Support NeoGAF

[Luffytubby]

Coal began firing US homes and factories in the 1880s. A century later, the cheap, plentiful fuel was America’s primary one (pdf) for electricity generation. But its long reign is slowly coming to an end.

In April, renewables eclipsed coal generation in the US for the first time. The Energy Information Administration estimates renewables outperformed coal by 16% in April and will generate 1.4% more in May.

The seasonal nature of the business means electricity generation from coal will again exceed that of hydro, biomass, wind, solar, and geothermal sources later this year. But the trend is clear. In 2020, annual coal and renewable generation will approach parity.

“Coal’s proponents may dismiss these monthly and quarterly ups and downs in generation share as unimportant, but we believe they are indicative of the fundamental disruption happening across the electric generation sector,” writes the energy-and-environment nonprofit Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “Renewable generation is catching up to coal, and faster than forecast.”

Link.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Nice, but it's only based on projections that may or may not end up being true:

The bigger news story is that natural gas -- which has 50-60% fewer emissions -- continues to overtake coal. "Biomass" is a renewable that fits into the same natural gas paradigm. I expect the efficacy of natural gas will stunt the growth of renewables because it still makes more economic sense to switch from goal to natural gas than to switch from coal to the others.

Having to add up hydro, biomass, wind, solar, and geothermal to match coal shows that coal is still a very valuable and useful energy source.

Also, nuclear when, please?

 

[Mingen]

Insanely cool photo

 

[Pagusas]

so really the story is about how coal usage has diminished substantially.

 

[Luffytubby]

so really the story is about how coal usage has diminished substantially.

That and, even without the paris accords renewables are becoming cheaper and cheaper. The narrative has been for a long time that its to expensive, the free market doesnt want it and that regulations kill America.

When in reality- this is just economics at scale. Invest in the technology and eventually, it will make more sense than outdated and dangerous fossils fuels which causes us so many ills.

Forget the environmental effects- Just think about how coal ruins people. We breathe it all day and we don't think about how toxic it is for us. Living in more polluted areas is linked to higher crime rates and lower IQs, suspecting that pollution can cause development disorders that affect people.





The next step? reforesting on a massive level. Trees, algae and plankton are our three most effective methods of reducing CO2 emissions. Some organizations like the one mentioned in this article talks about how planting a trillion trees could give us significant ground:

London (CNN)What's low-tech, sustainable and possibly the most effective thing we can do to fight climate change? Planting trees. A trillion of them.
Tom Crowther is a climate change ecologist at Swiss university ETH Zurich. Four years ago he found there are about 3 trillion trees already on earth -- much higher than NASA's previous estimate of 400 billion. Now, his team of researchers has calculated there is enough room on the planet for an additional 1.2 trillion -- and that planting them would have huge benefits in terms of absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.
"The amount of carbon that we can restore if we plant 1.2 trillion trees, or at least allow those trees to grow, would be way higher than the next best climate change solution," Crowther told CNN.

Link.

Trees are the ideal solution. They are the perfect air filter, and planting vast amounts of trees would also help restore species and restore climates. The problem is that, even though its possible to do 1 trillion planted trees with drone tech, automation and the political will, many hundreds of millions of trees won't make it. And the Chinese are a good example of that with their green wall.



In Mao Zadongs china, when faminie and despair was at an all time high, China leveled an unprecedented amount of its forests in north. The erosion that came from that made it so those forests and grasslands became deserts. Since then, then Gobi desert is now swallowing up larger and larger parts of the country, to the point where Beijing itself might eventually become a desert. And since the 70s, the Chinese have planted hundreds of billions of trees trying to fight it off. To create a green barrier and take back. But the desert erosion also causes floods, storms and general instability in the region. Its a total disaster, and its a disaster thats been repeated many places.

Relatively few vikings who settled in Iceland more than 1200 years ago, let their cattle and sheeps graze the island, and that eventually destroyed a lot of Icelands natural climate. They are also fighting a fight to restore it to what it was. The same thing is also happening in Africa with a green wall.










I like the idea of mass reforestations and trying to terraform deserts into forests again. More radical proposals have been to supercharge the oceans with nutrients that are supposed to rapidly increase the amount of algae and planktion (which are amazing at sucking out CO2). But you are doing that without knowing the effects that might have on other ecosystems. With the overfishing of many species having their numbers reduced by 90% or more, we really need to think before we do something like that. I think trying to use drones to restore forests is an amazing idea.


Particularly because we are also running out of beach sand (for concrete), and latest wood techologies are suggesting that we might be able to build skyscrapers out of wood. Wood is an amazing material, and if we want to keep using it in the future, we need to go above and beyond for our own needs and that of the world.


This dude has a pretty insane TED talk about how he was young, incorrectly advocated for killing elephants as they believed they were the cause of the desert erosion in africa. Just look at how much the continent has changed. Absolutely insane:

 

[Dontero]

If you want cool planet you want more deserts not less.
Deserts have higher albedo than forests which means it reflects more light back into space.

Similar how clouds are both most potent greenhouse gas and cool planet. If we would get full cloud cover from end to end of our planet we would freeze to death in few months.

 

[infinitys_7th]

The seasonal nature of the business means electricity generation from coal will again exceed that of hydro, biomass, wind, solar, and geothermal sources later this year.

Restating what DunDunDunpachi said, this is the LGBTQAIXYZ of energy generation - group a bunch of unrelated things together to make some things which are uncommon seem more common.

 

[infinitys_7th]

That and, even without the paris accords renewables are becoming cheaper and cheaper. The narrative has been for a long time that its to expensive, the free market doesnt want it and that regulations kill America.

When in reality- this is just economics at scale. Invest in the technology and eventually, it will make more sense than outdated and dangerous fossils fuels which causes us so many ills.

Forget the environmental effects- Just think about how coal ruins people. We breathe it all day and we don't think about how toxic it is for us. Living in more polluted areas is linked to higher crime rates and lower IQs, suspecting that pollution can cause development disorders that affect people.





The next step? reforesting on a massive level. Trees, algae and plankton are our three most effective methods of reducing CO2 emissions. Some organizations like the one mentioned in this article talks about how planting a trillion trees could give us significant ground:



Link.

Trees are the ideal solution. They are the perfect air filter, and planting vast amounts of trees would also help restore species and restore climates. The problem is that, even though its possible to do 1 trillion planted trees with drone tech, automation and the political will, many hundreds of millions of trees won't make it. And the Chinese are a good example of that with their green wall.



In Mao Zadongs china, when faminie and despair was at an all time high, China leveled an unprecedented amount of its forests in north. The erosion that came from that made it so those forests and grasslands became deserts. Since then, then Gobi desert is now swallowing up larger and larger parts of the country, to the point where Beijing itself might eventually become a desert. And since the 70s, the Chinese have planted hundreds of billions of trees trying to fight it off. To create a green barrier and take back. But the desert erosion also causes floods, storms and general instability in the region. Its a total disaster, and its a disaster thats been repeated many places.

Relatively few vikings who settled in Iceland more than 1200 years ago, let their cattle and sheeps graze the island, and that eventually destroyed a lot of Icelands natural climate. They are also fighting a fight to restore it to what it was. The same thing is also happening in Africa with a green wall.










I like the idea of mass reforestations and trying to terraform deserts into forests again. More radical proposals have been to supercharge the oceans with nutrients that are supposed to rapidly increase the amount of algae and planktion (which are amazing at sucking out CO2). But you are doing that without knowing the effects that might have on other ecosystems. With the overfishing of many species having their numbers reduced by 90% or more, we really need to think before we do something like that. I think trying to use drones to restore forests is an amazing idea.


Particularly because we are also running out of beach sand (for concrete), and latest wood techologies are suggesting that we might be able to build skyscrapers out of wood. Wood is an amazing material, and if we want to keep using it in the future, we need to go above and beyond for our own needs and that of the world.


This dude has a pretty insane TED talk about how he was young, incorrectly advocated for killing elephants as they believed they were the cause of the desert erosion in africa. Just look at how much the continent has changed. Absolutely insane:

I think people underestimate the potential power of reforestation in combination with the extant renewable cycle of tree biomass use, particularly if trees are engineered to grow faster.

The modern pulp industry is incredibly efficient - cultivated trees are replaced in excess, and the cultivated trees are broken down and utilized very efficiently (cellulose and other products are extracted, and unused biomass is burned to generate energy along with recovery of chemicals used in the product extraction).

The carbohydrate and organic products that can be extracted from trees are artif points for any number of bioprocesses as a well.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Excellent news.

regardless of people's personal views on climate change, we should be using the technology we have available to be using as much 'free' energy as possible. Let's get some geothermal going wherever we can.

Hell, we could terraform Africa using Geothermal plants, combined with desalination plants to give them all the fresh drinking water they could ever need. Oh you require pumps to pump the water to and from the desalination plant? No worries, slap a couple of solar panels down and you're good to go.

 

[Aurelian]

If you want cool planet you want more deserts not less.
Deserts have higher albedo than forests which means it reflects more light back into space.

Similar how clouds are both most potent greenhouse gas and cool planet. If we would get full cloud cover from end to end of our planet we would freeze to death in few months.

But deserts also reduce the number of greenhouse gas-absorbing plant life, so I'm not sure your idea works.

 

[Rentahamster]

If you want cool planet you want more deserts not less.
Deserts have higher albedo than forests which means it reflects more light back into space.

Is albedo such an overwhemingly strong driver of global temperature that you choose to use only that one variable in your assessment?

 

[Dontero]

But deserts also reduce the number of greenhouse gas-absorbing plant life, so I'm not sure your idea works.

Is albedo such an overwhemingly strong driver of global temperature that you choose to use only that one variable in your assessment?

There was study few years back that pondered over changing sahara from desert into forests as too keep climate change at bay with this. They ended up with rising planet temperature not lowering mostly because of albedo.

What you don't realize is that plants absorb sun while desert reflects part of that energy back into space.
If you want to cool planet quickly just scrub planet from plants.

 

[Rentahamster]

What you don't realize is that plants absorb sun while desert reflects part of that energy back into space.
If you want to cool planet quickly just scrub planet from plants.

I do realize that, but do you realize that your solution to cool the planet is untenable? Why would anyone even consider scrubbing the planet of plants? Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not a solution.

 

[Dontero]

I do realize that, but do you realize that your solution to cool the planet is untenable? Why would anyone even consider scrubbing the planet of plants? Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not a solution.

It is called hiperbole. You go to deep end showing something effectiveness in order to drive point home.
Which means no one says planet should be scrubbed off plants.