Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

[Raffy.Roma]

G7 countries agree to end use of coal power by 2035, says UK minister

Turin meeting puts timeline on deal made at COP28 summit, with allowance for fossil-fuel-reliant nations like Japan

www.ft.com

Energy and climate ministers from the G7 group of industrialised nations have agreed to phase out by 2035 the use of coal power where the emissions have not been captured, a UK minister said, giving the group a timeline for meeting the deal struck at last year’s UN climate summit in Dubai.

The COP28 summit ended with a pledge to transition away from fossil fuels, and accelerate efforts towards the phase-down of so-called unabated coal power.

Andrew Bowie, the UK minister for nuclear and renewables, described the agreement reached at this week’s G7 ministers meeting in Turin as “historic” in an interview with CNBC on Monday. “We do have an agreement to phase out coal in the first half of the 2030s,” he said.

An Italian diplomatic source confirmed that the outlines of a deal had been agreed and said more details would be formally announced by ministers after the final day of meetings on Tuesday.

A move away from coal would “help accelerate the shift of investment from coal to clean technology in particular in Japan and more broadly in the whole Asian coal economy, INCLUDING China and India,” said Luca Bergamaschi, co-founder of Italian climate change think-tank EccoClimate.

 

[David_Cary]

Nice. You wrote "20 years", but had to go back almost 30 for the data to back your point.

"China hit an all time high of 17 Mbd this year" -- isn't that a measure of oil consumption?!

"Coal consumption for electricity generation went from 1 TWh in 2000 to over 5 TWh in 2022" -- this is just bad interpretation. TWh is a measure of energy produced, not resources consumed. A more efficient power plant can produce more TWh of electricity, while consuming fewer tons of coal. Go back to your source and make sure they've interpreted the data correctly.

Let me help you out, here's the statistics of China's coal CONSUMPTION for almost half a century: China Coal Reserves and Consumption Statistics - Worldometer
It's missing the 2017-2023 data, but from other sources, they've basically been consuming 4.2-4.4 billion short tons during that time period. All while manufacturing for the world. Meaning their total coal consumption peaked in 2013. This data is sourced from the EIA, NOT China.

Yes, there are other methods of producing steel, but those other methods are more expensive. Get your suppliers to demand the use of locally made steel, and you might convince chinese industry to make the change. But millions of Walmart shoppers are the reasons why you'll just end up pissing in the wind.

If you truly want to effect change, start by changing the local mindset. The materialistic (and disposable) mindset is still pretty prevalent in the US economy. Waste NOT, Want NOT. If we don't buy it, then China will stop making it.

China has set 5-year plans for itself to increase their renewable energy supply and reduce their fossil fuel dependence (because it's expensive for them to import that stuff as well), so let them execute on it. Don't let the domestic politicians focus so much on China that they lose sight of failing to meet our own climate goals!

You said fossil fuels - so I added oil in. And NG. Even if the topic was predominantly coal - I was directly refuting your comment about FF.

I found total generation first so I used TWh. Sure, tons of coal is better but didn't find that as easily. It isn't like efficiency differences are going to be much - clearly all their coal generators are relatively new. They don't have tons of 30 year old coal generators around.

I only did 1998 because that is what I found. That is really 25 years since 2024 isn't available. The line is straight and it doesn't matter if you use 20 years or 25. Any time line incorporating 2020-2022 is a bit challenged because of Covid - but it makes things look better for FF consumption of any kind.

On the 2013 peak of coal consumption. That is incorrect according to this source. https://www.reuters.com/markets/com...p-expects-output-growth-slow-2024-2024-03-20/

In summary: Growth 2.9% in 2023 - 4.7 billion short tons. So much for 4.2 to 4.4. "Record output in 2023" is a direct quote. Yes - the data comes from China. Yes - drought was a factor. And they expect 2024 to be more.

I get that China has done a lot of world's manufacturing - with coal. One solution is to stop having it doing the world's manufacturing which requires lots of change. You can't get there by saying "China is doing great with fossil fuel reduction". No they aren't. Anything we can do to reduce imports from China will reduce emissions somewhat.

Politicians will focus on China because people are racist. I can't fix that. Facts are facts and just because there are ignorant people in the world doesn't change that. Don't forget - China mostly uses its own coal - they only import 10%. That isn't expensive for them. Which is why, when push comes to shove, they will use it.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

You said fossil fuels - so I added oil in. And NG. Even if the topic was predominantly coal - I was directly refuting your comment about FF.

I found total generation first so I used TWh. Sure, tons of coal is better but didn't find that as easily. It isn't like efficiency differences are going to be much - clearly all their coal generators are relatively new. They don't have tons of 30 year old coal generators around.

I only did 1998 because that is what I found. That is really 25 years since 2024 isn't available. The line is straight and it doesn't matter if you use 20 years or 25. Any time line incorporating 2020-2022 is a bit challenged because of Covid - but it makes things look better for FF consumption of any kind.

On the 2013 peak of coal consumption. That is incorrect according to this source. https://www.reuters.com/markets/com...p-expects-output-growth-slow-2024-2024-03-20/

In summary: Growth 2.9% in 2023 - 4.7 billion short tons. So much for 4.2 to 4.4. "Record output in 2023" is a direct quote. Yes - the data comes from China. Yes - drought was a factor. And they expect 2024 to be more.

I get that China has done a lot of world's manufacturing - with coal. One solution is to stop having it doing the world's manufacturing which requires lots of change. You can't get there by saying "China is doing great with fossil fuel reduction". No they aren't. Anything we can do to reduce imports from China will reduce emissions somewhat.

Politicians will focus on China because people are racist. I can't fix that. Facts are facts and just because there are ignorant people in the world doesn't change that. Don't forget - China mostly uses its own coal - they only import 10%. That isn't expensive for them. Which is why, when push comes to shove, they will use it.

That reuters article is full of contradictions. It reports an expected rise in coal production, but notes that miners have halted production for longer than the lunar new year due to a lack of storage capacity. There's also an expectation that hydro power will return to normal this year, which would curtail demand.

It's such a hodge-podge of "data" that the forecasted 4.7 billion tons of "expected" production is called into doubt. 2023's 4.66 billion tons of production is indeed a black eye, so stop buying cheap chinese products!

China's GDP (measure of the size of its economy) doubled from 2013 until 2023, and yet its coal consumption did not significantly (relative to 2013). Even though it's not on the same scale as the US reduction in coal consumption (NOT comparable, since our economy is driven off of outsourced manufacturing and thus pollution), it's still a reduction. India on the other hand increased their coal consumption by 25% for the same time period and the same amount of growth.

 

[DanCar]

Several nuclear plants in Japan restarting?

1. Authorities cautiously permit reactivation of world's largest nuclear power plant: 'We will stop when we find issues and take necessary measures'
2. https://twitter.com/x/status/1783562841343291534
3. IAEA Concludes Long Term Operational Safety Review at Japan’s Mihama Nuclear Power Plant | IAEA
4. Chugoku Electric to Delay N-Reactor Restart in Western Japan
5. Two Japan utilities expect nuclear reactor restarts to boost income, cut fuel purchases

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Several nuclear plants in Japan restarting?

1. Authorities cautiously permit reactivation of world's largest nuclear power plant: 'We will stop when we find issues and take necessary measures'
2. https://twitter.com/x/status/1783562841343291534
3. IAEA Concludes Long Term Operational Safety Review at Japan’s Mihama Nuclear Power Plant | IAEA
4. Chugoku Electric to Delay N-Reactor Restart in Western Japan
5. Two Japan utilities expect nuclear reactor restarts to boost income, cut fuel purchases

They've gradually been working on it. Their energy dependency is very expensive since they have to use LNG.

 

[iPlug]

If available, public transportation is king, but electric cars rock (even better numbers when charged with renewables):

CO₂ equivalent emissions per passenger km:

Cruise Ships Are The Most Carbon-Intensive Travel Method

 

[Raffy.Roma]

If available, public transportation is king, but electric cars rock (even better numbers when charged with renewables):

CO₂ equivalent emissions per passenger km:
View attachment 1043487
Cruise Ships Are The Most Carbon-Intensive Travel Method

This is interesting. Then I think that also Cruise Ships trips should enter into the calculation of the Carbon Footprint, not only plane flights.

Edit: I was thinking to a Cruise Ship. Not considering it anymore.

 

[iPlug]

This is interesting. Then I think that also Cruise Ships trips should enter into the calculation of the Carbon Footprint, not only plane flights.

One of several reasons no love for cruises on my end (but I'll try not to rant about the others).

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

If available, public transportation is king, but electric cars rock (even better numbers when charged with renewables):

CO₂ equivalent emissions per passenger km:
View attachment 1043487
Cruise Ships Are The Most Carbon-Intensive Travel Method

It looks like personal electric mobility beats public diesel/gasoline busses. So "public transportation" is NOT king.

 

[iPlug]

It looks like personal electric mobility beats public diesel/gasoline busses. So "public transportation" is NOT king.

Would argue don't have to be the best across all public items to be king. Trains, ferries, subway, rail = yes. Buses = not so much, but much better than cruise ships, flying, or personal petrol powered vehicles. Bus is a good CO2 footprint option when needing to go longer distance over land and would prefer to sleep or not drive at all or when personal EV options/infrastructure is lacking.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

This is interesting. Then I think that also Cruise Ships trips should enter into the calculation of the Carbon Footprint, not only plane flights.

Edit: I was thinking to a Cruise Ship. Not considering it anymore.

Second thought. I will postpone my Cruise Ship trip to 2030!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/travel/article/hurtigruten-norway-zero-emission-cruise-ship-climate-c2e-spc-intl

(CNN)
—
Adventure cruise company Hurtigruten Norway today revealed plans for a zero-emissions electric cruise ship with retractable sails covered in solar panels, which is due to set sail in 2030.

 

[mspohr]

If available, public transportation is king, but electric cars rock (even better numbers when charged with renewables):

CO₂ equivalent emissions per passenger km:
View attachment 1043487
Cruise Ships Are The Most Carbon-Intensive Travel Method

Interesting that the least polluting modes of transport are electric.
How about electric bike?

 

[DanCar]

Cruise ships for transportation or entertainment? Compare cruise ships to transportation options or to amusement options like a 3 day amusement park pass? All the cruise ship options I've seen are round trip, so net distance moved is zero.

 

[iPlug]

Interesting that the least polluting modes of transport are electric.
How about electric bike?

Would be good to see electric bus on here too.

Cruise ships for transportation or entertainment? Compare cruise ships to transportation options or to amusement options like a 3 day amusement park pass?

Could subtract out amusement item footprints on cruise ships if such data is available, but would also have to add back other way point and destination amusement stops.

All the cruise ship options I've seen are round trip, so net distance moved is zero.

Unless permanently moving to a new location, this is likely true with most everyones modes of travel, so we are all net zero!

 

[DrGriz]

Would be good to see electric bus on here too.



Could subtract out amusement item footprints on cruise ships if such data is available, but would also have to add back other way point and destination amusement stops.


Unless permanently moving to a new location, this is likely true with most everyones modes of travel, so we are all net zero!

Just rode a solar electric bus in Netherlands!

 

[David_Cary]

Locally, we have NG buses. Another missing data point.
It surprises me a bit how bad cruises ships are. I mean look at ferrys - travelling over water in a big boat should be very efficient per person. I could see a 5X over a ferry not a 12X.
It is even worse sense you make multiple stops and generally travel more km than you really benefit from.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Locally, we have NG buses. Another missing data point.
It surprises me a bit how bad cruises ships are. I mean look at ferrys - travelling over water in a big boat should be very efficient per person. I could see a 5X over a ferry not a 12X.
It is even worse sense you make multiple stops and generally travel more km than you really benefit from.

The fallacy in the chart is that cruise ships aren't modes of transport (like the rest), but a destination itself. All the amenities onboard the ship are powered by the marine diesel engine. They should've included boondocking RV's for an equivalent comparison.

 

[iPlug]

The fallacy in the chart is that cruise ships aren't modes of transport (like the rest), but a destination itself. All the amenities onboard the ship are powered by the marine diesel engine. They should've included boondocking RV's for an equivalent comparison.

As mentioned "Could subtract out amusement item footprints on cruise ships if such data is available, but would also have to add back other way point and destination amusement stops."

I'm guilty having been on half a dozen cruises in the past. The large majority disembark with near daily stops on most cruises and cruise tourists have a significant footprints on their local stops pertaining to food and entertainment and other local travel therein. Doubt subtracting out onboard food/entertainment impacts markedly improves the CO2 footprint, but happy to see more data on this.

A further problem with cruise ships is that they are not usually a starting and end point. Unless one happens to live locally, substantial additional travel is required to get there as well. From experience starting locally is the exception to the rule.

 

[mspohr]

Gas stoves increase nitrogen dioxide exposure above WHO standards – study

Science Advances report also finds people of color and low-income residents in US disproportionately affected

www.theguardian.com

Using a gas stove increases nitrogen dioxide exposure to levels that exceed public health recommendations, a new study shows. The report, published Friday in Science Advances, found that people of color and low-income residents in the US were disproportionately affected. Indoor gas and propane appliances raise average concentrations of the harmful pollutant, also known as NO2, to 75% of the World Health Organization’s standard for indoor and outdoor exposure. That means even if a person avoids exposure to nitrogen dioxide from traffic exhaust, power plants, or other sources, by cooking with a gas stove they will have already breathed in three-quarters of what is considered a safe limit.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Gas stoves increase nitrogen dioxide exposure above WHO standards – study

Science Advances report also finds people of color and low-income residents in US disproportionately affected

www.theguardian.com

Using a gas stove increases nitrogen dioxide exposure to levels that exceed public health recommendations, a new study shows. The report, published Friday in Science Advances, found that people of color and low-income residents in the US were disproportionately affected. Indoor gas and propane appliances raise average concentrations of the harmful pollutant, also known as NO2, to 75% of the World Health Organization’s standard for indoor and outdoor exposure. That means even if a person avoids exposure to nitrogen dioxide from traffic exhaust, power plants, or other sources, by cooking with a gas stove they will have already breathed in three-quarters of what is considered a safe limit.

Actually Nitrogen Dioxide NO2 is produced by combustion. So NO2 is used by Satellites to detect Carbon Dioxide CO2 produced by combustion, causing Anthropogenic Warming, and distinguish it from Carbon Dioxide CO2 belonging to the natural Carbon Cycle of the Earth.