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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth United States Government

America Takes Its Biggest Step Yet to End Coal Mining (msn.com) 162

Posted by EditorDavid from the old-king-coal dept.
The Washington Post reports that America took "one of its biggest steps yet to keep fossil fuels in the ground," announcing Thursday that it will end new coal leasing in the Powder River Basin, "which produces nearly half the coal in the United States...

"It could prevent billions of tons of coal from being extracted from more than 13 million acres across Montana and Wyoming, with major implications for U.S. climate goals." A significant share of the nation's fossil fuels come from federal lands and waters. The extraction and combustion of these fuels accounted for nearly a quarter of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions between 2005 and 2014, according to a study by the U.S. Geological Survey. In a final environmental impact statement released Thursday, Interior's Bureau of Land Management found that continued coal leasing in the Powder River Basin would harm the climate and public health. The bureau determined that no future coal leasing should happen in the basin, and it estimated that coal mining in the Wyoming portion of the region would end by 2041.

Last year, the Powder River Basin generated 251.9 million tons of coal, accounting for nearly 44 percent of all coal produced in the United States. Under the bureau's determination, the 14 active coal mines in the Powder River Basin can continue operating on lands they have leased, but they cannot expand onto other public lands in the region... "This means that billions of tons of coal won't be burned, compared to business as usual," said Shiloh Hernandez, a senior attorney at the environmental law firm Earthjustice. "It's good news, and it's really the only defensible decision the BLM could have made, given the current climate crisis...."

The United States is moving away from coal, which has struggled to compete economically with cheaper gas and renewable energy. U.S. coal output tumbled 36 percent from 2015 to 2023, according to the Energy Information Administration. The Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign estimates that 382 coal-fired power plants have closed down or proposed to retire, with 148 remaining. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized an ambitious set of rules in April aimed at slashing air pollution, water pollution and planet-warming emissions spewing from the nation's power plants. One of the most significant rules will push all existing coal plants by 2039 to either close or capture 90 percent of their carbon dioxide emissions at the smokestack.

"The nation's electricity generation needs are being met increasingly by wind, solar and natural gas," said Tom Sanzillo, director of financial analysis at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, an energy think tank. "The nation doesn't need any increase in the amount of coal under lease out of the Powder River Basin."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

America Takes Its Biggest Step Yet to End Coal Mining More

America Takes Its Biggest Step Yet to End Coal Mining

Comments Filter:
  • Hope the US will allow the same courtesy- to other countries to keep mining coal till its no longer needed and their economies have had time to develop and transition to renewables -as the world has extended to the US till now

    • It ain't called "courtesy", it's called "competitive advantage", with all resulting connotations ;)

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Which is why we are going to have to make climate change a cause for trade restrictions and sanctions.

        Unfortunately we can't even get that stuff done for stuff like genocide, so it's not looking very promising.

        • Who are these "we" that you're talking about?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Every nation, and especially the big trade blocs like the EU.

            • You'll hardly see large trade restrictions from EU towards its major commercial partners in the absence of a war or something. Ze Germans are groveling in front of Xi and Putin even on the third year of WW3.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                The EU certainly does need to do more. They do use tariffs though, against both China and the US. With the US it's mostly tit-for-tat though.

                • The only reason EU has used impactful tariffs so far has been to protect some lobby, typically agricultural. The stuff done on general principles is usually talk, not action.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                    There are other options too. RoHS has been quite successful in forcing China to remove hazardous materials from products manufactured there.

                    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      AliExpress and Temu are their own thing, but the stuff you get from e.g. LCSC is legit and has to be, because otherwise engineers here won't be designing it into products as those products themselves would not be RoHS, and the CE mark could really come back to bite them. I've seen it happen.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      In the cases where it happened they knew what they were doing. Boss said it needed to be cheaper, engineer told the factory in China that it needed to be cheaper, factory told the engineer they could use non-RoHS parts, and the engineer agreed.

                      In another case they switched to cheaper batteries without properly checking the spec or testing them. Had to do a full recall and it cost a fortune because the devices were essentially bombs in need of diffusing at that point.

                  • They are so strict about keeping American meat out they even have meat sniffing drugs at their airports to confiscate beef jerky from passengers. Thats being serious about sanctions.

                    • Yes, and they are right, it'd be a shame if cheap and tough US steaks destroy the Tajima gyu I love so much.

                      Wait, no! They sell US meat (pork, beef, poultry) in every Japanese supermarket and quite a few steakhouses I've been to :)

                      And I've never seen sniffing dogs in airports helping confiscate jerky from passengers, even when I've had the misfortune to fly in on US airlines.

                    • Even between US states there is controls to keep some non inspected imported fruits moving between states. Confiscating food from passengers used to happen here, too, when folks came in from abroad, before we decided we didn't care what pestilence came into the country. Forty percent of Japan's beef is imported from the United States, with Australia having 41% per my Google search. That was 2021; there is some drop of about 10% in volume from then now, but that may be economic reasons such as "The Japanes

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by ghoul ( 157158 )
                      Just happened last week. Maybe you have white privilege.

                    • What is that?

                • No. that is what America does to Europe. Even now, Europe has higher tariffs than America does. Though trump was the exception to that issue.
              • I believe Macron is doing the same thing, now.

        • Which is why we are going to have to make climate change a cause for trade restrictions and sanctions.

          Unfortunately we can't even get that stuff done for stuff like genocide, so it's not looking very promising.

          This is why I continue to say that we, esp. the entire western world, needs to put on a slowly rising tax on all locally consumed goods/services. It also needs to be based on what is the WORST part/sub-service in terms of that nation's/state's DIRECTION of emissions. Screw the levels. We no longer have time to dick around with that. Instead, by simply focusing on directions of several years of emissions, we can get all nations to at least stop growing theirs, and ideally, drop theirs. It will also lead to n

        • Which is why we are going to have to make climate change a cause for trade restrictions and sanctions.

          Against the developing world? Classy.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Hopefully we can help them avoid our mistakes, and China proves that it is possible to peak way lower than we did, but yeah, ultimately it will have to be enforced if for some reason they refuse.

            • Yeah, we'll keep them down in an entirely altruistic way lol.

              Your absence of humanity makes climate change seem conceivably preferable.
    • Uh no.
      If we look at economics, then America would continue to mine coal.
      However, the real issue is that it is stupid for ANY nation to increase burning of FF. We need ALL nations to drop their emissions, not just the west.
      And no, no nations 'extended' anything to America.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        If you look at economics that throws out the external costs of coal.

        Globally fossil fuels recieve seven trillion dollars annually in public subsidies. But that's just a drop in the bucket compared to the costs it is allowed to pawn off on other parties. If fossil fuel users had to pay the externalized cost of pollution, then the world would be running on nuclear power right now.

  • Also... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 )
    ...the administration...

    ...plans to open more public land to drilling: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/0... [nytimes.com]

    sells oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/29... [npr.org]

    Call me a sceptic but I reckon the rate of CO2 emissions from the USA into the global atmosphere is increasing, not decreasing, even if they have got elections coming up & are desperate to distract voters for the globally unpopular genocide they're taking part in in Gaza.

    • Re:Also... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Sunday May 19, 2024 @06:10AM (#64482551)

      ...plans to open more public land to drilling

      Drilling for oil and gas is still a necessity. Coal mining is not.

      American gas and oil are displacing Russian fuels on the world market, and that is a good thing.

      Gas has half the CO2 impact of coal. We need more of it to bridge the gap while we roll out more wind, solar, and batteries.

      Transportation will run on oil for decades to come. It is better to produce it at home than to buy it from our geopolitical adversaries.

      • Yup, coal is essentially dead and not become of government interference. All those coal jobs that politicians promise won't happen without subsidies and other corporate charities. All those low-tax politicians are hypocrites when they turn around and demand that failing industries be propped up.

    • "Call me a sceptic but I reckon the rate of CO2 emissions from the USA into the global atmosphere is increasing, not decreasing,"

      I don't call you a sceptic, I just call you completely wrong: https://data.worldbank.org/ind... [worldbank.org]

  • Imports will go up (Score:3)

    by Going_Digital ( 1485615 ) on Sunday May 19, 2024 @04:04AM (#64482467)
    The trouble with these kinds of measures, is that countries just end up importing more to replace the lost capacity. Importing increases the carbon footprint due to the fuel required for shipping. Jobs are lost in the local economy and are replaced by people working in poor conditions, often in politically unstable countries.

    For this to work, there have to be tariffs on importing fossil fuels and tax incentives for switching to cleaner fuels, otherwise it is nothing more than virtue signalling.

    • Re:Imports will go up (Score:4, Insightful)

      by q_e_t ( 5104099 ) on Sunday May 19, 2024 @06:09AM (#64482549)
      Why would imports go up when consumption is falling and this measure simply stops the expansion of supply that is not needed in the USA? https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]

    • Coal is mostly dying because it isn't economically viable.

      Cheap shale gas is kill'n coal.

      If you add on the cost of shipping for imported coal, it will die even faster.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Why would anyone import coal when it's more expensive than renewables? That's the biggest thing happening here, coal is being priced out of the market.

      If there are to be incentives, they should be to help get even more renewables online. Grid upgrades, storage, tariffs that make it more attractive for consumers to install solar and shift their usage to off-peak times, that sort of thing.

      • If there are to be incentives, they should be to help get even more renewables online

        Don't worry, solar/wind is already the most subsidized source of electricity (X10 compared to nuclear for instance).
        Plus we have now mostly externalized the production of solar panels/wind turbines to China, because they can produce them and sell them for a cheap price. So that those subsidies are sent almost directly to China. Which is producing those solar panels/wind turbines mainly by burning coal over there.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          How do you even measure nuclear subsidies? You literally can't put a Euro amount on free unlimited insurance, because it's not for sale at any price and the liability is potentially trillions.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ghoul ( 157158 )
            Isnt that the same deal fossil fuel cars get? Whatever climate damage they cause is not the liability of Ford or Chevron?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              In theory the owners are paying for it via taxes, at least in some countries. They are subsidised of course.

          • Subsidies have a well-known definition and can be compared across different means of electricity generation. I don't understand why you want to obscure this fact.

            Especially since I was supporting your point: there are more incentives today (through subsidies) to increase the adoption of renewable energy sources. Isn't that what you were advocating for?

            • Nuclear plants are built with consumption guarantuees, it's very hard to convert that to a subsidy.

              • You ask for more incentives to build renewables. Studies show that more subsidies go toward renewables than any other energy source, indicating that the focus on renewables is at its highest, which is a good thing. I don't understand why you are upset about that.

                Of course, if the focus were on CO2 reduction, it would be more efficient if subsidies were evenly split between nuclear, solar/wind, and hydro.

      • More importantly coal is being priced out by other fossil fuels too specifically natural gas.
    • Except in the case of coal, demand has dwindled over the last century. As pointed out in the article, coal has been replaced by other fossil fuels like gas and not just renewable energy. Fewer and fewer places use it for heat. Transportation like locomotives and boats have switched to diesel. The last industry really using coal is power plants and they are closing plants.
    • When Biden/Goon squad did this to O&G, then imports DID rise. Why? Because there are no alternatives to most of the uses of O&G. 75% of O&G go into burning for energy, which includes nat gas for electricity and Oil for transportation ( a tiny sliver for electricity in territories ). Worse, a lot of O&G chemical usage can not be cheaply/cleanly replaced by alternatives, esp. coal.

      BUT, coal is a different matter. All other forms of electricity can replace coal and all are cleaner. Most are

  • We can delay doing anything for another decade. And then we can shift that because "that goal is too ambitious".

    Well. The only good thing is that this skill gate (which climate change clearly is) will not let a bumbling, incompetent and greed humanity through. The mix of people we have here is just not viable long-term.

  • Coal-fired Implications. (Score:3)

    by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Sunday May 19, 2024 @04:56AM (#64482521)

    ..announcing Thursday that it will end new coal leasing in the Powder River Basin, "which produces nearly half the coal in the United States... "It could prevent billions of tons of coal from being extracted from more than 13 million acres across Montana and Wyoming, with major implications for U.S. climate goals."

    Well, sure is a good thing nearly half the coal in the United States was only used for fueling raging keggers for the national fraternity known as Hi Drunka U. After all, we wouldn’t want to think there were any other “major implications” to worry about or advertise. Other than perhaps a inside look at a politicians investment strategy into renewables.

    No matter how bad a planet might need it, you only look corruptly ignorant trying to sell Green that hard. Shutting down coal is a strategic goal. Turning it into a tactical one with the nuclear option, will certainly ensure you get people’s attention. The kind of attention that turns a nation of voters against you.

    • I have no idea what you are talking about but the supply of coal in the US largely exceeds the demand. Coal plants are closing all over the US which means less demand in the future as that was the last real use of coal left.

      • I have no idea what you are talking about but the supply of coal in the US largely exceeds the demand. Coal plants are closing all over the US which means less demand in the future as that was the last real use of coal left.

        end new coal leasing in the Powder River Basin, "which produces nearly half the coal in the United States.."

        I have no idea how you don't quite understand the concept of producing a Supply is here. As in the other half of the Demand that is currently asking for it.

        Last year, the Powder River Basin generated 251.9 million tons of coal, accounting for nearly 44 percent of all coal produced in the United States. Under the bureau's determination, the 14 active coal mines in the Powder River Basin can continue operating on lands they have leased, but they cannot expand onto other public lands in the region...

        And quite frankly, what you were actually sold here, was a non-expansion. Not a shutdown or even shrinking of current operations of any kind.

        Yeah, we'll find out what the 'last real use' of coal will be; ironically fueling EV power stations, IF we ever actually get that grid installed to feed any transition from fossil fuels. It's currently rolling ou

        • I have no idea how you don't quite understand the concept of producing a Supply is here. As in the other half of the Demand that is currently asking for it.

          Coal demand is elastic. As the price of coal rises or falls, demand decreases or increases. This isn't true of all commodities, but it's true of all commodities that have alternatives. In this case, coal's primary use is power generation and there are many alternatives. A crucial alternative is natural gas, which produces far less CO2 than coal per kWh generated, and is also a better solution than coal for addressing the intermittency of PV and wind, which are the cheapest and lowest-emitting alternative

          • Which is why at the same time the Biden administration is moving to reduce the supply of (and therefore demand for) coal, it is moving to increase the supply of natural gas.

            I would argue that reducing supply is the result of reduced demand and not the cause of it. If the Biden administration did nothing, coal mines and coal plants would still be closing down. And in this case, it is not reducing supply as much as not insuring increased supply in the future.

            This is not really any different in other industries that become obsolete. For example, the whale oil industry did not decline because countries imposed bans on killing whales in 1986. Almost a century before that happened,

            • Which is why at the same time the Biden administration is moving to reduce the supply of (and therefore demand for) coal, it is moving to increase the supply of natural gas.

              I would argue that reducing supply is the result of reduced demand and not the cause of it. If the Biden administration did nothing, coal mines and coal plants would still be closing down. And in this case, it is not reducing supply as much as not insuring increased supply in the future.

              Given that mines close for various reasons, preventing new ones from being opened will reduce supply. Maybe fast enough to keep the price from dropping fast enough to induce more demand -- possibly even fast enough to increase the price and thereby reduce demand even further. In the do-nothing alternative world, unless there was actually no financial incentive to open new mines, opening new mines would reduce price and induce demand. If there actually is no financial incentive to open new mines then Biden

              • Given that mines close for various reasons, preventing new ones from being opened will reduce supply.

                1) The main reason is there are fewer coal plants so there is less demand. There is no need to launch a multiyear study to determine the reasons. 2) Current mines automatically did not run out of coal supply immediately with this announcement. There is still coal to be mined in existing leases.

                Maybe fast enough to keep the price from dropping fast enough to induce more demand -- possibly even fast enough to increase the price and thereby reduce demand even further.

                Coal is being outpriced by gas because gas plants are cheaper to run. That's all there is to that. No need for a lengthy analysis on pricing.

                In the do-nothing alternative world, unless there was actually no financial incentive to open new mines, opening new mines would reduce price and induce demand.

                Again, the cost of running a coal plant is more than a gas plant. You seem t

        • I have no idea how you don't quite understand the concept of producing a Supply is here. As in the other half of the Demand that is currently asking for it.

          What part of year after year, demand is dropping (hence less need for supply) is hard for you to understand? As with coal plants, coal mines are shutting down due to LESS demand for coal.

          And quite frankly, what you were actually sold here, was a non-expansion. Not a shutdown or even shrinking of current operations of any kind.

          Again, nothing is happening directly with current leases, however, mines shutting down due to lack of demand is not affected by the fact there will be no new expansions or new leases on federal lands.

          Yeah, we'll find out what the 'last real use' of coal will be; ironically fueling EV power stations, IF we ever actually get that grid installed to feed any transition from fossil fuels.

          1) Please tell what new use of coal would exist in the future OTHER than power plants. Locomotives, ships, home heating, busi

    • Yup. Biden/Goon squad are going to lose votes in Montana/Wyoming over this. Oh. Right. They were not going to get any in the first place.

      • Yup. Biden/Goon squad are going to lose votes in Montana/Wyoming over this. Oh. Right. They were not going to get any in the first place.

        Ever wonder if an Administration's actions are just crazy enough to believe they don't actually care about securing votes and are bailing out just before letting it all burn, only to blame it ALL on the next guy in charge?

        I don't.

  • Economics (Score:3)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Sunday May 19, 2024 @07:56AM (#64482703)

    It's nice to imagine we could effectively decide to do this and take strong action towards that goal, to see the best way forward and cooperate to make it happen. ...but my understanding is that coal was already on its way out 'naturally' in the US as it was becoming less competitive with other forms of energy generation due to pre-existing economic forces.

    If there's political action against coal happening in the US, that would lead me to believe that coal isn't important enough any longer to be a major voting issue and the politicians involved have decided it will now help them more than hurt them in the next election cycle.

    • Yes and no. Biden/Goon squad have been taking this same action with O&G, which was horrible from multiple POV:
      1) what was killing off coal, was cheap nat gas.
      2) until O&G has alternatives for all its various uses, it makes no sense to kill it off in terms of Nat. Sec.
      3) keep in mind that not only LICE/HICE transportation uses O&G, but heavy chemical use comes from O&G. In fact, with killing coal, chemical usage of O&G will increase, not decrease.

      OTOH, Coal has alternatives in ev

    • Coal was already on its way out because of the rapid fall in natural gas prices from the late 1990's on, thanks the the introduction of fracking, which opened up massive new gas fields all over the USA. The price drop was so substantial they're now using natural gas to make gasoline and motor oil, of all things!

      Given that natural gas doesn't have the oxides of sulfurs, particulates and heavy metals in the exhaust, that's why many older coal-fired power plants are being phased out.

  • Not so great for inflation and employment. This is going to screw over poor people even more.
    • It says in the summary that current leases are still allowed. There will be no new leases or expansion of leases. This change does not affect current jobs. However the coal industry on the whole is losing jobs. This change will not hasten or reverse that trend.
  • Coal is mostly used for making electricity. As such, there are cleaner alternatives (in fact, ALL OF THE REST) for electricity. So, slowly shutting down production on federal lands makes good sense.

    What made NO SENSE was shutting down O&G production. Why not? Because there was no alternatives for chemical or burning in transportation. The ONLY place that had a clean/cheaper alternative was electricity making, and nuclear is cheaper, even though far left nut jobs continue to shut these down.
  • Instead of banning what we use and saying "there, we fixed it" they need to make alternatives so cheap and superior that nobody bothers to dig up coal because it's not financially viable. If you do it backwards, the way they're doing it, you get shortages, outages, disruptions, and a general bad sentiment from the public.

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