Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday February 04 2017, @12:42AM   Printer-friendly
from the rolling-coal dept.

Remember when Bank of America promised to stop financing coal mining? They weren't the only ones getting cold feet about this formerly dominant energy source. Now The Guardian is reporting that Deutsche Bank is committing to end financing of new coal mining and new coal-fired power plant construction.

This pledge is being made, says the bank, to back up its commitment to supporting the Paris Climate Deal. But it is also, most likely, a very prudent investment decision. With India phasing out new coal plant construction years earlier than recommended, China reducing its pipeline too, and huge utilities and whole countries alike saying they are pretty much done with coal, it's getting increasingly hard to see where the future for this industry lies.

It seems the age of fossil fuels may be drawing to a close.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NewNic on Saturday February 04 2017, @12:50AM

    by NewNic (6420) on Saturday February 04 2017, @12:50AM (#462679) Journal

    If Trump were really interested in promoting jobs, he would focus on renewable energy, which already employs far more people than coal. Most remaining coal production is highly mechanized, so it needs fewer people. There is no great future for new (or even, existing) jobs in coal. It's dying and nothing Trump can do will change that, except perhaps direct subsidies (on top of the existing indirect subsidies).

    But the real issue is that there is a cheaper alternative fossil fuel: natural gas. It's that resource that is killing coal. Compounding the problem for coal, the advance of alternatives (especially renewables) means that any new coal plant is likely to be decommissioned long before its end of life and hence, long before it is fully depreciated.

    --
    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday February 04 2017, @01:04AM

    by bob_super (1357) on Saturday February 04 2017, @01:04AM (#462685)

    Indeed, even someone who denies global warming can realize that fines particles and radionucleides are working against coal.
    The cumulative health cost is high enough that there are clear benefits to leaving the nasty stuff in the ground, and paying miners to learn a new job is saving money.

    Which is why most engineers don't make it far in politics.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday February 04 2017, @02:11AM

      by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday February 04 2017, @02:11AM (#462699)

      Indeed, even someone who denies global warming can realize that fines particles and radionucleides are working against coal.
      The cumulative health cost is high enough...

      Unfortunately, a global warming denier will probably also deny problems with particulates, radionucleides and health costs.

      --
      It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
      • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Saturday February 04 2017, @02:40AM

        by krishnoid (1156) on Saturday February 04 2017, @02:40AM (#462708)

        Just tell him that they interfere with his medications [cnn.com].

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @03:34AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @03:34AM (#462726)

        Unfortunately, a global warming denier will probably also deny problems with particulates, radionucleides and health costs.

        Do you have any evidence for that, dear lover of facts, science, and your own intellect?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @03:36AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @03:36AM (#462727)

        Let's not forget that it was the global warming alarmists who promoted "Clean Diesel" to avoid a little CO2 but burden our cities with particulates, nitrous oxides, and smog.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @04:07AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @04:07AM (#462737)

          In fact, the various standards for modern diesel cut down on all of those pollutants. It was the corporations who chose to circumvent those standards for their own profit that were the problem. What's worse, actively breaking the law or just paying their cronies to repeal the laws? [reuters.com] Either way, that doesn't fall on "global warming alarmists" its falls on deeply corrupt global warming deniers.

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:42AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:42AM (#462781)

            OK, so global warming alarmists bought into "Clean Diesel", because they were wearing green-colored glasses. Any rational person with an ounce of technical expertise knew that Diesel was dirty compared to gasoline. Why do you think the pollution standards for Diesel were relaxed in the Euro 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, and 5b rules [wikipedia.org]? Oh, but Euro 6, which came into effect in September, 2014 made it all better. Only a month later, a report [theicct.org] was published, showing that European Diesel cars were way out of spec.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:49AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:49AM (#462787)

              There was no "relaxing" there was a steady ratcheting up on the requirements with each new standard.

              You keep working backwards from "alarmists" are idiots instead of people working in the real world who had to negotiate with oppositional forces.
              It must be very pleasant to be such a useful idiot.

  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @01:43AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @01:43AM (#462692)

    I thought the real growth was in gender reassignment surgery. All the millennial kids want it, and at $15,000 a crack (no pun intended) - paid for with tax dollars of course like Chelsea Manning wants - that will make America great again.

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @02:24AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @02:24AM (#462701)

    If Trump were really interested in promoting jobs, he would focus on renewable energy, which already employs far more people than coal.

     
    Actually, he is. This is from one of his campaign rallies in coal country:

    Look, we have serious economic problems in many parts of our country. And Roland is absolutely right. Instead of dividing people the way crooked Hillary does, let's reunite around policies that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these underserved poor communities.

    So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?

    And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

    Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.

    So whether it's coal country or Indian country or poor urban areas, there is a lot of poverty in America. We have gone backwards. We were moving in the right direction. In the '90s, more people were lifted out of poverty than any time in recent history.

    Because of the terrible economic policies of the Bush administration, President Obama was left with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and people fell back into poverty because they lost jobs, they lost homes, they lost opportunities, and hope.

    So I am passionate about this, which is why I have put forward specific plans about how we incentivize more jobs, more investment in poor communities, and put people to work.

    Trump's Promise to Coal Miners [politifact.com]

    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Saturday February 04 2017, @03:56AM

      by jmorris (4844) on Saturday February 04 2017, @03:56AM (#462731)

      I'm not sure you are trolling or insulting everyone's intelligence. Even most of the proggies posting here aren't dumb enough for something so obvious. Either way, you really need to up your game or go somewhere else.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @03:59AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @03:59AM (#462733)

         

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 04 2017, @04:03AM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday February 04 2017, @04:03AM (#462734) Journal

          Time for another dose of Haldol, J-Mo! And remind your nurse when you're going outdoors.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Hairyfeet on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:09AM

            by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:09AM (#462769) Journal

            So instead of actually refuting his arguments, you throw insults...gee how left wing of you. Perhaps you'd like to burn a few straw men, maybe throw a Godwin or scream fascism?

            Like it or not we got a hell of a lot more Solyndra boondoggles [newsmax.com] than we've seen success on the renewable side and a single nuke reactor would provide more power with more reliability over its life than anything else we have going right now. and what about the NIMBYs? To build a solar farm or wind farm big enough to replace a single coal plant you'll have every environmentalist coming out of the woodwork to save the slugs on the land you want to build on. There is a reason why China has built 25 plants in the time it takes us to approve, not build, a single plant, and that is because sadly the greenies don't want shit built.

            So how about actually coming up with an argument, or can all you do is throw insults like a 12 year old brat that hasn't gotten their way?

            --
            ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:39AM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:39AM (#462778) Journal

              Because, Sir Hobbitsfoot, J-Mo is beyond salvation. He is not rational. As insane as Runaway is, he's at least prone to occasional moments of lucidity. J-Mo, however, is beyond any help that can be afforded him on this plane of existence. There is nothing left to do but mock him.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday February 05 2017, @01:24AM

                by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday February 05 2017, @01:24AM (#462986) Journal

                So the answer is no, all you can do is throw insults and act like an ass. Again how very left wing of you.

                --
                ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 05 2017, @11:07AM

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday February 05 2017, @11:07AM (#463081) Journal

                  Oh cry harder, you brainwashed moron. I tried months ago to reason with people like that here and it never got anywhere, so my policy is to subject them to the ridicule they so richly deserve. Hint: you're in this same category.

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Hairyfeet on Monday February 06 2017, @04:53AM

                    by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday February 06 2017, @04:53AM (#463310) Journal

                    And yet again instead of showing you have an actual position you just throw insults and act like a little whiny bitch. Whats the matter, did he or I trigger you? Do you need a safe space?

                    Well here is you go [bit.ly], enjoy.

                    --
                    ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
                    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 06 2017, @05:19AM

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday February 06 2017, @05:19AM (#463317) Journal

                      You're trying too hard. Go sit in the Dork...er, Dark Enlightenment corner with all the other edgy edgetards who think they invented being an asshole.

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:41AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:41AM (#462779)

              So instead of actually refuting his arguments, you throw insults

              Are you joking?
              There were no arguments.
              His entire post was just a chimp-out.

              Like it or not we got a hell of a lot more Solyndra boondoggles than we've seen success on the renewable side

              Are you joking?
              The program that funded solyndra is on track to turn a $5 billion profit. [bloomberg.com] And it wasn't even intended to turn a profit. The whole point was to invest in high-risk development that wallstreet was to scared to touch and the returns wouldn't be dollars, but increased practical knowledge that would accelerate the industry as a whole. Like cutting lithium battery costs by 80% over the last six years. [electrek.co] Seems to be working out great.

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:42AM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:42AM (#462782) Journal

                Don't confuse the poor alt-rightard with facts, AC. He'll explode if he doesn't get his two minutes' hate every two minutes.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:44AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:44AM (#462783)

                  except for the muzzies
                  yeah still me

                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 04 2017, @04:11PM

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday February 04 2017, @04:11PM (#462858) Journal

                    I'm flattered by the attention, but very much taken. I'm also not into butt stuff, so why don't you find someone else's ass to be up?

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @11:42PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @11:42PM (#462970)

                      Lol. You are the one who keeps following me around and jumping on my criticisms with "me too!"
                      Except you are the hypocrite because your "me toos" about their hate only go so far, you make an excuse when their hate lines up with your hate.

                      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 05 2017, @12:37AM

                        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday February 05 2017, @12:37AM (#462976) Journal

                        What the hell are you even talking about? Go haunt someone else, Mr. Coward.

                        --
                        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Saturday February 04 2017, @04:40PM

                by TheRaven (270) on Saturday February 04 2017, @04:40PM (#462865) Journal

                The program that funded solyndra is on track to turn a $5 billion profit. And it wasn't even intended to turn a profit

                Perhaps more importantly, Solyndra failed because the cost of solar panels dropped a lot faster than expected. They were pursuing a new design that aimed to drive costs down, and would have been very profitable if the price of PV cells had dropped at the predicted rates. It's a shame that they ended up wasting $500m, but their failure was caused by the objectives of the program being met and exceeded: PV prices dropped to the extent that they're now highly profitable without subsidy.

                --
                sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Bobs on Saturday February 04 2017, @01:07PM

      by Bobs (1462) on Saturday February 04 2017, @01:07PM (#462830)

      Talk about lies and propoganda: that quote that he claims was about Trump promising renewable energy jobs to coal miners was actually from a speech by Hillary Clinton.

      Excerpt of Hillary Clinton's speech to coal miners, from the link:

      "Look, we have serious economic problems in many parts of our country. And Roland is absolutely right. Instead of dividing people the way Donald Trump does, let's reunite around policies that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these underserved poor communities.

      So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?

      And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

      Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.

      So whether it's coal country or Indian country or poor urban areas, there is a lot of poverty in America. We have gone backwards. We were moving in the right direction. In the '90s, more people were lifted out of poverty than any time in recent history.

      Because of the terrible economic policies of the Bush administration, President Obama was left with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and people fell back into poverty because they lost jobs, they lost homes, they lost opportunities, and hope.

      So I am passionate about this, which is why I have put forward specific plans about how we incentivize more jobs, more investment in poor communities, and put people to work."

      From http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/10/context-hillary-clintons-comments-about-coal-jobs/ [politifact.com]

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 04 2017, @04:12PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday February 04 2017, @04:12PM (#462859) Journal

        Wowwwww. Now I have to wonder if someone is paying him for this shit.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday February 04 2017, @08:57PM

        by fritsd (4586) on Saturday February 04 2017, @08:57PM (#462929) Journal

        That was actually really nicely done by the original AC poster.
        I just checked the URLs linked just to be sure and they were the same :-)

        I thought there was something funny with the AC version, like: "well that sounds oddly reasonable of Trump!"
        But I thought: "Trump wouldn't say "Because of the terrible economic policies of the Bush administration, President Obama was left with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression", he's candidate for the bloody Republicans!"

      • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday February 06 2017, @03:38PM

        by q.kontinuum (532) on Monday February 06 2017, @03:38PM (#463455) Journal

        Excerpt of Hillary Clinton's speech to coal miners, from the link:

        No, Alternate facts [wikipedia.org] [t|T]rump over objective reality. This was clearly an original statement of your POTUS.

        --
        Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 04 2017, @03:01AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 04 2017, @03:01AM (#462717) Journal

    You make a point that is worth keeping in mind. When the coal industry starts bellyacking about putting people out of work, remember that there aren't all that many people working in the coal mines. I suspect that there are more people employed in transporting the coal, than there are employed in, on, and around the mines. In places where the coal is primarily moved by rail, the coal industry doesn't even employ very many truck drivers. A couple front end loaders, and a very small number (3?) of railway employees can move thousands of tons of coal per day.

    Yes, closing the coal mines will have an economic impact, but not nearly as big an impact as they would have you believe.

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Saturday February 04 2017, @04:06AM

    by jmorris (4844) on Saturday February 04 2017, @04:06AM (#462736)

    If Trump were really interested in promoting jobs, he would focus on renewable energy, which already employs far more people than coal.

    And I bet you are too dumb to even know you just made our argument for us. You are exactly right, we get far more of our energy from coal with fewer people employed to do it, alt energy is expensive, labor intensive and almost always very intermittent, which means the more of it we have to buy to satisfy the government mandates the less efficient our economy in general becomes.

    If the goal is to merely create jobs with no regard to efficiency, need or any other practical consideration we could pay a million people to dig holes and another to fill them. Which probably wouldn't cause as much economic destruction as the current fetish for alternate energy.

    If we don't want to burn dead dinosaurs we should be building modern designed fission based nuke plants and dumping money into fusion research. But we will still need fossil fuels in the future out as far as we can see because transport doesn't run well on electricity. Good luck making a transcontinental passenger plane run on lithium batteries. And have any of you globalist hippies looked at a port lately? See all those mammoth freighters that make the global economy possible? You don't want to know what makes them go, and no it can't be replaced with batteries either.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @04:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @04:14AM (#462741)

      we get far more of our energy from coal with fewer people employed to do it,

      Coal fanboi in da house!

      See all those mammoth freighters that make the global economy possible? You don't want to know what makes them go, and no it can't be replaced with batteries either.

      Coal?

    • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday February 04 2017, @09:42PM

      by fritsd (4586) on Saturday February 04 2017, @09:42PM (#462945) Journal

      Which probably wouldn't cause as much economic destruction as the current fetish for alternate energy.

      Clever to use the word "alternative energy". Because if you'd chosen "sustainable energy" you would have proven that what you said there was bullshit.

      We can either switch now to sustainable energy, or switch later to sustainable energy, or die off because the UNSUSTAINABLE energy sources are gone, and the "current fetish for alternate energy" has become a permanent trend similar to the current fetish to live on land and breathe air.

      For other reasons (global warming) switching ASAP is politically necessary.

      But because the newspapers told us all our lives that "The Economy" is something that exists and is important, I'll give an economic reason:
      We are now at a plateau of energy use, just after the 2005 Peak Oil (I don't count fracking, that's going to form its own much narrower Hubbard Peak).
      That means processes that use loads of energy may never be as cheap again is now at the end of the Conventional Petroleum Era.

      And what could we buy with all that cheap energy?
      Smelting wind turbine pylons
      Refining silicon for solar cells
      Build hydro power and "hydro gravity storage" (=just pump water up-hill)
      Build railroads and trains

      All those heavy industry things are going to be much more expensive if we wait until there's only renewable electricity and biodiesel left. If our rich societies are not in the process of transition now (like Germany and Denmark and Sweden and the Netherlands), we might get stuck.

      If you know you're going to need lots of windturbines in the coming century, are you going to buy them now they're cheap, or when they're 10 times as expensive, because the steel has become 10 times(*) as expensive to produce?
      I suspect China knows the answer to this one.

      (* "10 times" sucked out of author's thumb. actual price factor unknown)

      When you said "But we will still need fossil fuels in the future out as far as we can see because transport doesn't run well on electricity": that's only based on current assumptions of "transport" and because you equate "fuel" with "fossil fuel".
      My mom just bought a bicycle with a small electric motor. She's happy with it.
      An electric car is too dear for us for the foreseeable future, but maybe one day we'll buy a secondhand one. What I've read about them so far is that they're actually nicer to drive than ICE cars, and have less moving or hot parts, so they should be more durable.

      *Some* transport will stay on internal combustion engines. What you said, definitely planes, probably boats. Their fuel will stay the same as now. But it won't be extracted from fossil sources anymore. Organic chemistry is highly fungible, it's just a matter of price if you make high-octane gasoline from dead dinosaurs, waste frying pan oil, or Internet commenter farts. The latter two sources are sustainable and CO2-neutral.

      • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Saturday February 04 2017, @10:24PM

        by jmorris (4844) on Saturday February 04 2017, @10:24PM (#462954)

        Why spend trillions on useless wind turbines and solar cells when a fusion reactor will instantly convert their economic value to the scrap value of the raw materials? Think BIG!

        For other reasons (global warming) switching ASAP is politically necessary.

        That really is the heart of the division, isn't it? For your side it is a political necessity, and not for any bullshit reason like global warming either. Allow me to demonstrate.

        If global warming were truly the threat you claim we could quickly get a consensus to solve it. You still wouldn't agree with me on all of it, I wouldn't agree with the junk science of AGW dogma, but we would both agree to plan of action we would both agree would solve all of our stated problems. We know how to build nuke plants much safer than any currently in production, there is little dispute on this point. Almost everyone agrees that for a fraction of what we have spent on researching and deploying wind and solar we could bring fusion into production, we know the science now and it is merely sufficient engineering at this point. So why aren't we doing it? However when this is brought into the discussion one or more of the following reactions occur:

        1. Mindless yelling about NUKES!

        2. An attempt at deflection back to the boondoggles for spurious reasons.

        3. An admission that it is about more than just eliminating fossil fuels and carbon emissions; it is about a general reduction in energy use and a reshaping of Western Civilization to be less industrialized in general. Widescale fusion would end any hope of that and is objectionable for that reason.

        4. And when all else fails a general scream of primal rage and "because FUCK YOU, FASCIST BASTARD!"

        So which one(s) will we see here?