Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Thursday October 18 2018, @04:16PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-do-I-do-with-all-these-burner-inserters? dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

U.S. greenhouse emissions fell in 2017 as coal plants shut

Greenhouse gases emissions from the largest U.S. industrial plants fell 2.7 percent in 2017, the Trump administration said, as coal plants shut and as that industry competes with cheap natural gas and solar and wind power that emit less pollution.

The drop was steeper than in 2016 when emissions fell 2 percent, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said.

EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler said the data proves that federal regulations are not necessary to drive carbon dioxide reductions.

[...] While Wheeler gave the administration credit for the reductions, which mainly came from the power sector, the numbers also underscore that the administration has not been able to stop the rapid pace of coal plant shutdowns.

[...] Natural gas releases far less carbon dioxide when burned than coal and a domestic abundance of gas has driven a wave of closures of coal plants. In 2017 utilities shut or converted from coal-to-gas nearly 9,000 megawatts (MW) of coal plants.

[...] The trend of U.S. coal plant shutdowns is expected to pick up this year, with power companies expecting to shut 14,000 MW of coal plants in calendar year 2018.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by khallow on Friday October 19 2018, @12:00AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 19 2018, @12:00AM (#750721) Journal

    I really want to know--why does the idea of a safe reactor by design bother people so much?

    It's a variant of Ludditism. Anything that makes nuclear power safer makes it more likely to be adopted on a wider scale than present. Can't have that. So we end up with stringent opposition to any improvements in nuclear safety (both R&D and actual construction), be it safer reactors, breeder reactors for reprocessing used fuel rods, waste storage, etc. And thus, the present sad state of affairs in the US, where we're for a nuclear accident from ancient reactors and poorly stored fuel rods, to finish off the US nuclear industry.