Nearly 20 countries and regions pledged Thursday to never use coal again as fuel for power generation from 2030 onwards, adhering to a British-Canadian initiative presented at the 2017 United Nations climate change talks in Bonn, Germany.
Two nations, however, did not sign the accord — the United States and the host country.
US President Donald Trump has made no secret of his intention, at least in paper, of “bringing back coal.” So far, he has by rolled back environmental regulations and moved to repeal Obama-era curbs on carbon emissions from power plants among other measures.
However, dozens of coal-fired plants have closed in recent years, and cheap natural gas continues to dent domestic demand. According to the Appalachian Regional Commission, the region has lost about 33,500 mining jobs since 2011. And that’s only in one section of the US.
Overall, coal’s share of the power mix is declining, and wind and solar remain the fastest-growing US sources of electricity.
One problem is that most of the installed coal-fired generation capacity in the US is quite old, and with gas prices being low, companies don’t seem willing to invest in repairing those outdated facilities.
Another issue is that not one single new commercial plant of this kind is planned in the whole country for the near future, compared to 2.6GW of new solar capacity, 10GW of new wind and 38GW of new gas-fired plants scheduled to start up in 2017-18.
Even AEP, the US top generator from coal in 2015, has been embracing renewables. In July, in fact, it announced it would invest $4.5 billion to build the largest wind farm in the US.
Despite these facts, coal jobs have increased and Bloomberg explains partly why:
US coal production began rising in mid-2016, boosted by higher global prices that were mainly due to production cutbacks in China. Cyclone Debbie buffeted Australia’s coast earlier this year, sending prices rallying again. And in the US., coal became more competitive in the utility mix after natural gas — a rival power-plant fuel — rebounded from last year’s historically low prices (…) Coal production has since fallen below 2016 levels.
Germany, in turn, which for years has been seen as a world leader in the fight against carbon emissions and pollution, still gets 40% of its energy from coal, a larger share than most other European countries, data from Eurostat show.
The reality is so despite the Angela Merkel’s administration has invested billions in renewable energy and it means that Germany will miss its goal of cutting 40% of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Currently, official figures show that number is likely to fall to little more than 30%.
Canadian and British authorities declined to criticize the US and Germany’s decisions. Instead, the Financial Times reports, they emphasized the economic opportunities arising from the shift towards less polluting technologies:
“My message to President Trump is: Have a look at what other countries are doing,” Claire Perry, the UK minister for climate change and industry said. “Clearly you have to make choices based on your manifesto agreements. But there are really big opportunities out there in the transition to clean energy for jobs and for growth.”
“Coal is not coming back,” noted Catherine McKenna, Canada’s minister for environment and climate change. “The economic case is clear. The price of solar and wind has plummeted. Clean power is also increasingly the cheapest power.”
Some of the countries that have joined the so-called Powering Past Coal Alliance to phase out coal from power generation before 2030 include Britain, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium, Switzerland, New Zealand, Ethiopia, Mexico, Chile and the Marshall Islands.
The coalition expects to include at least 50 countries by next year.
14 Comments
Juan Yang
That is fact that coal-fired generation will bring environment pullution.steel plant production with coal fuel have also been limited in China. so alumina ceramic liner tile application from Chemshun Ceramics (www.chemshun.com) also been declined in some degree
Bo
but…
http://www.mining.com/chinese-companies-build-700-coal-plants-outside-china/
Mr Potatohead
AMAZING how the Germans have been so full of bravado and smugness about switching off their nuclear reactors to “save the world” and yet they continue to use the same amount of fossil fuels and destroy it another way!!!
Apparently the “Energiewende” the anti-nuclear activists are so proud of is not all it’s cracked up to be.
Art Easian
The photo has nothing to do with the story. It is water vapour otherwise known as steam condensation on a very cold morning in Canada. You can see it dissapate downwind as it warms. Environmental alarmists use this type of propaganda photograph to undermine the truth about carbondioxide. Mining . com is part of the problem . Banning coal hurts the poor first because it it the cheapest most abundant energy source we have ever had. You should know there is ‘clean’ coal. You should also realise the sun causes climate change; not CO2.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/joylyxgksrle4k0/It%27s%20not%20the%20heat….pdf?dl=0
Restless Boomers
Getting rid of government hot air wind bags spewing their BS would definitely reduce global warming.
Steve
Who would take Canada seriously when they are mining oil sands? Sure, sure, take the environmental high road. Laughable.
S. King
Yet again more spew to justify all those carbon-taxes the world elites have slammed us with. My electric bill has increased almost half this past year alone and the breakdown shows the costs were “rider fees” where our power plant switched to natural gas, we got stuck with the bill. Last month my electric bill was $167 and of that only $115 was for the electricity I used, the difference was 6% state and the rest Rider 1 and Rider 2 fees…
If they can invent 3 & 4 then we’ve got horsemen of the apocalypse! (Just kiddin) But this war on coal is just another way to take our hard earned money for the government fatcats…
S. King
Oh, I forgot to mention – has anyone seen the breakdown of Al Gore’s estate mentioned in the The Daily Caller & Washington Times – They got a copy of his energy consumption at only 1 of his 3 mansions and his annual electric was $30,000, for 1 home…
“Al Gore’s Nashville estate expends 21 times more energy a year than typical U.S. home”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/2/al-gores-nashville-estate-expends-21-times-more-en/
They put it right in our faces – almost like they are laughing at us.
This man’s electric bill for just one of his homes is almost as much as my annual net income. I don’t mind people being wealthy, some worked very hard to get there and deserve their pay.. But Ol’ Al is getting millions from our taxes through government programs to brainwash the masses with this lie and IT’S OUR TAX $ they are giving him…They are making him and others like him wealthy for lying to us to implement carbon taxes on us just to give this false tax collection to him for lying to us! Crazy…
common sense
Governments never give up on their relentless promotion of man made global warming, which intelligent creatures know is caused by fluctuations in solar activity.
Met coal is not going away; thermal coal will be used until it is not cost effective.
I wish governments would stay out of our lives; they do not care about pollution, only their own insatiable demand for taxpayers money.
Carbon tax does not address global pollution, only the financing of government waste which is rising faster that naturally fluctuating co2 levels.
onemansopinion
Satellites have been carefully measuring solar radiation at the edge of the atmosphere for about 40 years. It has been constant over that period but global temperature continues to rise. I agree with your point on carbon tax. It will not be effective unless it reaches $500/tonne, ($50 per tonne equates to about 10 cents per liter at the pump) at which point it will cost an extra $1.00 per liter of fuel and will generate about $375 billion per year in tax revenue. That’s more than our current entire federal budget.
Gary Filmon
According to last available data on Stats Can our “energy” usage was made up of 7% coal in 2009. I could not find an updated chart other than the one shown there which shows it was modified in 2016. This factors in a zero percentage of renewable power in 2009. So if we are now at 11% for coal energy according to our environment minister that would mean an increase of 4% accounting for somewhere around 14% renewables…? If anything the percentage of coal use should have gone down not up over 8 years, what gives minister?
onemansopinion
The provinces using coal are primarily Ontario, Sask and Alberta. Over the last 15 years Ontario has phased out coal fired generation. Alberta is committed to do the same. Sask has begun using carbon sequestration and intends to continue using coal in the future. Some eastern provinces may also use coal but Quebec, Manitoba and BC are mainly hydro.
The Environment Minister may have been talking about electrical energy production, not total energy production. If so then the higher number would be understandable.
Sujay Rao Mandavilli
Coal is doomed to go the way of the dinosaurs
Mark
How then does one explain rising atmospheric temperature? Second, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It readily absorbs thermal radiation, and increasing amounts of carbon dioxide will absorb more energy before it is emitted to outer space, thereby increasing the greenhouse effect. (Interestingly, this warming is probably what allowed life to begin in the first place.) Third, coal fired electrical production is THE most expensive source nowadays according to the US EIA. Capital construction cost is as great as nuclear and operating cost is the highest of all sources Europäische Gasspeicher