this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2023
79 points (100.0% liked)

Science

13033 readers
3 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] demvoter@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“From a coal perspective, it has been a disaster,” said Andy Blumenfeld, an analyst who tracks the industry at McCloskey by OPIS. “The decline is happening faster than anyone anticipated.”

Yeah, from a virus’ perspective, vaccines suck.

[–] PhatInferno@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Dont worry im sure the govt will give them tons of subsidies to stay open/make sure thier profits dont go too far down

[–] alyaza@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

Dont worry im sure the govt will give them tons of subsidies to stay open/make sure thier profits dont go too far down

Trump tried and this did nothing. the US government's policy at this point also could not be more antithetical to the continuation of coal as a power source. the Biden administration is trying to propose a rule ("slash their greenhouse gas pollution 90 percent between 2035 and 2040 — or shut down") that would functionally kill coal and, as of now, probably the ability of even natural gas to operate. (i'm not aware of any technology which can get natural gas to such a non-polluting point, much less coal which produces nearly twice as many emissions.) coal is in extremely terminal decline in the US: the EIA says "nearly a quarter of the operating U.S. coal-fired fleet scheduled to retire by 2029" and that's probably an underestimate. half of existing coal capacity in 2011 is likely to be gone by 2026. i know we like to be cynical about these things collectively, but all available evidence clearly indicates this is not a correct perspective to hold.

[–] ass_troll@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I hate that you're probably right

[–] readbeanicecream@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am ready for this to be the norm. I am saving up for a solar powered generator for weather emergencies. Next, replacing my gas powered tools/equipment. Then, eventually, solar panels on the house.

[–] StringTheory@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have an elderly little folding solar panel, about enough to charge a phone, that I use when the power goes out. It’s a handy little thing, and fun to watch it work.

There are some sexy and much more powerful panels out there that are less expensive than my little one was. Someday I’ll upgrade, since my power lines will remain above ground for the foreseeable future. Storms do a number on them.

[–] readbeanicecream@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Same here. I need something that will power my fridge and freezer and charge my phones when the weather knocks things out.

[–] StringTheory@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Decentralized power source. And microgrids are like the Fediverse. I sense a theme afoot in the world. What’s the word for the way after you learn something you seem to see it everywhere? I’ve got that going on right now…

[–] BoxesOfPepe@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Coal dropped, but looks like natural gass usage jumped. That's only a small difference in carbon output. Nuclear is the way to go until we've got a solid infrastructure that can handle the ups and downs of renewables, grid storage and general upgrades, nation wide.

[–] mreiner@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, let’s absolutely get more renewables out there, but I don’t see how we can accommodate base grid loads without something like nuclear (especially when grid storage of renewable energy that isn’t consumed at the time of generation seems like a problem that will take a long time to solve).

The anti-nuclear stuff drives me nuts, and as we’ve seen with Europe and their general move away from nuclear (France being a notable exception) is that you can spin up all the nuclear you want but you’ll need more fossil fuel plants to handle base load regardless.

[–] juergen_hubert@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nuclear needs a steady supply of water for cooling, which has become rather unreliable these days in many regions.

[–] cassetti@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Ever heard of Molten salt reactors? They're much safer than traditional reactors in many ways