Coal use hit an all-time high last year | Hacker News Reader

Coal use hit an all-time high last year

cnbc.com

46 pointsmelling61 comments

> Coal is a fossil fuel. Its use has a substantial impact on the environment, with environmental organization Greenpeace describing it as “the dirtiest, most polluting way of producing energy.”

That may be true, but it hurts a bit that it was also Greenpeace who brought about increased coal mining by lobbying the German government to shut down all their nuclear energy facilities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/10/germany-e...

It's not even true: burning wood is worse than burning coal.

Unlike burning coal, burning wood can be sustainable. That carbon was in the air a couple of years ago. Growing forests for firewood is probably not the most efficient way to use that land, but as long as you plant and grow new trees at the same rate you burn them, it is carbon neutral.

That doesn't mean it's always sustainable of course; there's a lot of destructive logging in the world, and that should stop.

The problem with burning wood is not CO2 but the particulate matter it produces if not properly filtered (which it usually isn't).

That is true, but also a separate problem. And also still a problem with coal.

Yes a separate problem.

Forest are far too valuable to just burn them, we should do everything we can to save ecosystems that are threatened by global warming. The obvious answer is more nuclear because it's by far the least intrusive source of energy.

Burning wood can even be carbon negative if you do it right - though this tends to create even more particulate pollution.

Say what you will about the merits of this position, but it's entirely consistent to advocate for shutting down nuclear power plants and reducing electricity consumption, and it's reasonable if one holds this position to be dismayed when the plants are shut down but decreases in consumption do not occur, leading to more coal use.

How is it realistic that consumption would be reduced?

It's about as practical a position as Greenpeace-folk advocating for world peace and asking "why can't we all just get along?"

Sure, but still, the effort put into opposing nuclear power was better invested in opposing coal power.

If the global energy business operated according to the principle of what helps everyone the most- getting the whole planet to a cheap and abundant energy source as soon as it is possible, in order to create the greatest public good- rather than indulging corporations in extracting the very last penny of value out of old ways of getting energy regardless of the detriment it might cause society- I think we'd regard Greenpeace's lobbying as one of the contributors to that ultimate resolution.

You can't blame activists for the inertia of entrenched robber barons. Agitation doesn't always get the best results at the time, but in the long view it's one of only a few impulses that move the juggernaut not only forward, but forward in the correct direction.

What-ifs about how the world operates are non sequiturs. They apparently got their way in Germany even though nuclear is greener than petroleum energy (according to the premise of the GP comment).

I blame activists for moving us in the wrong direction.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.

It doesn't stop at the climate, either.

Activist groups like Code Pink actually blame the victim when it comes to the Ukraine war.

https://www.codepink.org/ukraine

"Coal remained the main energy source in electricity production in Germany in 2022: 8.4% more coal-generated electricity fed into the grid than in 2021"

But also:

"Photovoltaics provided almost as much electricity as natural gas: electricity production from natural gas down 11.3%, photovoltaics up 19.5%"

I agree. I'm a long time Greenpeace donor, and they've done a lot of good too, but I do think we were completely wrong about nuclear power. I'm still not a fan of nuclear power, but opposing nuclear power when the primary alternatives were coal and oil, was a massive mistake that has probably slowed the energy transition.

Opposing nuclear power only makes sense if the only alternatives are cleaner forms of energy. But if every nuclear power plant means that a coal power plant can close, that would be a massive victory.

"coal demand fell faster than previously expected in the first half of this year in the United States and the European Union — by 24% and 16%, respectively" ..... "demand from the two largest consumers, China and India, grew by over 5% during the first half, more than offsetting declines elsewhere"

This is the crux. Despite the shaming I continually receive here in the US any time I am not 100% supportive of "green" initiatives, other countries are going to do what other countries are going to do.

Is the US still the largest user of energy in the world? How about per capita?

My guess is that it is up there, so why bother pointing the finger elsewhere?

Isn't China massively rolling out China and nuclear as well? It feels like their coal usage is bridging, rather than permanent.

> massively rolling out China

I think you need an edit there

indeed I do. I meant rolling out solar.

Per capita absolutely. Per country perhaps not.

The pointing to China and India is pointless. If you invest in other forms of energy, you also set an example for others. And you don't have any right to complain about the pollution of others if you're still polluting more.

And the US, still the richest country in the world, should absolutely take the lead here, instead of demanding that China and India take the lead. China and India should absolutely clean up their energy sector, but so should the US and the EU.

The US and EU are both cleaning up their energy sector. There are setbacks (Germany closed all nuclear power plants in favor of coal, a number of US politicians are trying to drill more oil and dig more coal), but overall both are improving fast.

The US is the 2nd largest energy user in the world -- China is 1st.

This story is about coal usage. China and India use far more coal than the US.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/coal-cons...

China imports a billion+ tonnes of raw iron per annum and uses vast amounts of coal to make steel (of many grades, not just "cheap" lowest cost lowest grade) of which a large amount goes to the USofA, Europe and elsewhere.

Given it's trade complexity, a significant portion of its coal use goes toward the manufacture of other peoples consumables to met other peoples demand.

Like it or not the US is part of that chain.

The US emits vastly more per capita than China and India. If we’re going to have any chance of stopping this thing before it’s too late, we’re going to have to lead by example (and better, by investing our vast scientific and economic resources into the problem.) Right now China is building tons of coal, but it’s also deploying and building solar and wind much faster than we are. Asking poorer countries to take the burden when we haven’t cleaned up our current mess (let alone historical mess) is actually something we should be ashamed of.

The USA, India and China are all emitting carbon into the same atmosphere. Per capita is a useful metric in some contexts but not here.

If china and india increase their coal energy generation to completely offset reductions in other regions, the reductions are rendered moot.

Speaking of leading by example, the USA’s carbon emissions are on track to see their most significant declines in history. The best part is that private industry is leading the push because the incentives are in place.

Per-capita is absolutely a useful metric when you're asking other countries to take on a burden. When we ask developing nations to reduce their emissions, they rightly point out that this will harm their citizens' living standards. A very good response to this objection would be to prove that we can maintain US-quality living standards while emitting much less per-capita CO2 than China or India do today. Unfortunately (and despite some modest reductions) we're giving them exactly the opposite example, and they're making decisions accordingly.

Also, the US has emitted much more of the total historical output (though I don't know how much of that affects us today) and is vastly more wealthy. If you're the wealthiest person in town, you can't ask the people in the poor neighborhood to make extra sacrifices. The US has a very serious responsibility.

I also point out other people who are worse than I as an excuse not to improve.

We can’t build a damn nuclear generation station in the US to save ourselves.

It's hard to safe yourself by building nuclear when China uses more coal - where a lot of coal is imported from the US.

So I'd say: The US and Australia need to stop coal exports to China. But then again you get Trump promising miners to increase coal production as a result.

> where a lot of coal is imported from the US.

US coal in China is like 2% of China's coal imports.

Very much so - China and India both get enormous amounts of coal from Anglo-Australian and Indian Coal companies that mine in Australia .. these same companies own or control many of the exporting thermal coal mines in the US via companies listed on the Toronto:TSX.

Another 'truth' about USofA coal exports is that they are largely divorced from the US political system; when Trump (? IIRC) boasted about reopening coal mines, etc he really didn't do anything.

The underlying cause was massive tropical storms and flooding in Australia resulting in (some) wet coal beds (open cut mines) and a switch by the parent companies to draw on US coal sources while their preferred fields dried out.

Hard to reconcile headlines.

Seems like there are frequent headlines like, "US will achieve 25% total demand using Solar/Wind" or "Germany had first day of 100% of power from solar/wind".

Then turn around and see this headline "coal at record levels".

What gives?

Is it a disconnect in how each article or study chooses to calculate a %?

The 25% total capacity (not demand) headline that you reference, was about the US targets for 2030 that China has already met and exceeded.

Once you add nuclear and hydro it's more than 50%.

> Non-fossil fuel power sources, such as wind and solar power, account for 50.9% of the country's total installed capacity, marking the early completion of a government target proposed in 2021, under which renewable capacity was planned to exceed fossil fuel capacity by 2025.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-installed-non...

There's still lots of distance to go (capacity isn't generation, electricity isn't all energy etc.) but China is doing roughly as well as the USA. The main difference is whether they use lots of fossil methane, or lots of coal, but that's more geographic based on resource availability than anything else.

As it will continue to next year. Realistically, the NIMBYs have won, fission isn't happening, and fusion is still 2 decades away (thus has it always been).

Solar and wind aren't really making a dent, seemingly. I sometimes wonder if rationality will win out in the end.

Solar and wind are making a dent in some areas. 80% of my electric comes from wind (or so my utility claims, the only official numbers I see are statewide and include other utilities). Solar is also making a dent in some states. But other states are fighting against it.

Is it "It works on my machine" approach?

We should not pillory other countries, especially not coming from a First World perspective. However the First World had a head start, through various factors being colonialism and the industrial revolution. Putting the traditional Third World in a lesser position when it comes to ability to compete with First World countries.

The issue is, we cannot deride those who use coal to try to catch up, when that was the fuel that got many First World countries to the position they are in. The First World likes to be high and mighty in these terms, however not very often is it introspective enough to realise that the Third World simply cannot operate in the same way. China and India are in a different spot, however both were distinctly at a disadvantage in progression as a country until late in the 20th century.

All of this ultimately leads to a greater question, how does the planet intend to reduce demand on coal while also allowing countries reliant on it to grow? In Africa, there's various steps that need to be taken. In my opinion international debt cancellation, as debt structures that were put in place by the First World org's were and are predatory, and rely on First World demands to be met. Secondly, the big R world, reparations for colonialism and imperialism should be looked at. While these are predominantly monetary steps, these are the great blockers to progress. It is ingrained suppression of Third World countries that ties in to the fractured history the First world has with the Third. And similar steps should be taken with South American countries as a lot of their issues mirror African issues for similar reasons.

Point being it does matter what the First World does on its own part. As the First World's per capita consumption of energy far outweigh's its Third World counterparts. The effort need's to be increased through financial mechanisms to aid countries that aren't able to wean themselves off of coal dependency. India and China are interesting examples, but neither at their rate of growth have the ability to get off coal. India even less so than China, and there quite clearly isn't a global effort to help countries that are struggling with coal dependency.

Not being a hypocrite is not really that important compared to solving the problem at hand.

You also get into absurd situations like how former colonial powers can’t say that up-and-coming colonial powers can’t develop in that particular way. Some things are just bad to do.

Of course, I believe the climate crisis is the most important problem in the world. However I don't think former colonial powers have any right to say or rather lecture former colonised countries on their obligations, when the colonial powers haven't properly addressed why the colonised countries are in the state they are in. It is also not just at the feet of former colonial powers, the US wasn't a coloniser but did have a tremendous imperial influence throughout the Third World that has stymied progress and thrown Third World countries into a debt trap that they cannot escape (unfortunately China is doing the same these days). This needs to be addressed too.

And until these issues are addressed, the Third World countries who rely so heavily on coal power cannot get off their reliance on it. It will need a global effort led and on the financial burden of the First World, to support the economies of the countries that are using coal to progress. I believe that is the only way we will turn this issue around, otherwise we are just putting a plaster on a stab wound.

Let's not forget Africa and India's growth over the next century is going to eclipse anything we've ever seen before, and without the correct structures in place we will have no chance of combatting this issue.

> Of course, I believe the climate crisis is the most important problem in the world. However I don't think former colonial powers have any right to say or rather lecture former colonised countries on their obligations, when the colonial powers haven't properly addressed why the colonised countries are in the state they are in.

Words and lectures are irrelevant. Only what the First World can do—including influencing the Third World—matters.

> It is also not just at the feet of former colonial powers, the US wasn't a coloniser but did have a tremendous imperial influence throughout the Third World that has stymied progress and thrown Third World countries into a debt trap that they cannot escape (unfortunately China is doing the same these days). This needs to be addressed too.

I guess “stymied progress” is a way of phrasing it.

And what about the Philippines?

> I don't think former colonial powers have any right to say or rather lecture former colonised countries on their obligations..

Unfortunately, nature doesn’t care. What’s fair and unfair is irrelevant. These political excuses are a weak justification for BAU.

Kind of a tangent to your main point but Africa doesn't have much coal, and what it has is mostly in South Africa. As a result their transition should be a bit easier.

@dang Quick question. How does this story have 38 upvotes , over 50 comments, and not appear in the top 150 stories on HN?

Is it getting flagged down for some reason?

Seems like an important topic that we need to address.

> we cannot deride those who use coal to try to catch up,

We can however point out that people (especially the poor) in those countries are the ones that'll take climate change full force.

Maybe if we keep worsening the problem it will overflow and we end in -maxint soon enough, solving the problem (or at least creating a different one).

> “However, demand from the two largest consumers, China and India, grew by over 5% during the first half, more than offsetting declines elsewhere,” it added.

What can be done, not buying goods made in China, economic sanctions? They used to claim they were not an advanced economy and still a developing nation so they should be allowed to do it. Just like the West burned coal to industrialize. Is that still the official story?

> What can be done, [...]?

We can keep working on making the alternative cheaper. So that India and China etc will find it in their own economic self interest to move to the alternatives.

Also in general adopt policies, like free trade and free immigration, that help who currently live in India and China grow richer faster. Historically, richer people care more about the environment. (Probably because they can afford to.)

> Also in general adopt policies, like free trade and free immigration

I’ve never heard of this. How would free immigration help climate change?

See https://www.econlib.org/open-borders-and-the-environment/

Then you should also not buy goods made in Germany, because it massively ramped up coal excavation and burning last year, and not just any coal, but lignite, the nastiest, dirties, most lifespan-reducing type of coal possible.

They even leveled an entire village(Lützerath) to mine coal and the German police had to clash with climate protestors while getting stuck in mud and attacked by a wizard.[1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUOir-SAKDs

No, they haven't. Please take a few minutes to Google for the figures before making such an incorrect statement.

Read for yourself:

"Coal remained the main energy source in electricity production in Germany in 2022: 8.4% more coal-generated electricity fed into the grid than in 2021" - German Mistry of Statistics[1]

I don't have numbers for 2023 yet, and while things might look better in 2023 for coal use compared to 2022, that's because Germany is now burning more imported gas instead since the LNG terminals came online, so it's still relying on burning fossil fuels for energy.

[1] https://www.destatis.de/EN/Press/2023/03/PE23_090_43312.html

[2] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/energy-crisis-fu...

[3] https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-imports-increase-in-2022-...

That's just cherry picking individual data points. Have a look at the time series:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_German...

Sure, Russia's attack on Ukraine lead to an increase in 2022. But massively ramped up, seriously?

Environmental activist wizards get resistance to environmental hazards. Mud won’t bother them.

Isn’t this the result of an energy shortage due to the war in Ukraine? Germany didn’t want to do this, I assume.

Perspective is key: Germany's electricity generation from coal increased by 8% or 16 TWh while Germany's electricity exports increased by 50% to 26 TWh net. Europe was in a difficult situation for various reasons.

> They used to claim they were not an advanced economy and still a developing nation so they should be allowed to do it. Just like the West burned coal to industrialize. Is that still the official story?

I guess so, their median income is still lower than that of the US and western European countries

You don't really need to do anything specific to China or India, but Carbon Tariffs for countries without carbon taxes would be a good idea generally.

China and India of course already have carbon taxes, but some big polluters like the USA don't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com