
California's generation of electricity from coal drops dramatically - Osiris30
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-coal-20160512-snap-story.html
======
barney54
The LA Times' title for this article is wrong. California does not generate
electricity from coal, however, California uses a lot of electricity generated
from coal. As the article notes near the end, California uses electricity from
coal generated out of state.

According to SNL, "at times, as much as 50% of Southern California's
electricity still comes from coal-fired plants, Steve Homer, director of
project management for the Southern California Public Power Authority, or
SCPPA, told SNL Energy."
[https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-3411331...](https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-34113318-14128)

This really is a reminder that the writers of articles frequently do not write
the headlines. That's a big reason why titles of articles are frequently
misleading.

~~~
outworlder
According to the same source:

> In 2014, less than 5% of California's total energy demand was served by coal
> and petroleum coke-fired plants, nearly all of it from plants outside the
> state

Which is followed by what you quoted:

> At times...

So, according to that source, out of state coal consumption can range from 5%
to 50%. It doesn't say exactly _when_ the 50% figure was hit, or why.

~~~
Symmetry
Stocks versus flows. You integrate power over time to get energy. 5% of the
energy comes from coal but up to 50% of the power. That means that much of the
time the use of coal power has to be less than 5%. Probably but not
necessarily much less.

~~~
linkregister
Can you elaborate? I can't remember that month of Physics when we learned how
equations relating to power.

~~~
Symmetry
Power is the rate at which energy is flowing. You can get the same amount of
energy by either a large amount of power for a short time or a small amount of
power for a short time. A way you could have up to 50% coal power but only 5%
coal energy is if you use 0% coal for power 90% of the time but 10% of the
time use 50% coal power.

------
TheLarch
Work in the industry at the moment. The US sells lots of coal to China, where
it is burned with far less regulation than it would be in the US. The coal
plants I work on are secretive to the point where they do not want their name
even in technical publications. Instead we say e.g. "a large coal-fired plant
in the Midwest..."

~~~
toomuchtodo
Coal imports to China are dropping quickly:

[http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/new-china-energy-data-
coal-i...](http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/new-china-energy-data-coal-imports-
down-a-further-10-30570)

[http://www.reuters.com/article/china-economy-trade-coal-
idUS...](http://www.reuters.com/article/china-economy-trade-coal-
idUSL3N14X1TC20160113)

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-13/china-
coal...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-13/china-coal-imports-
crash-as-economy-slows-amid-clean-power-shift)

------
jessriedel
Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for
various fuels:

Coal 228.6 - 205.7

Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3

Gasoline 157.2

Propane 139.0

Natural gas 117.0

[https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11)

~~~
vkou
Does this include the CO2 emitted in the process of extracting and refining
diesel/gasoline? Depending on the source of the oil (Canadian Tar sands vs
Saudi Arabia), its carbon footprint can vary drastically.

~~~
bolasanibk
All of the fuels listed in the grandparent have extracting and refining costs
which depend on the source.

~~~
vkou
That is true - but I believe that extraction and refining is a much bigger
contributor to oil's footprint, compared to coal's. It is also far more
variable.

To turn a barrel of tar sands oil into gasoline, for example, adds another
~230 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere - in addition to the emissions from
burning it. That's ~40 pounds/million BTU.

It almost costs us more energy to mine and refine tar sands oil, then we get
out of burning it.

------
nostromo
Before California pats itself on the back too much here -- people should
realize that the switch to natural gas has largely been driven by fracking,
which has made natural gas more cost competitive.

~~~
mason240
Also, before California pats itself on the back too much here, they have been
blocking nuclear and hydro for decades, both of which would have reduced their
use coal.

~~~
dredmorbius
Just how much undeveloped hydro potential do you figure for California?

The state's not water-rich to start with. Dams have significant impacts, and
virtually all major waterways are already heavily managed.

Nuclear faces safety, fuel, and disposal challenges. The latter for the nex
million years.

Fuel availability is ~80 years at present usage, 6 if the world relied solely
on uranium-based fission.

Systemic risks of nuclear are distinctly non-negligible, and are not
technologically addressable: they concern management, organisation, politics,
war, economic stability, and far more.

Solar and wind fare far better on all counts.

~~~
mason240
[http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_29826659/drain-
hetch-h...](http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_29826659/drain-hetch-hetchy-
reservoir-california-yosemite-water)

------
melling
Isn't this last year's news? Here's energy use by state from last July:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-
plant...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/)

A few states use almost zero coal.

~~~
tedd4u
And the chart shows that despite falling since 2008, 2015 levels were nearly
50% down from 2014. So the decrease is accelerating.

~~~
melling
In the article from July 2015, coal was less than 1%. What is left to
accelerate?

------
ChuckMcM
Ultimately it is good news, although the number of agendas present when
reporting energy news is amazing sometimes.

It would be interesting to find alternative uses for coal that weren't
polluting. A more enlightened civilization might use the revenue from that
alternate use to fund re-education and social support for people too old to
learn new skills other than coal production. In that way you could humanely
"close out" the era of coal use on the people whose lives were intimately tied
to its existence.

~~~
tosseraccount
But wouldn't letting markets allocate labor resources be a more optimal
solution? Private investment can handle the re-training challenges.

~~~
ChuckMcM
In the small case I'm all for it, but when systemic changes are made to the
economy I think it would be reasonable to consider helping the translation by
redirecting some capital toward that realignment. The existing method of using
transfer payments from the new growth to sustain the displaced resources as
you wait for them to reallocate takes to long and is itself inefficient.

------
tosseraccount
_EIA estimates that U.S. coal production in April was 46 million short tons
(MMst), a 6 MMst (12%) decrease from the previous month and 29 MMst (38%)
lower than in April 2015. Forecast coal production is expected to decrease by
150 MMst (17%) in 2016, which would be the largest decline in terms of both
tons and percentage since data collection started in 1949._ -U.S Energy
Information Administration (
[https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/coal.cfm](https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/coal.cfm)
)

Coal consumption, 90% of which is in electricity generation, is down
nationally.

It appears solar and natural gas are out competing coal:
[https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cf...](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1)

------
fixermark
There go the jobs in the middle of my home state.

... to another profession, as is how structural unemployment works in general.

------
ck2
Does the desire for natural gas mean they are finally going to stop burning it
all off and destroying the climate in North Dakota to get to the oil?

[http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dakota-gas-
flaring-20140...](http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dakota-gas-
flaring-20140717-story.html)

[http://www.npr.org/2014/01/30/265396179/much-of-north-
dakota...](http://www.npr.org/2014/01/30/265396179/much-of-north-dakota-s-
natural-gas-is-going-up-in-flames)

[http://www.climatecentral.org/news/north-dakota-gas-
flaring-...](http://www.climatecentral.org/news/north-dakota-gas-flaring-
doubles-pumping-co2-into-air-17212)

------
arm85
The same has happened in the UK I've noticed. Currently 500MW but previously
today 150MW. [http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk](http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk)

