
Big Coal Plants Begin to Close - artsandsci
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/and-now-the-really-big-coal-plants-begin-to-close/
======
jasoncartwright
From the UK... "A decade ago, coal plants generated almost a third of the UK’s
electricity, but in the first half of this year they have provided only 3%."

[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/21/zero-
carbon...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/21/zero-carbon-
energy-overtakes-fossil-fuels-as-the-uks-largest-electricity-source)

[https://electricityproduction.uk/from/coal/?t=8y](https://electricityproduction.uk/from/coal/?t=8y)

~~~
nathell
Meanwhile in Poland it's been 78.2% in 2018, "down" from 78.4% in 2017. And
the Polish government has made it clear that coal will remain the basis of
energy production here.

I'm frustrated as I'm writing this on a train from Berlin to Warsaw. One of
the reasons why I chose to travel by train rather than fly was the carbon
footprint journey, and I'm cutting it down much less than I should be.

~~~
rossdavidh
Different places change at different rates. One thing that will happen,
however, is that as some of the big coal customers switch, the economies of
scale for coal production change, and it becomes even more expensive. So, coal
will eventually become too pricey even for places like Poland, even though
"Poland" does not bring to mind "summer skies where solar would be
competitive" (I may be biased as I've only ever visited Poland around
Christmastime).

~~~
oppositelock
Poland's only local energy source is coal, which is why they're so set on
using it. Natural gas comes mainly from Russia, and they don't have the
capital for nuclear. Solar isn't a good option in Poland due to the long
winter nights, and it's not a particularly windy country for wind generation.

~~~
xxpor
>they don't have the capital for nuclear

I find that kind of hard to believe.

~~~
pjc50
You find it hard to believe that one of Europe's poorer countries has trouble
finding the €20bn over 10 years it will cost? The UK is having trouble
affording that for Hinckley C.

~~~
xeeeeeeeeeeenu
Poland isn't "one of Europe's poorer countries" and many countries that
operate nuclear power plants are poorer than Poland (such as: Argentina,
Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, India, Iran, Mexico, Pakistan,
Romania, South Africa, Turkey, Ukraine)

~~~
piva00
I wouldn't throw Brazil in there, Brazil has barely 2 functioning reactors
(Angra I and Angra II) with the third one being stalled since 1984, restarted
in 2007 and so far has no hope of being finished in time (announced for 2020
but now waiting investments to continue development).

------
cmrdporcupine
Here in Ontario all coal plants were shut down over a decade ago. The
difference in air quality seems to have been forgotten by many people, but it
was a drastic and obvious improvement.

The power mix here is now 90% nuclear & hydro, so not emitting CO2 (directly),
with the remainder being a mix of natural gas, wind, and solar.

~~~
Fogest
I am happy these changes were pushed forward before a politician like Doug
Ford got into power as I think we know these would have been reversed as we
saw with the carbon tax.

~~~
Gibbon1
A carbon tax to me seems like something designed to generate political
blowback. The problem is a carbon tax punishes people for decisions they made
previously where they didn't have a choice. With the hope that they'll suck it
up and find a way out somehow. It's stupid to assume that 'somehow' isn't
going to be toss those dicks out on their ear.

~~~
cmrdporcupine
Ontario never had a carbon tax, it had cap&trade in the same market as
California and Quebec. Most consumers never noticed its introduction. But the
new idiots in power certainly made political hay about how they were going to
drop gas prices by removing it. Turns out it had almost no effect on gas and
utility prices but a huge effect on the province's budget, along with axing
dozens of environmental initiatives in the province.

And the federal gov't has now imposed a carbon tax to replace it.

~~~
ecpottinger
In fact I saw a big drop for a few months, since then the price keeps creeping
up. Before DF, I saw $1.25 a liter, after he got in it fell to $0.98 a liter
and since then it has slowly increased. Right now it is $1.19 where I am I
expect it will be back to $1.25 before winter.

~~~
cmrdporcupine
The drop was due to other factors, price of oil fell, again.

------
40acres
Great to see coal phasing out but I feel like the risks of natural gas have
not been well publicized, data regarding methane leaks from natural gas is
sketchy at best and fracking has almost certainly caused more frequent
earthquakes (albeit small on the Richter scale) at sites.

Big oil pushes natural gas as a bridge energy, and despite lots of skepticism
towards them I think they're correct. The window where natural gas is a
plurality of global energy consumption has to be as small as possible.

~~~
mhh__
Has there been any earthquakes which are actually significant? No matter how
bad fracking is, coal is much worse (the goal needs to be to get China and
India onto Natural Gas and then renewables)

~~~
thinkcontext
Oklahoma put restrictions in place after earthquakes threatened critical
infrastructure.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009–19_Oklahoma_earthquake_sw...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009–19_Oklahoma_earthquake_swarms)

I believe the Netherlands is phasing out its industry because of concerns. I
also recall reading about problems in China as they begin trying to frack.

~~~
rapnie
In the north of the Netherlands (province of Groningen, location of Europe's
largest gas field) earthquakes caused by gas extraction have caused widespread
damage to homes and infrastructure. The government - pressured by inhabitants
- decided to significantly cut back production of the field, and will close
the field entirely in 2030.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field)

------
_bxg1
Unfortunately it's not as big a win as it sounds like. Per the article much of
the economic force can be attributed to natural gas, which is better but not
much, and most of the really huge coal plants have just adapted to regulation
and don't show signs of imminent closure.

~~~
wpasc
I was under the impression that natural gas was twice as good as coal[1]?
50-60% less CO2. not perfect but far from "not much better" in my opinion

[1] [https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-
fu...](https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-
fuels/environmental-impacts-of-natural-gas)

~~~
DebtDeflation
Don't forget the heavy metals (lead, arsenic, mercury), radiation (coal ash is
literally more radioactive than some nuclear waste) and particulate matter
releases that come from burning coal. Natural gas isn't optimal but it is FAR
better than coal.

~~~
jhayward
> _coal ash is literally more radioactive than some nuclear waste_

Please do not repeat this nonsense. It either compares non-power-plant waste
(lab gloves used in isotope labelling, for instance), or is so wrong as to be
ludicrous.

Used nuclear fuel is billions of times more radioactive than coal ash.

~~~
ecpottinger
Yes, but that nuclear waste is in storage pools. The waste from the coal
plants is in the air we breath and the ash-spills effect the water we drink.

Or better yet, walk around an operating nuke plant with a radiation detector
and then do the same walk around an operating coal plant. I am willing to bet
the coal plant will spike higher.

~~~
jhayward
If that's what you mean, then say "coal ash ponds emit more radiation than can
be measured outside spent fuel cooling pools".

"Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear (power) waste" is a completely
difference factual statement and is untrue by many orders of magnitude.

------
willvarfar
In other news, Australia just sank a climate treaty meeting by refusing give
up coal mining: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
australia-49365918](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49365918)

And also on the BBC today, on a lighter note: [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-
england-oxfordshire-49165336](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-
oxfordshire-49165336)

~~~
robocat
Why is Australia part of a Pacific Islands Forum? Did they include other Asian
Island Nations? Was Hawaii included?

I think New Zealand also refused. NZ exports about two small trainloads a day
from Christchurch I think.

~~~
sumedh
Why is Australia part of a Pacific Islands Forum?

Some small Pacific Islands are part of Australia and Australia also provides
aid to some of the Pacific island nations.

------
JauntTrooper
Much of this is due to the fracking tech revolution of the early 2000s, which
dropped the price of energy from natural gas below coal in the US.

Shale gas has been replacing coal:
[https://images.app.goo.gl/zb2bBfkBuAvWePVU6](https://images.app.goo.gl/zb2bBfkBuAvWePVU6)

~~~
Gibbon1
A friends dad who is a retired nuclear engineering professor said said as
much, coal can't compete with natural gas on price. He said his former
department and others were heavily dependent on grants from coal, oil, and the
nuclear industry and those have all but disappeared. Quote: I got out at the
right time.

------
raphaelsaunier
On the topic of coal, as a more worrying counterpoint, the NY Times just
published an article about the actions of the Adani Group in Australia under
the clickbaity yet accurate title “How One Billionaire Could Keep Three
Countries Hooked on Coal for Decades”:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/climate/coal-adani-
india-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/climate/coal-adani-india-
australia.html)

------
resters
Keeping the coal plants online is just another way of paying welfare to the
workers and the firms that own them. Taking money from everyone else and
giving it to the outdated machines and workers with outdated skills.

Note that I'm not saying that there is anything _wrong_ with being on welfare.
But as a society I think we should decouple our determination of who deserves
to be on welfare from our decision about how rapidly we want to destroy our
environment.

In other words, let's just pay them normal food stamps or welfare checks, not
keep the polluting plants open for decades longer than necessary.

For some reason many American workers feel totally proud being the indirect
recipients of corporate welfare, yet would feel ashamed simply getting food
stamps every month. There is zero difference between the two, except that in
this case the food stamps are a LOT better for the environment.

~~~
Ma8ee
And instead of either keeping dying industries alive or giving out food
stamps, why not employ the people to do something about ,e.g., US
infrastructure. It’s not there’s a lack of work if you have the money to pay
someone.

~~~
resters
Even better, to the extent that the government can identity useful things that
need to be done (it has a very poor track record so far)

~~~
Ma8ee
Yes, government sometimes do stupid shit. But so do large corporations, and
governments aren't particularly worse.

~~~
resters
> governments aren't particularly worse

or particularly better.

------
beat
I've said it before and I'll say it again... market forces are accomplishing
what regulation and public awareness never accomplished, in terms of reducing
greenhouse emissions.

I am _so glad_ the market is on our side for once.

~~~
Andrex
We wouldn't be at this point (this early) without large public investments,
regulation, and advocacy. Simply saying "oh the market's got it, we cool" is
misguided thinking.

~~~
beat
Public awareness and advocacy matter more, I think. We're not regulating coal
out of existence, or they'd be closing from regulation, not cost. And the
public investment isn't what's driving the radical drop in wind/solar
manufacturing and installation costs. That's regular economy of scale stuff.

~~~
alkonaut
They are closing because alternatives are cheaper, which has multiple reasons,
some of which are policy (subsidies/penalties, publicly funded research in
alternatives, stricter mining regulation driving resource prices up, stricter
emissions regulations requiring expensive plant upgrades or more expensive new
construction etc.)

~~~
beat
I did a little googling, and new coal plants in the US are no more expensive -
price/mwh held steady at $95-100 from 2010-1015 (after which no one built any
more). Meanwhile, in 2010-1019, natural gas plants dropped in cost/mwh by
about 50%, from around $80 to $40. And onshore wind dropped 71%, from $149 to
around $43. Solar dropped even more (88%), from $396 to $49!

As an aside, new nuclear dropped from $119 to $90, and there are no new plants
planned - small wonder, considering the massive cost and long time frame to
build nuclear when wind and solar cost half as much and prices are still
dropping like rocks.

------
kenned3
It can be done, Ontario shut down Nanticoke (largest coal genrator in North
AMerica) and repalced it with solar.. But something seems off with the
capacity??

The Nanticoke Generating Station is a 44 MW solar power station which started
operation in April 2019.[2] Previously from 1972 to 2013, it was the largest
coal-fired power plant in North America. At full capacity, it could provide
3,964 MW of power into the southern Ontario power grid from its base in
Nanticoke, Ontario, Canada,[3] and provided as much as 15% of Ontario's
electricity.

------
rossdavidh
The coal industry is, over the next decade, going to go the way of Venezuela,
and the parts of America still dependent on it economically will go with it.
We are not ready.

~~~
CydeWeys
It feels like it's already mostly gone this way; the vast majority of the
coal-associated jobs (those involved in mining) are already gone. Automation
plus large closures already gutted the industry.

~~~
JauntTrooper
Yeah.

There are only ~80,000 coal miners in the US now, which is 0.06% of the full-
time employee population.

~~~
tasty_freeze
According to wikipedia [1], the figure is 50,000. The peak headcount was
883,000, but due to mechanization, those 50,000 way out-produce those 883,000.
Looking at the graph on that page, coal production is down but is still higher
than what it was 50 years ago.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_States)

------
Havoc
Wouldn't it make sense to build a solar farm there instead. I mean the power
lines etc are all there already

------
thoughtstheseus
Just look at the companies who provide maintance...they're leaving the
business.

------
bwb
Nice to feel a little hope and see this :)

------
hsbaut76
Yeah, not in Australia though.

------
lifeisstillgood
One of the great ironies of political life in the UK is that we are now
celebrating generating electricity for "X days without Coal".

This is of course a positive thing, but it was arrived at by the politically
motivated near-total destruction of UK's mining industry in the 1980s (the
then right wing Tory government wanted to destroy the heartland support of its
left wing Labour opponents).

What was a socially divisive, bitter class struggle for years and years, that
nearly brought down the government, is now a strategic masterstroke of climate
change planning.

Life is odd.

[#]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984%E2%8...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_\(1984%E2%80%9385\))

~~~
Marazan
The shift from coal in the UK wasn't caused by the miners strike.

Britain kept on using coal post strike and pit closures, it just bought
foreign coal (not even necessarily cheaper) instead.

The Dash for Gas is what killed the use of coal for generation.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
It's a lot easier to stop using imported foreign coal over the last decade
than to stop using unionised voting coal mines in your home country - just ask
Mr Trump.

The decline in home coal use was directly correlated to the strike - and the
decline in imported coal use is as much old plant and expensive marginal costs
as the shift to gas.

At some point replacing the coal fired infrastructure stopped making economic
sense - and with no political leverage the whole thing collapsed really
quickly.

Something we might be happy to learn when looking at oil and gas generation -
once solar prices and volume are there the industry just vanishes.

~~~
einpoklum
Not really. The number of people employed in and around the coal industry in
the US was pretty small by 2016. Also note, that Trump got a lot less votes
that Mitt Romney in 2012, so that despite all the pandering - there wasn't
some massive rush to vote for Trump.

Also, the union density in mining in the US is not as high as it used to be
(don't know what the exact figures are).

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Some industries have political impacts way beyond their numerical size would
suggest. Farming is one such. Coal was in the UK and seems to have been for
the US - Trump won votes appealing to people who had never even seen a mine
let alone been down one. But they will vote to support the miners in the same
way Idaho is won by supporting farmers.

Yes Clinton won the popular vote. No unions are ridiculously under represented
in the States (you need to fix that BTW)

But in the end seem from this side of the pond this was a political message -
coal mining was a proxy for "proper American jobs for proper Americans without
all this economics and climate change nonsense"

And that has a fairly sizeable base.

Whether trump will find that same base happy to swallow a similar message now
he is the incumbent remains to be seen.

------
m23khan
this is great news -- proud of USA and Americans! Americans truly teach the
World when it comes to technology and advancement.

Also, it is great to see more and more usage of coal in products ranging from
toothpaste all the way to food products.

~~~
mav3rick
Such a cynical take. Things need to start somewhere. It can't be all or
nothing.

