programs are inherently dangerous. But you wouldn't need a huge crash program to have a big impact.
This relatively small number of ultra-large coal plants turn out to have about the same capacity as a large nuclear plant. Also, by nature coal and nuclear are most efficiently run as base load plants. So rather than addressing the our climate issues by building a huge number of nuclear plants, we could potentially do it by building a *modest* number.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think either/or is too simplistic a way to analyze a problem. You look at a problem different ways to develop different approaches to it which are not mutually exclusive.
Useless data (Score:2)
The number you get depends on exactly how you count power plants (or from another point of view, how power plants are consolidated). If things were exactly the same but every power plant above a certain size was labelled "east tower" and "west tower" and you counted them as two plants, the top 5% would magically turn into the top 10%. If every backyard generator in some third world country counted as a power plant, that would affect the result. If you combined them into a single item "backyard generator
Long story short (Score:2)
Nope. (Score:3)
Does this mean we should be prioritising modernising our energy infrastructure starting with the oldest, worst polluting power plants first?
No because you assumed the oldest were the worst polluting. On the top ten list there is one in India that only three years old.
However, we should focus on replacing the top 5% with things like nuclear power since they are all gigawatt level power coal plants.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear power takes too long to build and is too expensive.
Ther perhaps we should give those SMRs a shot. They radically reduce construction time and can use coal cooling towers. It's feasible to make an assembly line and crank out thousands a year.
Re: (Score:2)
None of them are ready to go yet and even if they were it seems unwise to throw billions at an unproven technology that is merely an evolution of one that has been failing consistently for the last 70 years.
We need proven, reliable solutions that every nation can afford, and we need them now. Wind and solar are the only options.
Re: (Score:3)
Fine, if you are so certain that multigigawatt power plants can be replaced with wind power then you should invest as much money as possible into wind power. The rest of us understand that these systems are good but they also need a battery.
Actually, I think wind power is one of the technologies for the future, but that a diversity is required. I was just trying to note that any system of power plants is not 100% reliable, and the issue is designing reliability at a suitable cost, and the issues with incentives to achieve that. Maybe I didn't make my point well, but it feels like you are attacking me for an opinion I did not express.
Who produces the other 27% (Score:2)
And why do those 5% get the blame for that?
(In other words, get a more literate chimp to write your headlines)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, 5% of powerplants produce 100% of their emissions. Or perhaps they meant "total".
Re: (Score:2)
>"As far as I know, 5% of powerplants produce 100% of their emissions. Or perhaps they meant "total".
Thank you. I was waiting for someone to point out how stupid the title is. The word "their" should just be removed.
Here's what probably happened (Score:2)
Interesting study, but ... (Score:2)
Interesting But Frustrating Study (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, I downloaded and read the actual paper. I like their investigation into plant efficiency, and if they had addressed that directly I would have not found the study so frustrating. My criticism is the way they amalgamate and data and compute indices removed by a couple of degrees from the actual data which makes it all but impossible to understand what they are really describing in physical terms.
A few plants are the greatest emitters. OK, is that because of their size, or their efficiency, or both? it is impossible to say from the way they present their data, it is even impossible to compare efficiencies between different nations. This is because the only measure they present tied to efficiency is one called relative intensity which is defined as "Relative Intensity is the ratio of the plant’s intensity to the average intensity for all fossil-fueled plants in that plant’s country." and average intensity is "emissions per unit of generated electricity".
In other words, this intensity is based on the mix of fossil fuels used for generation in each particular country. The very same coal plant would get different "relative intensity" ratings depending on whether that nation uses natural gas, or depending on the efficiencies of the other coal plants.
The only other ways data is presented is in the form of a graph of peaks on a map that provide no numerical values to the reader, and a highly abstracted GINI coefficient that measures the distribution of emissions across plants within each individual nation, thus there is no way to compare nations.
And as the authors state in a footnote to the GINI chart "The relative high Gini for the U.S. contrasts with the findings of Galli and Collins (2019) that suggest disparities in coal-fired plants' CO2 emissions are small after accounting for differences in their electrical output. We suspect part of the discrepancy may be because our analysis also includes plants fueled by oil and natural gas."
Indeed. The lumping of natural gas with coal, and plant size and efficiency all together, and normalizing the data separately for each individual nation makes it very hard to understand the real significance of the evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
At least some of the tables provide both megawatts generated and tonnes of CO2 emitted by them so it's just a matter of diving one by the other. I've done this but don't have the results any more, what I remember is that there was significant variation even just in the top 10 list
I don't care about the details... (Score:2)
I have been glad there is finally some thought about addressing the TOP problems instead of always going on the same old topics, whataboutism, and the popular tactic of daydreaming about reorganizing everything almost from scratch instead of getting stuff done.
A little obfuscated (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
5% of all power plants is a HUGE number, and in many cases are likely the only power plants in a given region, so simply shutting them off likely isn't a near-term option. Also, it would be interesting to know what percentage of global generated electric power those 5% of power plants represent.
I would expect each powerplant to produce (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
EditorDavid to the rescue!
Funny how, with the advent of blogging, titles like "editor" mean nothing because they are self-appointed by narcissists.
Nocturnal emissions? (Score:4, Funny)
Size of the plant? (Score:2)
I would think that all coal power plants would have similar carbon emissions on a per GWh generated basis.
Which makes the statement about 73% of emission coming from 5% of the plants true but absolutely meaningless.
Poorly Written or What (Score:2)
. In China, the worst 5 percent accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total emissions. In the US, the worst 5 percent of plants produced about 75 percent of the power sector's carbon emissions. South Korea had similar numbers, while Australia, Germany, and Japan all saw their worst 5 percent of plants account for roughly 90 percent of the carbon emissions from their power sector.
Why is China reported for the "country's total emissions", while others are reported as "power sector carbon emissions"?
The author may have done an accurate comparison, but just worded it oddly.
I am curious, what percentage of the total global electrical generation capacity do those 5% of power plants produce? I doubt it's 73% of global electricity production, but I bet it's way more than just 5% of global electricity production...
Why are these inefficient plants in business? (Score:2)
My understanding of power generation from burning fuel is that large modern power plants achieve close to the limits allowed by thermodynamics. So what are these inefficient plants doing? Why were they built in the first place? Surely they can't compete with plants that use less fuel. Maybe there is something missing in the economic analysis.
Without looking up the history in detail, I am guessing that high efficiency steam power has been known about for at least a century, and very little can be improved on
Re: (Score:2)
It is cheaper to build an inefficient plant, especially if you can get some other sucker to pay for the high fuel cost in the future. It's also cheaper to skimp out on the sulfur scrubbers, or to cheap out on maintaining them.
Re: (Score:2)
While reading up about the Carnot cycle, and theoretical heat engine efficiency, It would appear that the most efficient fossil fuel plants are "combined cycle", which have gas turbines supplementing steam generation. That would only be applicable to gas-fuelled plants. Coal plant would have to be steam only. I also read that some coal-fired plants have their own coal mines, so presumably they are not paying open market prices for fuel.
There is probably a fair bit of politics, rather than pure market econom
Re: (Score:2)
But they may well be modern efficient plants as far as we know. The fact that they are the largest polluters tells us nothing about their efficiency.
At least most european countries have a 'long tail' of old, small power generation units. They dominate the numbers but produce only a small amount of the total power. 5% of the generators could well be producing 75% the emissions but also 75% of the energy output.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have significant fossil fuel burning generation, the few biggest plants contribute the most to CO2 emissions. Statistically, maybe the majority of power, and therefore CO2, is concentrated in a few really big plants. This depends on national energy infrastructure policies. A country that builds many relatively small plants, rather than a few big ones, might look better on the stats, but be no better in CO2 emissions versus energy output.
What does this league table of "sinful" power plants actually te
Low-hanging fruit % on consumer side also welcome (Score:2)
Nice to see supply-side shame here. However, I'm
always interested in what low-hanging fruit gains
are possible on the demand side.
For example, we know that LED lighting replacement
is super, but has already been done. Or that driving at 55mph in
the U.S. will gain a lot, instantly.
What about having a national (or international) flash mob ...
do something like washing laundry using cold water, possible
in 90% of all cases. How many quads saved? Or
getting folks to use swimming pool covers, always. Or
Re: (Score:2)
Nice to see supply-side shame here. However, I'm
always interested in what low-hanging fruit gains
are possible on the demand side.
For example, we know that LED lighting replacement
is super, but has already been done. Or that driving at 55mph in
the U.S. will gain a lot, instantly.
What about having a national (or international) flash mob ...
do something like washing laundry using cold water, possible
in 90% of all cases. How many quads saved? Or
getting folks to use swimming pool covers, always. Or
Also to hang wet laundry on a line outside, instead of burning gas (or electricity) in a dryer. Sure, it might not work every day, but there are plenty of dry/sunny places where it makes sense.
Classic /. Title (Score:2)
"The Worst 5% of Power Plants Produce 73% of Their Emissions"
100% of power plants produce 100% of their emissions. Also, the person who posted this title calls himself "EditorDavid". Some editor he is.
Define 'bad' (Score:2)
Uh, the "worst" plants in total emissions are going to be the biggest plants. Shutting down the biggest plants will lead to the largest reduction in emissions. What percent of energy do those plants produce? Does the 5% produce 50% of the power?
Headline improved. (Score:2)
should be:
"The Worst 5% of Power Plants Produce 73% of Global Emissions"
Headline improved again. (Score:2)
"The Worst 5% of Electricity Power Plants Produce 73% of Global Electricity Power Plant Carbon Emissions".
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it's 73% of emissions, that power plants make. Global emissions would include all emissions, globally. Stating their is not without double meaning, yet is correct for one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it is derived from all power plants, not coal or fossil fuel ones specifically.
Re: (Score:2)
More like the Worst 5% of Power Plants Produce 73% of Emissions of Power Plants.
Total global emissions would also include things like cows farting and cars driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't you expect the worst 5% of power plants to produce 100% of their emissions? Where did the other 27% of those power plants' emissions come from, if they weren't produced by those power plants?
If the writer was clearly communicating an idea, then the underlying idea is pretty weird and probably stupid. While it's possible the author might have actually meant that, I think it's a lot more likely that they fumbled their headline and didn't say what they actually meant to say. And then, if you read the
Re: (Score:2)
That's just emissions from power plants. What about emissions from international shipping? Or manufacturing and construction? As far as I know, there are no controls whatsoever on any of those items. How do they compare to power generation?
I've been saying for years that we ought to develop geothermal to create the steam needed for the turbines, instead of coal or NG. Using existing plants.
Location, Location, Location.
There are no geothermal sites anywhere around here, unless you spend endless emissions drilling down about 3-5 miles.
In areas with active geothermal access, sure.
You could always just dam up some rivers or divert flow for some nice cheap hydro power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, ships are some of the worst polluters out there, I read an article a year or so back. They burn fuel that is barely refined, almost like sludge, Venezuela grade oil.
Yes. Burning the cheapest fuel possible, no matter the environmental cost is simple economics to an industry devoted to reducing cost at all costs
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously doubt that manufacturing and construction are operating "under the radar" of environmental regulations?
Re: (Score:2)
FFS, it wasn't the country of Germany that brought us dieselgate - don't be such a child.
VW is the second largest vehicle manufacturer, and only a fraction of Volkswagons ae diesel.