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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by NewNic on Friday October 19 2018, @12:17AM

    by NewNic (6420) on Friday October 19 2018, @12:17AM (#750725) Journal

    Light rail? You know that just about, if not all, high speed passenger trains are electric and they are not "light rail", right?

    You know that we have these things called "wires" and they are quite efficient for "transporting" electricity, right?

    You know that there are working examples of electric 18-wheeler trucks operating now, right?

    You are misrepresenting why I call "the hydrogen economy" a con by fossil fuel industry. It's because, today, hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels.

    Remember that you wrote this:

    And, as far as that goes, it's exactly right. What this omits, however, is the energy expended in turning the peat or dead dinosaurs or whatever into oil or coal. You might, judging from your posts, be very surprised to learn than when this is figured in, the Hydrogen doesn't look so bad after all in terms of ineffeciency.

    Now, remember that hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels, so how can hydrogen be more efficient than "turning the peat or dead dinosaurs or whatever into oil or coal.", when fossil fuels are the input for hydrogen production?

    --
    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2