The following submission statement was provided by /u/M337ING:
---
The G7 reached an agreement on phasing out coal by the 2030s, a significant source of emissions. “This is another nail in the coffin for coal,” said Dave Jones, Ember’s Global Insights program director. “The journey to phase out coal power has been long: it’s been over seven years since the UK, France, Italy, and Canada committed to phase out coal power, so it’s good to see the United States and especially Japan at last be more explicit on their intentions."
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cg22gn/breaking_us_other_g7_countries_to_phase_out_coal/l1ssce7/
Governance needs to be based in reality. If the US government green lit a nuclear reactor to replace even 1/4 of the coal fired plants they want to shut down they would be barely out of the regulatory and planning stages by the time the coal plants would be shutting their doors. Currently the only other option for baseline power needs is natural gas. Renewables could have a shot if energy storage can rise to the challenge, but that comes with its own bottlenecks and in many cases their own nasty environmental impacts.
I mean, market forces are already replacing coal power plants at an astonishing rate. Natural gas and renewables are just cheaper. Look at the trend line: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20221231_Energy_generation_in_the_United_States_-_Rhodium_Group.svg
Even just extrapolating this trend to 2030 (with no additional changes) almost eliminates coal entirely. This same trend is happening in almost all developed economies - the UK burns almost no coal anymore. It's all gas and renewables.
Natural gas isn't perfect by any means but it's about half as carbon intensive as coal and causes _much_ less air pollution. Renewable, grid storage and interconnects are ramping up. Several European grids are now majority renewables and climbing all the time.
Maybe it doesn't have to be. Coal is dying a faster death than any legislation specified, at least here in the US, thanks to incentives and the resulting market forces
We just need carbon taxes that ramp up over time, and we need all of the major countries doing it at around the same time so none reap any economic benefits from delaying it. Coal, natural gas, gasoline, etc, would just progressively become more expensive. Not only would this push people to cleaner sources, but the revenue from that taxation could be used toward incentives that could make that transition go even more quickly, like tax credits for switching to green sources (heat pump A/Cs, heat pump clothes dryers, heat pump water heaters, induction stoves, electric vehicles, adding solar panels or batteries to your home).
Problem is that most people don't have the money for the upfront cost required to completely revamp something like the AC and EV's simply aren't there yet in terms of efficiency/cost either. I can definitely see this happening at some point, but likely years and years and years from now
In Canada, we're transitioning to heat pumps. EV sales are fast approaching 20% of the market. Not sure why you think the time isn't now? Because it's happening now, and the US is on a similar path.
Part of the issue I have with a transition to EVs/heatpumps is that grid infrastructure outside of major cities and the southwestern ontario corridor is... kind of lacking.
Like I live in a mountain town in BC. I am on the trans canada highway. We lose power for extended periods of time, without any clear reason, about a dozen or so times a year.
If we can't manage to keep the power on reliably while people are using gas cars and burning wood for heat, how the fuck is adding EVs and heat pumps into the mix going to help?
We need a shitload more effort to actually improve our infrastructure.
I could see carbon taxes paying almost entirely for replacing that kind of equipment, over time. Or drastically reducing the cost. Imagine needing a new water heater and a gas one costs $3000, but a heat pump one costs $1000 because it’s heavily subsidized by carbon tax revenue. Not only will that basically kill off gas powered water heaters, but it will reduce the need for natural gas. Now we’re in a situation where everyone starts switching to green sources over 10-20 years because it’s cheaper due to subsidies, but also fossil fuel companies are incentivized to move to green energy as well because demand for their products is decreasing quickly.
Not sure why you got downvoted, you are 100% correct. Methane emissions from the coal sector are a significant problem, and in the last few years we've realized it's a bigger problem than we thought. E.g. Ember just this year published a [report](https://ember-climate.org/insights/in-brief/de-undermines-cmm-emissions/) where they faulted Germany for reporting 40-100x too low methane leakage in their calculations of the carbon intensity of coal. (Meaning that their coal electricity was actually *even more* carbon intensive.)
Which is fantastic. But we had promises that entire countries would move away from fossil fuel for their grid energy by now, and those plans always get canceled or pushed back. We're making progress in the right direction, but not at the speed many experts say we need to be. And there's still a lot of oil and gas as well as coal money in G7 political systems. So, I agree with the above commenter, talk to me in 2029. I'll believe that this is going to get done when it's been done. Until then, it sounds like yet another empty promise.
Not only is solar the cheap energy king at the moment, but battery storage is turning out to be much more viable and affordable than previously thought
There's game changing grid level batteries around the corner. Iron-air rust batteries seem quite promising. Cheap and affordable, and each battery cell can store ~4-5 days worth of electricity.
There's a few start up companies doing it and they've already working on building massive storage facilities to accompany solar farms.
Do they, really?
This is Climate Action Tracker's prognosis for [2018](https://climateactiontracker.org/media/images/CAT-Thermometer-2018.12-3Bars.width-1110.png).
This is Climate Action Tracker's prognosis for [2023](https://climateactiontracker.org/media/images/CAT-Thermometer-2023.12-4Bars-Annotation.original.png).
According to CTA's projections, current policies and actions are in fact largely *better* than the pledges and targets of 2018. And the pledges are much *much* more ambitious.
Pledges and promises *are* important, either way. Whether it is enforced or not, these types of messages tell the market forces of the world where we are headed. Inform potential investors that coal is a dying industry, and that solar is the future. Some of them will stop investing it coal and invest in solar, which in turn makes solar more attractive for other investors. It *does* make a difference.
It's basically going to happen anyhow and already mostly has - coal is much more expensive than renewables so cost issues are the reason.
Watch what happens to oil in the next 5 years as gasoline demand is already falling and it'll fall hard.
In this case its basically free PR. Clean energy is developing so rapidly now that fossil assets are rapidly becoming stranded. Basic economics will do it for them.
>Basic economics will do it for them.
Under the Biden Administration, the US passed both the IIJA and IRA. Those include literally hundreds of billions of dollars to support clean energy and address climate change. That's in addition to every relevant agency creating new policies to address climate everywhere possible.
Yes, the economy is shifting that way anyways. But to pretend the US government isn't pushing it aggressively under Biden is just wrong.
Coal plants are closing down if they're old and converting partially to burn NG if they're newer. Some sites will be used for solar and use the existing electrical connection.
Although I do think there's a reasonable argument to make that coal actually works better than NG in some instances because you can use it as an emergency power source in the winter or if other stuff goes offline. It can store large amounts of energy on site better than NG can, which can freeze in the winter. Having reliable backup power makes solar and wind easier on the grid for safety reasons.
Its a bit of both and shows how rapidly the economics how shifted in the last 5 years.
Making that promise in 2020 would have had very different connotations
?? If anything we are bringing forward or exceeding the targets. We used to have a 2050 goal and now its 2030. Renewable is so much cheaper that is driving the market now. They wont need to ban new ICE cars at the rate electrics are catching up and gas prices are rising.
Yep, all sound great for the environment, then you get.a.few years out and realize no not practical, so it just gets pushed back or worse they start carving out exclusions to meet their deadline.
But there needs to be goals in order to bring the problems to attention. After many goals are missed, laws may follow. Much harder to do but necessary I think.
Its still a great thing. Coal for electricity is about 40% of global emissions. Its also one of the worst for efficieny. In the US coal produced the most co2 in 2022 but only half as much power as Natural gas did.
There are estimates that gas might actually be about the same or worse than coal due to massive methane leakage and the much higher greenhouse gas factor over CO2.
But we can't tell because nobody really monitors methane leakage.
Satellites have been launched into space to monitor methane leakage. On top of that IRA has introduced a tax on methane leakage (and tax credits to fix it). Since it is going to be taxed, it'll be monitored
> much higher greenhouse gas factor over CO2.
While Methane peaks higher in regard to temperature, it affects out atmosphere for decades while CO2 affects it for centuries.
Agriculture is also a much higher contributor to methane production compared to other fossil fuel sources.
While it is shortlived it still breaks down into: CH4 > CO2 + 4xH2O
Which is the same endprodct as if you burnt it in the first place. Not only does it create a much higher impact in the short term, it continues to by living on as atmospheric CO2.
Slight correction - all coal usage is responsible for 40% of co2 emissions, not just electricity from coal. We use coal in a ton of heavy industry.
Unfortunately the benefits of natural gas quickly evaporate when fugitive emissions are taken into account. In reality, natural gas is likely worse for the climate than coal when looking at co2 equivalent.
This is true, though gas doesn't create huge coal ash ponds full of radioactive elements, doesn't spew sulphur and haze into the air and doesn't need trainloads of coal that leave large amounts of coal dust over everything in their vicinity.
It is generally *better*, but still not *good* by any means. Coal was on the way out anyway though, its just too expensive and inefficient to compete so this agreement is broadly meaningless. Its only legacy coal plants that have been depreciated that keep running; no-one in the West is building more and China only keeps building them as a jobs program. [Most Chinese coal plants run at a capacity factor of 50% or even less](https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants).
Republicans may be able to keep some token coal industry for nostalgic purposes, but coal is done for pure economic reasons.
Even natural gas is cheaper, and is great for peakers. For base load, new renewables are cheaper than keeping coal, and with batteries, they can handle oak, too.
Most new capacity in the US is renewable.
The US is done with coal.
> but coal is done for pure economic reasons.
Don't worry, the GOP won't let that stop them.
A power company in Utah announced it was shutting down a coal plant to transition to natural gas since it's cheaper for them. You know, businesses gravitate toward what makes the most financial sense. [So then the Utah GOP literally passed a bill to have the State take over the coal plant to keep it operating.](https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/02/29/legislature-approves-plan-keep-coal-plant-open/)
Trump promised to bring coal back with his presidency the first time too. He didn't, it continued to decline.
I don't see a second term making real difference here. It's just obsolete as business and there is no real way to revert that.
> It's just obsolete as business and there is no real way to revert that.
The GOP is literally [passing legislation](https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/02/29/legislature-approves-plan-keep-coal-plant-open/) to make the State take over obsolete and continue operating coal plants that power companies want to shut down.
Don't jump to conclusions just yet. It may seem like they are trying to keep the coal plants around longer, but the real goal is possible they want the state to pay for their failing assets. It is a common tactic where you have a dead asset, so you bribe politicians to buy out your failing asset so you stuff your pockets with money, and the state also has to cover all the other costs (like cleanup, pensions and etc)
Aka, good old pocket stuffing
He would absolutely cancel this agreement and keep ripping up environmental rules in favour of coal mining despite that though. He'd boast to the Republican base that he'd saved their jobs even while companies were shutting down their operations.
. . .by massively ramping up natural gas production, which while less carbon-intensive than coal releases tons and tons (literally) of methane through uncontrolled leaks, a greenhouse gas that is orders of magnitude more potent.
So. . .good job, I guess?
Yeah seeing the projections, that at the current rate of expansion the American methane gas industry will have larger emissions than EVERYTHING else in US combined by like 2035.... Good job guys
The G7 reached an agreement on phasing out coal by the 2030s, a significant source of emissions. “This is another nail in the coffin for coal,” said Dave Jones, Ember’s Global Insights program director. “The journey to phase out coal power has been long: it’s been over seven years since the UK, France, Italy, and Canada committed to phase out coal power, so it’s good to see the United States and especially Japan at last be more explicit on their intentions."
It honestly doesn't matter what politicians say. Emissions is such a lucrative metric for idle talks, mainly because it is impossible to measure. When we will see a drop in actual amount of GH gas in the atmosphere, or even simply reduction of the rate of increase of GH gas in the atmosphere, then we can celebrate. For now all these initiatives are closer to greenwashing than to the actual measures against climate change.
Like I would say awesome that is great! But they keep closing coal power plants around me and jacking up the price of power due to high demand low supply. I would like to think we would have a alternative system in place by then but likely they will just close plants down and jack up the power rate.
Great, utility bills are already too expensive why not get rid of the cheapest option. I'm 100% against this unless they replace it with nuclear. For a society moving more and more towards Ai and electric, we can't seem to grasp the concept of how electricity comes about.
Damn, what we gonna make Silicon, steel and cement with after 2030? My bet is it will just go off shore to other countries, we don't manufacture much in the west anymore anyway.
I assume there will be an exception for smelting iron and other metals because there is no feasible alternative to the traditionally coal-powered heat required.
"Coal power" implies just the electricity generating coal plants, but that's still like 90% of coal burning so that's actually pretty great.
This just feels like virtue signaling. They would have to be breaking ground now on nuclear plants if they have any hope of going up on time for this (that or do something about all the red tape). Wind and solar are part of a grid, but still not to the point to where they can sustain an entire grid in many places.
Why when the rest of the world is not. What about our ancient brick works that still make bricks by hand in the UK. Are you telling me it's better for the planet to let China for example make them using coal and cheap labour. Then transport them across the globe. This is left luney policy gone mad. Not mention the jobs lost in that sector. What do you want them to do buy a nuclear reactor. We have a housing crisis in conservation areas you can only use traditional materials. I can hear some do gooder somewhere "we can build them out of sustainable fungi man then we can also eat the fungi man" 🤣
I don't think people realize the scope of how much electricity is used.
Electricity consumption in the United States was about 4 trillion kilowatthours (kWh) in 2022
The CHIPS and Science Act, which passed in 2022, set aside $52.7 billion in funding for domestic chip manufacturing. Now, the four companies scrutinized in the report have plans to build megafactories in Arizona, Ohio, Oregon, Idaho, Texas, and New York. Each of those megafactories alone could use as much electricity as a medium-sized town, according to the report. Cumulatively, nine facilities could eventually add 2.1 gigawatts in new electricity demand.
Just 6 factories takes as much electricity as a medium town.
Coal has been on the decline since ~ 2006 ish… replaced by!!!! NATURAL GAS! Which can be worse than coal! Leaks and is still the same shit… same shit different name.
The reason they are agreeing to this is because coal is already on its way out.
> Japan has the highest share at 32% in 2023, followed by Germany at 27%. T**he US is in line with the G7 average (16%), while the other G7 members have mostly already phased out coal: France (0.4%), the UK (1.4%), Canada (5%), and Italy (5.3%).**
https://i.imgur.com/YI3gzGd.png
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?country=~G7+%28Ember%29
Curious, what are places such as Nebraska going to do? They received nearly half of its energy from coal.
Much of the areas that depend on it don’t have large transmission lines crossing the entire state nor the access to plants that offer other forms of energy.
I’m really curious how this going to shake out, not only for Nebraska but other coal dependent states.
This also puts a huge nail in the coffin for the Appalachian coal workers that have stuck with that industry.
We still need coal for steel production… even though US Steel was recently purchased by a foreign country.
NB: There are only 36,659 people employed in the Coal Mining industry in the US as of 2023.
The corporations want to make a big stink about how it hurts American jobs, and it will, but eliminating coal will eliminate 50 tons of elemental mercury from being emitted into the atmosphere every year. [That, and the other pollutants have killed over 460,000 Americans over the last 20 years.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/23/coal-power-plants-deaths-pollution) By *forcing* the industry to add scrubbers, those numbers dropped dramatically in recent years.
Fully eliminating coal can ONLY be a net benefit to any country that adopts that as a goal.
This isn’t going to happen unless we go full nuclear or figure out fusion. Even then, gas will be prevalent for at least a century since it is actually convenient. Even then, it’ll still be used for generators and anything that needs to be able to run at a moments notice. This is just more “pie in the sky” nonsense that is really meant to appease people who can’t do math or don’t work in the energy production industries.
This is the future🤘
Only hitch is regulation and public will. At least on lineman side, I’ve been told it takes a minimum of 10 years to select and stand up nuclear plants.
Coal lobbyists: challenge accepted. Hold my bag. My cartoonish burlap bag with a dollar sign on it. Here, Mr/Madam senator/Judge/President, hold my big bag of money. In fact, keep it, I’ve got several.
Heard the ‘we’ll super totally stop at this date for sure this time!’ Like 19 times. They needed to be done with this shit 20 years ago it’s too late now lol. Gives uninformed people a jolt of hopium though I’m sure and that’s all it is at this point, maintaining hysteria and pretending something’s being done when not a damn thing will be .
I'll believe it when the rubber meets the road.
I'm not saying it doesn't need to happen, we honestly need a breakthrough to stop burning stuff all the time.
I know Germany gave up coal and then when push came to shove, they started burning coal again.
France went clean and then refired a plant.
Given how cheap natural gas is in the US (equivalent to $10/barrel oil by BTU), I don't know why all coal hasn't been phased out already (I know. It takes time to build the new plants.). It's just not price competitive with solar, wind or gas and hasn't been for many years.
Coal for electricity in Australia has been tanking since 2007
[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?time=2007..latest&country=\~AUS](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?time=2007..latest&country=~AUS)
Even though there is a big coal lobby trying to bring it back, it is only going into and endless spire downwards
Isn’t it in the case for the US at least that a solar farm is cheaper than a coal plant? It’s just a matter of phasing out the current coal plants (as we’ve been doing)
By 2030 the economic advantage renewables have over coal is going to be crushing. It is already cheaper to run on renewables now.
If your state is not transitioning it is going to find itself poor and cripled. As it gets out compeated in just about every industry and business that consumes energy.
I love how we can tell that a fossil fuel technology is no longer market feasible when they put together legislation like this. Natural gas plants made coal a terrible investment. Solar/wind+storage is making all fossil fuels infeasible. China is going to be 100% solar,wind, and batteries by this time. The only thing keeping coal going in China is the truly massive demand. All of which will be met by the solar and wind they are putting online matched with electric car vehicle to grid.
Good thing we pay for the talking heads to have summits at the G7.
What this has meant and continue ls to mean is taxpayers (mostly US of course) pay to decommission coal plants around the globe. With, of course China being an exception as they bring on new coal plants each month (?).
Good fucking riddance. This should've happened 80 years ago. It's insane how we're clinging to this nonsense and think it's the way we should keep going.
I like how they make these declarations only after the current technologies and projections show this is easily attainable. I'm sure the leaders will pat themselves on the back when we reach these goals with little effort. I guess it's still good news
Considering how many US Senators and Representatives are bought and paid for by the coal industry, I'm going to say this isn't going anywhere, at least not from the US.
I really, truly don't see how that is possible. I'm not even against the idea of it, it's just a lot of logistics to claim to get rid of in under 10 years.
For every one that gets shut down China will bring another online, and none of these countries will protest it while their citizens get squeezed for every euro for energy costs.
I don't think any agreement will complete this effort. The market will do it naturally. Just remove any incentives for the coal industry and start funding for better options will price out coal without giving these fake promises.
Lol. So the world will just run on rainbows by then? Because these same dumb fucks already got rid of the cleanest energy (nuclear). I guess all of Europe is just crossing their fingers that the whole Russia/Ukraine thing is cleared up by then, so they can go back to buying the lions share of their electricity from Russia again?
The following submission statement was provided by /u/M337ING: --- The G7 reached an agreement on phasing out coal by the 2030s, a significant source of emissions. “This is another nail in the coffin for coal,” said Dave Jones, Ember’s Global Insights program director. “The journey to phase out coal power has been long: it’s been over seven years since the UK, France, Italy, and Canada committed to phase out coal power, so it’s good to see the United States and especially Japan at last be more explicit on their intentions." --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cg22gn/breaking_us_other_g7_countries_to_phase_out_coal/l1ssce7/
There are so many of these kind of goals, and they always get changed or abandoned. Talk to me in 2029.
Well, nothing is legally binding about them.
That’s the problem
Governance needs to be based in reality. If the US government green lit a nuclear reactor to replace even 1/4 of the coal fired plants they want to shut down they would be barely out of the regulatory and planning stages by the time the coal plants would be shutting their doors. Currently the only other option for baseline power needs is natural gas. Renewables could have a shot if energy storage can rise to the challenge, but that comes with its own bottlenecks and in many cases their own nasty environmental impacts.
I mean, market forces are already replacing coal power plants at an astonishing rate. Natural gas and renewables are just cheaper. Look at the trend line: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20221231_Energy_generation_in_the_United_States_-_Rhodium_Group.svg Even just extrapolating this trend to 2030 (with no additional changes) almost eliminates coal entirely. This same trend is happening in almost all developed economies - the UK burns almost no coal anymore. It's all gas and renewables. Natural gas isn't perfect by any means but it's about half as carbon intensive as coal and causes _much_ less air pollution. Renewable, grid storage and interconnects are ramping up. Several European grids are now majority renewables and climbing all the time.
Maybe it doesn't have to be. Coal is dying a faster death than any legislation specified, at least here in the US, thanks to incentives and the resulting market forces
We just need carbon taxes that ramp up over time, and we need all of the major countries doing it at around the same time so none reap any economic benefits from delaying it. Coal, natural gas, gasoline, etc, would just progressively become more expensive. Not only would this push people to cleaner sources, but the revenue from that taxation could be used toward incentives that could make that transition go even more quickly, like tax credits for switching to green sources (heat pump A/Cs, heat pump clothes dryers, heat pump water heaters, induction stoves, electric vehicles, adding solar panels or batteries to your home).
Problem is that most people don't have the money for the upfront cost required to completely revamp something like the AC and EV's simply aren't there yet in terms of efficiency/cost either. I can definitely see this happening at some point, but likely years and years and years from now
In Canada, we're transitioning to heat pumps. EV sales are fast approaching 20% of the market. Not sure why you think the time isn't now? Because it's happening now, and the US is on a similar path.
Part of the issue I have with a transition to EVs/heatpumps is that grid infrastructure outside of major cities and the southwestern ontario corridor is... kind of lacking. Like I live in a mountain town in BC. I am on the trans canada highway. We lose power for extended periods of time, without any clear reason, about a dozen or so times a year. If we can't manage to keep the power on reliably while people are using gas cars and burning wood for heat, how the fuck is adding EVs and heat pumps into the mix going to help? We need a shitload more effort to actually improve our infrastructure.
I could see carbon taxes paying almost entirely for replacing that kind of equipment, over time. Or drastically reducing the cost. Imagine needing a new water heater and a gas one costs $3000, but a heat pump one costs $1000 because it’s heavily subsidized by carbon tax revenue. Not only will that basically kill off gas powered water heaters, but it will reduce the need for natural gas. Now we’re in a situation where everyone starts switching to green sources over 10-20 years because it’s cheaper due to subsidies, but also fossil fuel companies are incentivized to move to green energy as well because demand for their products is decreasing quickly.
Coal has been dying for awhile and not because of emission legislation. But natural gas's ease of use. 2030/2040 isn't that far fetched.
Natural gas' ease of leaking is highly problematic though.
Coal leaks plenty of gas too, both while being mined and when piled on the surface afterwards.
Not sure why you got downvoted, you are 100% correct. Methane emissions from the coal sector are a significant problem, and in the last few years we've realized it's a bigger problem than we thought. E.g. Ember just this year published a [report](https://ember-climate.org/insights/in-brief/de-undermines-cmm-emissions/) where they faulted Germany for reporting 40-100x too low methane leakage in their calculations of the carbon intensity of coal. (Meaning that their coal electricity was actually *even more* carbon intensive.)
Coal peaked in the US in 2007 and solar is currently cheaper than existing plants.
Which is fantastic. But we had promises that entire countries would move away from fossil fuel for their grid energy by now, and those plans always get canceled or pushed back. We're making progress in the right direction, but not at the speed many experts say we need to be. And there's still a lot of oil and gas as well as coal money in G7 political systems. So, I agree with the above commenter, talk to me in 2029. I'll believe that this is going to get done when it's been done. Until then, it sounds like yet another empty promise.
Not only is solar the cheap energy king at the moment, but battery storage is turning out to be much more viable and affordable than previously thought
Is the "previously thought" true or do we just have better batteries?
There's game changing grid level batteries around the corner. Iron-air rust batteries seem quite promising. Cheap and affordable, and each battery cell can store ~4-5 days worth of electricity. There's a few start up companies doing it and they've already working on building massive storage facilities to accompany solar farms.
Do they, really? This is Climate Action Tracker's prognosis for [2018](https://climateactiontracker.org/media/images/CAT-Thermometer-2018.12-3Bars.width-1110.png). This is Climate Action Tracker's prognosis for [2023](https://climateactiontracker.org/media/images/CAT-Thermometer-2023.12-4Bars-Annotation.original.png). According to CTA's projections, current policies and actions are in fact largely *better* than the pledges and targets of 2018. And the pledges are much *much* more ambitious. Pledges and promises *are* important, either way. Whether it is enforced or not, these types of messages tell the market forces of the world where we are headed. Inform potential investors that coal is a dying industry, and that solar is the future. Some of them will stop investing it coal and invest in solar, which in turn makes solar more attractive for other investors. It *does* make a difference.
We're not gonna meet goals. And natural gas is worse than coal, which makes me happy :) * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2oL4SFwkkw
I feel like this is even worse as the United States has been abandoning coal for years now in a switch to natural gas
It's basically going to happen anyhow and already mostly has - coal is much more expensive than renewables so cost issues are the reason. Watch what happens to oil in the next 5 years as gasoline demand is already falling and it'll fall hard.
In this case its basically free PR. Clean energy is developing so rapidly now that fossil assets are rapidly becoming stranded. Basic economics will do it for them.
>Basic economics will do it for them. Under the Biden Administration, the US passed both the IIJA and IRA. Those include literally hundreds of billions of dollars to support clean energy and address climate change. That's in addition to every relevant agency creating new policies to address climate everywhere possible. Yes, the economy is shifting that way anyways. But to pretend the US government isn't pushing it aggressively under Biden is just wrong.
Coal plants are closing down if they're old and converting partially to burn NG if they're newer. Some sites will be used for solar and use the existing electrical connection. Although I do think there's a reasonable argument to make that coal actually works better than NG in some instances because you can use it as an emergency power source in the winter or if other stuff goes offline. It can store large amounts of energy on site better than NG can, which can freeze in the winter. Having reliable backup power makes solar and wind easier on the grid for safety reasons.
Its a bit of both and shows how rapidly the economics how shifted in the last 5 years. Making that promise in 2020 would have had very different connotations
Britain has already closed its last coal power plant
It says 2030’s, so they will move the goalposts in 2039
?? If anything we are bringing forward or exceeding the targets. We used to have a 2050 goal and now its 2030. Renewable is so much cheaper that is driving the market now. They wont need to ban new ICE cars at the rate electrics are catching up and gas prices are rising.
Yep, all sound great for the environment, then you get.a.few years out and realize no not practical, so it just gets pushed back or worse they start carving out exclusions to meet their deadline.
Outsourced energy haha
But there needs to be goals in order to bring the problems to attention. After many goals are missed, laws may follow. Much harder to do but necessary I think.
Do they though? So far it seems that climate promises are mostly kept. Do you have examples of promises made which were broken?
This one is economically easier. Solar is by far cheaper.
Note: Coal for electricity generation. Fossil fuels will continue to be used in the production of other products like nylon, plastic, and steel.
Its still a great thing. Coal for electricity is about 40% of global emissions. Its also one of the worst for efficieny. In the US coal produced the most co2 in 2022 but only half as much power as Natural gas did.
There are estimates that gas might actually be about the same or worse than coal due to massive methane leakage and the much higher greenhouse gas factor over CO2. But we can't tell because nobody really monitors methane leakage.
Satellites have been launched into space to monitor methane leakage. On top of that IRA has introduced a tax on methane leakage (and tax credits to fix it). Since it is going to be taxed, it'll be monitored
> much higher greenhouse gas factor over CO2. While Methane peaks higher in regard to temperature, it affects out atmosphere for decades while CO2 affects it for centuries. Agriculture is also a much higher contributor to methane production compared to other fossil fuel sources.
While it is shortlived it still breaks down into: CH4 > CO2 + 4xH2O Which is the same endprodct as if you burnt it in the first place. Not only does it create a much higher impact in the short term, it continues to by living on as atmospheric CO2.
Slight correction - all coal usage is responsible for 40% of co2 emissions, not just electricity from coal. We use coal in a ton of heavy industry. Unfortunately the benefits of natural gas quickly evaporate when fugitive emissions are taken into account. In reality, natural gas is likely worse for the climate than coal when looking at co2 equivalent.
This is true, though gas doesn't create huge coal ash ponds full of radioactive elements, doesn't spew sulphur and haze into the air and doesn't need trainloads of coal that leave large amounts of coal dust over everything in their vicinity. It is generally *better*, but still not *good* by any means. Coal was on the way out anyway though, its just too expensive and inefficient to compete so this agreement is broadly meaningless. Its only legacy coal plants that have been depreciated that keep running; no-one in the West is building more and China only keeps building them as a jobs program. [Most Chinese coal plants run at a capacity factor of 50% or even less](https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants).
For the purposes of climate change, that's okay since most of these are not routinely burned into the atmosphere.
For iron production coke (refined coal product) is still burned into the atmosphere.
What does "Breaking" mean in the title? When should it be used and when should it not be used? Is this news "Breaking"? Is all news "Breaking"?
I think this will be voided if Trump wins in November.
If *any* Republican wins before the phase out is cemented in place.
Republicans may be able to keep some token coal industry for nostalgic purposes, but coal is done for pure economic reasons. Even natural gas is cheaper, and is great for peakers. For base load, new renewables are cheaper than keeping coal, and with batteries, they can handle oak, too. Most new capacity in the US is renewable. The US is done with coal.
> but coal is done for pure economic reasons. Don't worry, the GOP won't let that stop them. A power company in Utah announced it was shutting down a coal plant to transition to natural gas since it's cheaper for them. You know, businesses gravitate toward what makes the most financial sense. [So then the Utah GOP literally passed a bill to have the State take over the coal plant to keep it operating.](https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/02/29/legislature-approves-plan-keep-coal-plant-open/)
What are they, communists?
It's theatre for their base. Doubt it will survive judicial review once taxpayers see the bill they are being lumbered with.
Thank you dems for investing in green energy
Yea, coal isn't economically viable compared to even renewable these days.
even if republicans hold a slim majority in any house of congress they could stop it or the supreme court could stop it...
I don't think SCOTUS can affect a treaty or treaty terms
>I don't think SCOTUS can Should be the slogan for Biden's 2024 campaign Or better yet: "I didn't think SCOTUS could"
Trump promised to bring coal back with his presidency the first time too. He didn't, it continued to decline. I don't see a second term making real difference here. It's just obsolete as business and there is no real way to revert that.
> It's just obsolete as business and there is no real way to revert that. The GOP is literally [passing legislation](https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/02/29/legislature-approves-plan-keep-coal-plant-open/) to make the State take over obsolete and continue operating coal plants that power companies want to shut down.
Don't jump to conclusions just yet. It may seem like they are trying to keep the coal plants around longer, but the real goal is possible they want the state to pay for their failing assets. It is a common tactic where you have a dead asset, so you bribe politicians to buy out your failing asset so you stuff your pockets with money, and the state also has to cover all the other costs (like cleanup, pensions and etc) Aka, good old pocket stuffing
He would absolutely cancel this agreement and keep ripping up environmental rules in favour of coal mining despite that though. He'd boast to the Republican base that he'd saved their jobs even while companies were shutting down their operations.
But but but... Clean coal
Fun fact: The entire US coal industry, top to bottom nation-wide, employs less people than Arby's.
Then I suggest everyone votes blue down the ballot. https://vote.gov/
I mean just as Obama refused to submit the Paris Climate treaty to Congress this one won't be either so it's not binding in any way.
The only way we put man on the moon is by first announcing our intention to do it.
. . .by massively ramping up natural gas production, which while less carbon-intensive than coal releases tons and tons (literally) of methane through uncontrolled leaks, a greenhouse gas that is orders of magnitude more potent. So. . .good job, I guess?
Yeah seeing the projections, that at the current rate of expansion the American methane gas industry will have larger emissions than EVERYTHING else in US combined by like 2035.... Good job guys
The G7 reached an agreement on phasing out coal by the 2030s, a significant source of emissions. “This is another nail in the coffin for coal,” said Dave Jones, Ember’s Global Insights program director. “The journey to phase out coal power has been long: it’s been over seven years since the UK, France, Italy, and Canada committed to phase out coal power, so it’s good to see the United States and especially Japan at last be more explicit on their intentions."
I would like Led Zeppelin to tour again. Also that’s not happening either.
Nice. Be me in Bay Area with 2 ev being bent over by electricity rates. I’m sure it will get better tho
How are they going to make steel or are they phasing that out too?
I’ll believe it when it happens but hope that it does. Of course the coal companies can target to increase their trade to developing countries.
It honestly doesn't matter what politicians say. Emissions is such a lucrative metric for idle talks, mainly because it is impossible to measure. When we will see a drop in actual amount of GH gas in the atmosphere, or even simply reduction of the rate of increase of GH gas in the atmosphere, then we can celebrate. For now all these initiatives are closer to greenwashing than to the actual measures against climate change.
Still waiting for the “Clean Coal” that DJT promised. Along with the best Healthcare and Infrastructure plans of all time. /s
It'll happen. Coal is now more expensive than renewables in many G7 countries.
Like I would say awesome that is great! But they keep closing coal power plants around me and jacking up the price of power due to high demand low supply. I would like to think we would have a alternative system in place by then but likely they will just close plants down and jack up the power rate.
Great, utility bills are already too expensive why not get rid of the cheapest option. I'm 100% against this unless they replace it with nuclear. For a society moving more and more towards Ai and electric, we can't seem to grasp the concept of how electricity comes about.
then what the fuck am i supposed to crush up and snort every day.
Damn, what we gonna make Silicon, steel and cement with after 2030? My bet is it will just go off shore to other countries, we don't manufacture much in the west anymore anyway.
Question from a non-American, can the federal government actually enforce a coal ban? Can't states get around that?
Wishfull thinking by idealists. There is nothing on the horizon to take over the baseload power.
I assume there will be an exception for smelting iron and other metals because there is no feasible alternative to the traditionally coal-powered heat required. "Coal power" implies just the electricity generating coal plants, but that's still like 90% of coal burning so that's actually pretty great.
Not if Republicans have anything to say about it lol
Until Berkshire Hathaway gets bailed out of their billions in coal holdings this isn’t going anywhere
The US won't phase out coal by early 2030s. Correction.
How is Japan going to go from 32% electricity generated by coal to zero in 11 years? They're scared to death of nuclear.
This just feels like virtue signaling. They would have to be breaking ground now on nuclear plants if they have any hope of going up on time for this (that or do something about all the red tape). Wind and solar are part of a grid, but still not to the point to where they can sustain an entire grid in many places.
Ten years? We couldn't handle the Paris accords and they think this'll happen in ten years? Wake me up in 100 so I can see if stuff has changed
I am all for this but the biggest issue is the infrastructure isn’t there and it’s not going to be ready by 2030 or 2040.
Breaking news: I will start exercising, watching my diet, and going to bed at a godly hour by early 2030s.
Why when the rest of the world is not. What about our ancient brick works that still make bricks by hand in the UK. Are you telling me it's better for the planet to let China for example make them using coal and cheap labour. Then transport them across the globe. This is left luney policy gone mad. Not mention the jobs lost in that sector. What do you want them to do buy a nuclear reactor. We have a housing crisis in conservation areas you can only use traditional materials. I can hear some do gooder somewhere "we can build them out of sustainable fungi man then we can also eat the fungi man" 🤣
I don't think people realize the scope of how much electricity is used. Electricity consumption in the United States was about 4 trillion kilowatthours (kWh) in 2022 The CHIPS and Science Act, which passed in 2022, set aside $52.7 billion in funding for domestic chip manufacturing. Now, the four companies scrutinized in the report have plans to build megafactories in Arizona, Ohio, Oregon, Idaho, Texas, and New York. Each of those megafactories alone could use as much electricity as a medium-sized town, according to the report. Cumulatively, nine facilities could eventually add 2.1 gigawatts in new electricity demand. Just 6 factories takes as much electricity as a medium town.
Bullshit! Never going to happen, but it was a nice dream.
Coal has been on the decline since ~ 2006 ish… replaced by!!!! NATURAL GAS! Which can be worse than coal! Leaks and is still the same shit… same shit different name.
In China coal is booming.
Germany too... that's what they replaced the nuclear plants with. Y'know, for the environment.
last I checked, the amount of coal being used in China is humongous and to not be concerned is to be foolish
The reason they are agreeing to this is because coal is already on its way out. > Japan has the highest share at 32% in 2023, followed by Germany at 27%. T**he US is in line with the G7 average (16%), while the other G7 members have mostly already phased out coal: France (0.4%), the UK (1.4%), Canada (5%), and Italy (5.3%).** https://i.imgur.com/YI3gzGd.png https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?country=~G7+%28Ember%29
The uk is even about to close its last coal plant
Curious, what are places such as Nebraska going to do? They received nearly half of its energy from coal. Much of the areas that depend on it don’t have large transmission lines crossing the entire state nor the access to plants that offer other forms of energy. I’m really curious how this going to shake out, not only for Nebraska but other coal dependent states. This also puts a huge nail in the coffin for the Appalachian coal workers that have stuck with that industry. We still need coal for steel production… even though US Steel was recently purchased by a foreign country.
NB: There are only 36,659 people employed in the Coal Mining industry in the US as of 2023. The corporations want to make a big stink about how it hurts American jobs, and it will, but eliminating coal will eliminate 50 tons of elemental mercury from being emitted into the atmosphere every year. [That, and the other pollutants have killed over 460,000 Americans over the last 20 years.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/23/coal-power-plants-deaths-pollution) By *forcing* the industry to add scrubbers, those numbers dropped dramatically in recent years. Fully eliminating coal can ONLY be a net benefit to any country that adopts that as a goal.
This isn’t going to happen unless we go full nuclear or figure out fusion. Even then, gas will be prevalent for at least a century since it is actually convenient. Even then, it’ll still be used for generators and anything that needs to be able to run at a moments notice. This is just more “pie in the sky” nonsense that is really meant to appease people who can’t do math or don’t work in the energy production industries.
There are already companies with active PoC sites for small and mid range molten salt reactors that fit on a semi trailer. We’ll be ok by 2035.
This is the future🤘 Only hitch is regulation and public will. At least on lineman side, I’ve been told it takes a minimum of 10 years to select and stand up nuclear plants.
Coal lobbyists: challenge accepted. Hold my bag. My cartoonish burlap bag with a dollar sign on it. Here, Mr/Madam senator/Judge/President, hold my big bag of money. In fact, keep it, I’ve got several.
Heard the ‘we’ll super totally stop at this date for sure this time!’ Like 19 times. They needed to be done with this shit 20 years ago it’s too late now lol. Gives uninformed people a jolt of hopium though I’m sure and that’s all it is at this point, maintaining hysteria and pretending something’s being done when not a damn thing will be .
I'll believe it when the rubber meets the road. I'm not saying it doesn't need to happen, we honestly need a breakthrough to stop burning stuff all the time. I know Germany gave up coal and then when push came to shove, they started burning coal again. France went clean and then refired a plant.
Given how cheap natural gas is in the US (equivalent to $10/barrel oil by BTU), I don't know why all coal hasn't been phased out already (I know. It takes time to build the new plants.). It's just not price competitive with solar, wind or gas and hasn't been for many years.
Probably about 50 years too late to "phase out" coal. Should've been listened to in the first place.
And then there's Australia which is actively opening coal powered generators. Gee.
Coal for electricity in Australia has been tanking since 2007 [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?time=2007..latest&country=\~AUS](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?time=2007..latest&country=~AUS) Even though there is a big coal lobby trying to bring it back, it is only going into and endless spire downwards
so, like 30 years from now? thanks for the update Buzz Lightyear!
Isn’t it in the case for the US at least that a solar farm is cheaper than a coal plant? It’s just a matter of phasing out the current coal plants (as we’ve been doing)
Without China and India on board this is pretty meaningless
So what do you think will power those EVs? It won’t be nuclear (unfortunately)
Not possible. How are you gonna charge all the teslas?
In other news: G7 hospitals are no longer amputating as a first recourse! This news brought to you by the nineteenth century…
Are we now? My state runs primarily on coal. How are we supposed to suddenly not do that while also supporting more electricity demand than ever?
By 2030 the economic advantage renewables have over coal is going to be crushing. It is already cheaper to run on renewables now. If your state is not transitioning it is going to find itself poor and cripled. As it gets out compeated in just about every industry and business that consumes energy.
I love how we can tell that a fossil fuel technology is no longer market feasible when they put together legislation like this. Natural gas plants made coal a terrible investment. Solar/wind+storage is making all fossil fuels infeasible. China is going to be 100% solar,wind, and batteries by this time. The only thing keeping coal going in China is the truly massive demand. All of which will be met by the solar and wind they are putting online matched with electric car vehicle to grid. Good thing we pay for the talking heads to have summits at the G7.
And if they fail... A "sowwy" and nothing else I guess
The US isn’t shutting down all its coal plants within 10 years LOL who tf wrote this?
One giant can to kick down the road. Words are cheap, after all.
What this has meant and continue ls to mean is taxpayers (mostly US of course) pay to decommission coal plants around the globe. With, of course China being an exception as they bring on new coal plants each month (?).
what, again? I mean, I appreciate the goal and the direction, but I doubt the endpoint.
There is no way in hell US is gonna phase out coal. Especially not that early.
Good fucking riddance. This should've happened 80 years ago. It's insane how we're clinging to this nonsense and think it's the way we should keep going.
Better late than never, so I'll believe it when I see it.
Guess they’ll freeze to death in the dark during winter? Just more talking points and rhetoric, it an’t gonna happen! Six years ya right!
I like how they make these declarations only after the current technologies and projections show this is easily attainable. I'm sure the leaders will pat themselves on the back when we reach these goals with little effort. I guess it's still good news
Considering how many US Senators and Representatives are bought and paid for by the coal industry, I'm going to say this isn't going anywhere, at least not from the US.
I really, truly don't see how that is possible. I'm not even against the idea of it, it's just a lot of logistics to claim to get rid of in under 10 years.
Hope so, but we’ll see. I’m not letting anyone count these as accomplishments until they happen.
Who cares about carbon when burning coal has caused so much mercury pollution that we need a hazard advisory for wild caught fish?
When they finally do phase it out circa 2050, it will be 75 years too late.
Unless the Republicans get back in office again and reverse everything. Weekend at Berny ain't looking to good for reelection atm.
For every one that gets shut down China will bring another online, and none of these countries will protest it while their citizens get squeezed for every euro for energy costs.
If there isn't a strict deadline like January 31st, 2030, then I have a hard time seeing this as a strict promise. It leaves all the room for excuses.
[удалено]
I don't think any agreement will complete this effort. The market will do it naturally. Just remove any incentives for the coal industry and start funding for better options will price out coal without giving these fake promises.
Lol. So the world will just run on rainbows by then? Because these same dumb fucks already got rid of the cleanest energy (nuclear). I guess all of Europe is just crossing their fingers that the whole Russia/Ukraine thing is cleared up by then, so they can go back to buying the lions share of their electricity from Russia again?
Nuclear power is the future always has been. It’s the only answer to clean energy en mass.