SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
New research from North Carolina State University and the University of Colorado Boulder finds that steep declines in the use of coal for power generation over the past decade were caused largely by less expensive natural gas and the availability of wind energy -- not by environmental regulations.
"From 2008 to 2013, coal dropped from about 50 percent of U.S. power generation to around 30 percent," says Harrison Fell, an associate professor of resource economics at NC State and co-lead author of a paper on the work.
"Coal boosters blamed stiffer regulations, calling it a 'war on coal.' But that same time period saw a steep drop in the cost of natural gas and an increase in wind generation. We wanted to know how big a role each of these factors played in driving down the demand for coal."
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @09:38AM (15 children)
Our coal became cheaper. Even with the added cost of transpacific shipping, Trump got China to buy our coal in place of North Korean coal. That puts the hurt on the North Korean economy (it was a big export), helping the USA in negotiations.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 05 2018, @02:03PM (14 children)
I have never really compared the energy extracted from coal, to energy from natural gas, or other sources. But, I grew up in coal cracker country, in western Pennsylvania. There is both soft and hard coal in the hills. We had a vein of nice soft coal running through the pasture, exposed by an ephemeral stream. Now and again, we would go out to the pasture, and dig some of it up. Free heat, during the winter. Dig a hole in the ground, and carry the stuff in to throw in the furnace. We also bought coal, because it's a job to dig it up, but it's not THAT big a job. Of course, back then, coal was only about ten dollars a ton at the tipple. Three or four tons would heat a medium small home for the winter. Our old drafty house took a lot more than that, of course, so we didn't seriously try to dig enough coal for year round heating.
Cheap coal. I don't think there are many things that are cheaper!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Saturday May 05 2018, @02:55PM (7 children)
Everything is a question of scale - if you live on a bigger than average piece of land and have a seam of soft coal near the surface, it makes sense to use that while you can.
While present day economics support demolition of mountains to ship coal 12 time zones so that cities on the other side can burn so much of it that their air becomes poisonous, this exposes several holes in the present day economics: who is paying the true cost of demolishing a mountain and the valley beside it? Who is paying the true cost of poisoning the air impacting the health of millions? And even the shipping is carried out with subsidized energy and no accounting for the pollution during operations and end-of-life of the ship.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:18PM (2 children)
Actually, China has a lot of coal. The dirty brown type. [airclim.org]
The same type Germany is STILL burning in increasing tonnage while telling the world its going solar. Germany is still the #1 producer of Lignite coal, [wikipedia.org] with China a close second.
What China (and other Asian countries buy from the US is high grade metallurgical coal, Bituminous, and some Anthracite for steel production, coking and, cleaner burning etc. (Anthracite burns so clean it is still allowed in Metropolitan London as a heating fuel).
Every ton of Bituminous coal or Anthracite coal they import displaces several tons of domestic Lignite used, and actually improves China's air quality. And since they export a lot of their dirty air, it improves far beyond their borders.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday May 06 2018, @01:31AM
Not saying that it's all bad - just saying that the people taking the profits are getting a boost to their bottom line from people, animals and ecosystems who have not consented to the deal.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 06 2018, @02:18AM
Thank you, Frojack - I have zero experience with lignite. It's something I've read about. So, basically, if that were lignite out in the pasture, it would have taken at least double the work, to get about half the heat, while pouring pollutants into the air. Got it. Not to mention, like some poor grades of diesel fuel, it has a high sulfur content which contributes to acid rain.
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Monday May 07 2018, @07:45PM (3 children)
I grew up in central eastern Pennsylvania, and my parents used coal heat in the house I grew up in, and kept using coal until they sold the place in 2015. Very cheap heat, and the insulation there wasn't that good either.
The actual coal mines were nearby, I could walk to the closest strip mine in less than fifteen minutes. The area had an unusually high rate of all forms of cancer and my siblings and I all have asthma. I'm not inclined to call it a coincidence.
So I don't give a hoot about carbon levels or sea temperatures or the state of the polar ice cap. But I'm rather attached to a.) breathing and b.) not dying of cancer. So bring on the renewable energy! (And yes, the processes to construct and utilize thousands of windmills and solar panels release tons of pollution on their own. But still, as far as I understand it, substantially less than the pollutants released by using enough fossil fuels to generate an equivalent amount of energy.)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday May 07 2018, @08:23PM (2 children)
We lived in Houston for just over 2 years, great job, great pay, great benefits, great community, everything you could ask for, except: breathable air.
Air quality has historically had its ups and downs in Houston, when we moved out there in 2003 it wasn't too bad. By the time we left in 2006 I was calling it unacceptable - fine mistings of tar everywhere, all manner of chlorine, ammonia and other volatiles settling in the bayous overnight - driving around just after sunrise in a convertible with the top down was an education.
If you tour the tech companies around Melbourne Florida you'll hear the same story over and over: moved to Houston for a couple of years, then moved to Melbourne - they usually leave out the why.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Wednesday May 09 2018, @10:55AM (1 child)
Interesting. I had no idea Houston had any problems like that. I would have thought something closer to the ocean would be generally better, not worse.
While I'm on the topic of air quality, a few days ago I was driving behind a 1960s car and my daughter exclaimed, "What is that smell? It's awful!" I told her that it was the smell of exhaust from an old car, and almost all of the cars that drove around when I was a kid gave off the same odor.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 09 2018, @12:06PM
Houston is a big target, we were right next to NASA's Mission Control, which isn't far from the Pasadena industrial district. I have never driven through those chemical plants and called the air there "good." https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6096255,-95.0536376,897m/data=!3m1!1e3 [google.com]
As for 1960s cars - it is _possible_ to properly tune a carburetor, something something camel something something eye of a needle...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:04PM (5 children)
According to this pdf here http://web.mnstate.edu/marasing/CHEM102/Chapter%20Notes/Ch_04%20ho.pdf [mnstate.edu] on pg.6.
Burning methane releases 50.1 kJ/g
Burning carbon (coal) releases 32.8 kJ/g
So burning natural gas releases considerably more energy.
Of course, the final net energy output does depend upon the efficiency of the machine doing the burning. But at the outset, a coal plant has to be more efficient than a nat-gas plant just to break even. Or a nat-gas plant can be less efficient, to an extent, than a coal plant and yet still be ahead in the end.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:42PM (2 children)
Methane doesn't have the same density as coal. It's full of hydrogen, the lightest element.
Methane also gets used up just sitting in place. You have to refrigerate it. No amount of pressure will liquefy it at typical temperatures, and the pressure needed to reach liquid-equivalent density is completely unreasonable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @10:23PM (1 child)
Did you not notice the /g (meaning per gram) in the numbers from the linked pdf?
That compensates for the differing densities. The energy output is for "one gram" of each.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @05:54PM
I'd rather measure by volume. Unless you want to launch a rocket, the weight doesn't really matter.
kJ/L is OK.
That still ignores the fact that methane is time-limited. You lose it in storage because you have to expend energy to keep it refrigerated. We could go by kg/L after a year in storage at a moderately-sized facility.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:57PM (1 child)
Not really. It depends more on the Net Calorific Value of the fuel.
Rank Type of Coal Calorific Value (MJ/kg)
#1 Anthracite___________30 millijoule per kilogram
#2 Bituminous__________18.8–29.3 millijoule per kilogram
#3 Sub-bituminous______8.3–25 millijoule per kilogram
#4 Lignite (brown coal)__5.5–14.3 millijoule per kilogram
#5 Natural gas___________45.86 millijoule per kilogram
Still gas is a good deal, and also about half the carbon released compared to coal.
http://www.claverton-energy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/the_energy_and_fuel_data_sheet1.pdf [claverton-energy.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @05:00PM
Those are Mega-Joules, not milli. Your sneezes release more than a milli-Joule.