Shutdown of US coal power facilities saved over 26,000 lives, study finds

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
Not the only thing. Capping the population of our country would be a HUGE boon to the planet and emission reduction in 10, 30, 100 years time.
One child policy? I mean, seriously, how do we even accomplish this in a humane way?
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Not the only thing. Capping the population of our country would be a HUGE boon to the planet and emission reduction in 10, 30, 100 years time.

We're at less than zero pop growth from natural births as it is. As you said in another thread, 100% of our growth is from immigration. The most you can say about limiting immigration is, what, that our emissions per capita is in the US might be higher than in the countries they're coming from?

I have grave doubts that shutting down US immigration would be a "huge boon" to the planet.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,700
136
One child policy? I mean, seriously, how do we even accomplish this in a humane way?
Well, I think statistics are saying we've got a lower per capita population growth thing going on now. Making Roe vs. Wade a forgone conclusion will/would help. Eliminate any stigma in a woman deciding if she wants to go to term. Push back by whatever means is necessary on campaigns to make birth control difficult that have been going on in several states. Make birth control easy, affordable and by no means repugnant. Education! Until people realize we have problems solutions can be tough to come by. I think all these are humane and quite effective.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,120
10,946
136
One child policy? I mean, seriously, how do we even accomplish this in a humane way?

you don't directly enforce it by policy a la china. you increase the overall wealth of your society.

as wealth and education go up, people delay or forgo children altogether.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
im building/buying a new home right now and the solar can either be a lease or purchase but they must go on every home. 8kwh systems on all the roofs. I purchased and the price was high at 16k but its the best new panels and I will probably be doubling the amount if the roof can take it.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,222
136
Not the only thing. Capping the population of our country would be a HUGE boon to the planet and emission reduction in 10, 30, 100 years time.

Maybe true, but also gets us a stagnant or slowly contracting economy. Since over 70% of our economy is consumer spending, a population that's stagnant or contracting will lead to the same in economic expansion.....it won't expand. Something Wall Street currently punishes companies for.....not growing exponentially.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,120
10,946
136
Maybe true, but also gets us a stagnant or slowly contracting economy. Since over 70% of our economy is consumer spending, a population that's stagnant or contracting will lead to the same in economic expansion.....it won't expand. Something Wall Street currently punishes companies for.....not growing exponentially.


sounds like we need to rethink our economic models...
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Nice statistic that proves Americans only care about their immediate echo chamber bubble world while neglecting the many hundreds of thousands or millions of people enjoying the fine byproducts of coal so they can live life on the cheap and the rich elites can maximize their profits while virtue signaling how environmentally conscious they are, last I checked pollution doesn't respect national boundaries, race, class, etc.

Instead of virtue signaling how clean energy they are how about mandating publicly grading products and services based on how much coal was used in their production and implementation and allowing consumers to decide how environmentally conscious they are with their money ?

Then we can start making a dent in pollution by knowing who actually is willing to spend more on reducing things like c02 and other nasty pollutants instead of virtue signaling and pointing fingers, especially by the rich who want the little people to carry the cost of environmentalism instead of making adjustments to their outsourced based profit margins.



Coal Isn't Dead. China Proves It.

Indeed, China actually now accounts for 45% of the coal-based electricity generated in the world, compared to 37% back in 2010.

China's goal is to increase the share of electricity generation in its total coal usage.


China's goal is to increase the share of electricity generation in its total coal usage.
Data source: BP; JTC

In addition, China is at the heart of another issue that is quietly emerging for those wanting to "wish the world away from coal."

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis reports that China's financial institutions are providing $36 billion in funding to build coal power plants outside the country.

China has committed or offered funding for 102,000 MW of coal-based electricity, mostly in Pakistan, South Africa, Bangladesh, and Vietnam.

So yes, while China's coal demand will remain very high, there is no question that the country seeks to lower an over reliance on the fuel, aimed at diversifying with more natural gas, nuclear, and renewables. This has given Chinese companies more incentive to seek projects in foreign nations.

This is all part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative that will use its own development model to help "finance and build roads, railways, bridges, ports, and industrial parks abroad." An immense infrastructure build-out that will not just require thermal coal for electricity but also metallurgical coal for steel making. "The One Market That's Sure To Help Coal."

And almost a quarter of the coal plants China is funding in other countries would be less efficient, higher emission subcritical units that are no longer allowed to be used in China. These nations have less environmental standards and are desperate for investment of any kind. I do find this a bit contradictory though given that one of China's major climate plans has been to replace inefficient, older coal plants with state-of-the-art coal plants.

The goal of many poorer nations to install any type of power generation is easy enough to understand.

The depressing amount of global energy poverty, particularly electricity deprivation, is largely forgotten here in the rich West, where we have all the energy that we need at our fingertips. For example, as measured by per capita per year, over 3,500,000,000 humans - nearly half of the world - use less than 10% of the electricity that we privileged Americans do.

With electricity the foundation of modern life, living with such low access to power is a worsening calamity that is simply unacceptable for leaders in the still developing world. Regardless of what they might say publicly, all energy sources are on the table: the destructiveness of the growing digital divide is incalculable.

Coal often makes sense for them: coal leads and supplies 40% of the world's electricity, is reliable and cost effective, and is widely available.

I'm surely not saying, however, that coal's upside is unlimited.

After all, the International Energy Agency is now projecting that global coal demand will remain pretty stable through 2023 at least, which is actually a victory for coal given that the 2015 Paris climate accords signed by almost 200 countries had coal reduction at its core.

But in reality, the story of China shows that coal is nowhere near as "dead" as its opponents want you to believe
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,745
40,188
136
Meh, not convinced tree huggers! Isn't it better if far fewer people can have jobs where they can risk dying from accidents or black lung, while suppressing crops, poisoning water and land, adding to global warming? Why do you hate Merica?
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,951
16,210
126
In CA as of Jan. 1:

Beginning in 2020, newly constructed homes must have solar panels, which could be costly for homeowners: According to California's Energy Commission (CEC), that mandate will add between $8,000 and $10,000 to the cost of a new home.


Shrug. Makes perfect sense in Cali.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
Makes good sense on the planet.
It’s great if you’re building a new house, are younger or in a southern latitude. I live in northern New England and the pay off is something like 15 years and too expensive with our current income. I guess my point is that yes, it’s great for the planet, but not affordable for allot of people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,951
16,210
126
It’s great if you’re building a new house, are younger or in a southern latitude. I live in northern New England and the pay off is something like 15 years and too expensive with our current income. I guess my point is that yes, it’s great for the planet, but not affordable for allot of people.


Does prolong the life of your shingles so there is that to consider.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,007
8,041
136
Maybe true, but also gets us a stagnant or slowly contracting economy. Since over 70% of our economy is consumer spending, a population that's stagnant or contracting will lead to the same in economic expansion.....it won't expand. Something Wall Street currently punishes companies for.....not growing exponentially killing the planet.

FIFY.

If we put into place basic income, and reach a point where housing is taken care of... then it won't matter what the economy or Wall Street does. We can establish a (mostly) closed loop of economic liquidity involving base sustenance. That removes these concerns from our table. Economic crash? Guess the rich are a little less rich during. Boo hoo. Wall Street? If we restrict their growth, they can punish... the rich. See a trend here? Leaving the rest of us out of the trickle down boom and bust cycle of insatiable and unstable economic greed.

That is what can be achieved if we but restore balance to the economic equation. By ensuring our "fair share" to provide base economic liquidity.. AKA base sustenance... AKA sustainability. Wall Street, by eliminating the Middle Class, gives us no reason to play favorites. And frankly anyone choosing to favor them over the planet is asking for a very bad future anyway.

I only ask for a balanced approach to achieve this. Including Healthcare, never more than a 50% total taxation. Half the economy remains private, half becomes public. They can work together, one half is sustenance and sustains our people through good and bad, thick and thin. Never a despair or a poverty so bad as to truly harm you. The rest can exist as Wall Street does today, only we can regulate it without fear of harming ourselves. If we want the planet to not be poisoned today and barren in a few hundred years, then maybe with a balanced economy we will finally have the courage to act on it.

One does not have to choose between food/housing today, and a planet tomorrow. I would see us resolve that conflict.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,941
5,563
136
In CA as of Jan. 1:

Beginning in 2020, newly constructed homes must have solar panels, which could be costly for homeowners: According to California's Energy Commission (CEC), that mandate will add between $8,000 and $10,000 to the cost of a new home.
It's a part of California's psychotic approach to everything construction related. Building more housing is a top priority, we need 3 million more homes, and they have to be "affordable", so we mandate solar panels. Those panels will save the owners money, but not much when you figure they will most likely be part of a thirty loan.
The legislature has also mandated water usage at 55 gallons per person per day. Accessory dwelling units have also become a big push, with no thought toward existing infrastructure and the limited water supply.
What should be an integrated plan is an ad hoc patchwork of regulations that will drive construction costs up, and make flipping homes even more profitable.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,094
37,295
136
It's a part of California's psychotic approach to everything construction related. Building more housing is a top priority, we need 3 million more homes, and they have to be "affordable", so we mandate solar panels. Those panels will save the owners money, but not much when you figure they will most likely be part of a thirty loan.
The legislature has also mandated water usage at 55 gallons per person per day. Accessory dwelling units have also become a big push, with no thought toward existing infrastructure and the limited water supply.
What should be an integrated plan is an ad hoc patchwork of regulations that will drive construction costs up, and make flipping homes even more profitable.


This is contradictory. CA you say needs lots of new homes but ADUs are bad because of water use. The water cap is per capita so exactly what structure the water is being used in is irrelevant from a consumption POV. The new ADU permissiveness and it's recent expansion doubles or triples the housing density of single family lots and lets apt buildings convert some unused space to extra rentals. This is overall way more efficient than building more sprawly tract housing.

Absent repealing Prop 13 the biggest changes CA can make are to enable higher density as of right and to exempt infill residential from CEQA. Legislation to at least partially do that is once again floated in the state legislature and it might pass this time.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,637
50,864
136
This is contradictory. CA you say needs lots of new homes but ADUs are bad because of water use. The water cap is per capita so exactly what structure the water is being used in is irrelevant from a consumption POV. The new ADU permissiveness and it's recent expansion doubles or triples the housing density of single family lots and lets apt buildings convert some unused space to extra rentals. This is overall way more efficient than building more sprawly tract housing.

Absent repealing Prop 13 the biggest changes CA can make are to enable higher density as of right and to exempt infill residential from CEQA. Legislation to at least partially do that is once again floated in the state legislature and it might pass this time.

Also concerns about residential water use in California are ridiculous. If you want to conserve water in California we should do things like stop growing almonds there as farming consumes vastly more water than residences do. Even modest improvements in farming water efficiency would offset gigantic increases in population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K1052

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,941
5,563
136
This is contradictory. CA you say needs lots of new homes but ADUs are bad because of water use. The water cap is per capita so exactly what structure the water is being used in is irrelevant from a consumption POV. The new ADU permissiveness and it's recent expansion doubles or triples the housing density of single family lots and lets apt buildings convert some unused space to extra rentals. This is overall way more efficient than building more sprawly tract housing.

Absent repealing Prop 13 the biggest changes CA can make are to enable higher density as of right and to exempt infill residential from CEQA. Legislation to at least partially do that is once again floated in the state legislature and it might pass this time.
The primary issue is water, if there isn't enough now, adding three million dwellings isn't going to help.
In parts of the Bay Area, there simply isn't any parking and very narrow streets. Adding ADU's to those areas is going to create a nightmare.
I build ADU's, I remodel old homes, I deal with the new codes and ordinances daily. The one goal the state is trying to reach is the one they keep pushing away, affordable housing. I'll take it a step further and say that affordable housing in any of the California population centers is impossible to attain unless it's subsidized.
In the ADU I'm building right now, there is no place within a block to park a car. Architectural and city fees have topped $20k, and the total cost of the project is going to be added to the value of the property for taxes. The rent on that unit will be on the order of $3000 a month. Not all that affordable.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,951
16,210
126
Cali should do old style desalination. Dam salt water, put clear slanted cover on pond and collect condensation then purify.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,637
50,864
136
The primary issue is water, if there isn't enough now, adding three million dwellings isn't going to help.
In parts of the Bay Area, there simply isn't any parking and very narrow streets. Adding ADU's to those areas is going to create a nightmare.
I build ADU's, I remodel old homes, I deal with the new codes and ordinances daily. The one goal the state is trying to reach is the one they keep pushing away, affordable housing. I'll take it a step further and say that affordable housing in any of the California population centers is impossible to attain unless it's subsidized.
In the ADU I'm building right now, there is no place within a block to park a car. Architectural and city fees have topped $20k, and the total cost of the project is going to be added to the value of the property for taxes. The rent on that unit will be on the order of $3000 a month. Not all that affordable.

It’s pretty telling that your argument against density was that it would make it harder to drive around without maybe considering that having lots of people driving around is a bad thing.

A lack of parking is a feature, not a bug. Cars choke dense urban environments, cause huge pollution, and take up huge amounts of land that is inexplicably reserved for free storage in the guise of on street parking. A better plan is to eliminate ALL free on street parking in cities. If people want to drive they can pay to park.

I mean just think about how funny it would be if people said we shouldn’t build Manhattan because there would be nowhere to park, haha.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,094
37,295
136
The primary issue is water, if there isn't enough now, adding three million dwellings isn't going to help.
In parts of the Bay Area, there simply isn't any parking and very narrow streets. Adding ADU's to those areas is going to create a nightmare.
I build ADU's, I remodel old homes, I deal with the new codes and ordinances daily. The one goal the state is trying to reach is the one they keep pushing away, affordable housing. I'll take it a step further and say that affordable housing in any of the California population centers is impossible to attain unless it's subsidized.
In the ADU I'm building right now, there is no place within a block to park a car. Architectural and city fees have topped $20k, and the total cost of the project is going to be added to the value of the property for taxes. The rent on that unit will be on the order of $3000 a month. Not all that affordable.

As fski notes the real water hogs are the AG users in the Central Valley. Interior residential use is actually already pretty efficient at at least in the northern part of the state the per capita water cap already well within reach. IIRC the per capita residential use in San Francisco is well under 50gpd already.

Impact fees levied by cities and permitting delays are localities working against the spirit of the state law, not the state screwing things up. In response CA just passed new laws prohibiting impact fees on ADUs under 750 sq ft, eliminating minimum lot sizes/reducing setbacks, and imposing a 60 day approval requirement. They also ditched owner occupancy requirements.

I'm less sympathetic to parking complaints given many homes have garages/carports plus a driveway at their disposal already. I lived in the peninsula, there is street parking although it may not always be right outside of the home.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,700
136
Cali should do old style desalination. Dam salt water, put clear slanted cover on pond and collect condensation then purify.
I think there's one such project in CA IIRC, maybe near Santa Barbara. Probably in moth balls now since the severe drought that spawned it has passed. I think reclaiming waste water will prove to be more cost effective than desalinization. Read Water 4.0.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,056
8,336
136
In parts of the Bay Area, there simply isn't any parking and very narrow streets.
If you're living in a city, you should either be paying for a garage spot or not having a car and using bike/public transit. We shouldn't be giving away public space for car storage or encouraging private auto use in cities.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,951
16,210
126
I think there's one such project in CA IIRC, maybe near Santa Barbara. Probably in moth balls now since the severe drought that spawned it has passed. I think reclaiming waste water will prove to be more cost effective than desalinization. Read Water 4.0.

But the system i am talking about is mostly passive.