SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (69974)5/13/2016 8:27:33 AM
From: Eric  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 86350
 
Maybe they got tired of getting polluted with that "dirty stuff".

They should be more like California:

California's use of coal drops dramatically — to almost nothing


Mohave power station Southern California Edison
The coal-burning Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nev., shown in 1997, closed in 2005.


When it comes to dependence on coal, California is not exactly West Virginia.

But it is still striking to see that the Golden State’s use of coal to generate electricity has dropped so dramatically — essentially going from small to almost microscopic.

Two recent reports from the U.S. Energy Information Administration drive the point home.

First, the share of California's total megawatt hours of power generated by burning coal dropped from 1% in 2007 to just 0.2% in 2015.

Second, in a report that the agency released last week, California saw a 96% decrease in coal-fueled electric power consumption during the same time frame. That is the steepest fall by percentage of any state.


Coal consumption in California

“As a provider of power into the grid, [coal in California is] dead as a doornail,” said Bill Corcoran, western regional director for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign.

Nationally, consumption of steam coal — used for electricity generation — fell from more than a billion short tons in 2007 to 739 million short tons last year, a 29% drop.

Coal’s decline is largely a result of two factors: utilities switching from coal-fired to natural gas-fired power plants because of low prices for the latter fuel, and government rules aimed at making the air cleaner and hastening the adoption of renewable energy sources.

For example, the 1,636-megawatt coal-fired Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nev., shut down at the end of 2005. Southern California Edison had a 56% interest in the plant.

There is only one active coal-fired electricity generating plant in the state, according to the California Energy Commission: the Argus Cogeneration Plant in the high desert town of Trona. Two other coal-fueled plants in Bakersfield — Rio Bravo Jasmin and Rio Bravo Poso — are on "indefinite shutdown."

In California, one of the regulations that put a major crimp on coal was the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Performance Standard Act, passed in 2006.

“What the bill basically said is, if you’re going to sell power in California, you have to be as clean as the power that we burn here in California,” said Dan Jacobson, legislative director for the advocacy group Environment California.But the mining industry is quick to point out that electricity rates in California are among the highest in the country.

When it comes to the average retail price of electricity, California ranks eighth-highest in the nation and sixth-highest for the continental U.S., at 15.15 cents per kilowatt hour.

“You in California are already paying a lot for electricity, at least in part because you use so little coal, which is so cheap,” said Luke Popovich, vice president of external communications at the National Mining Assn.

While California’s rates are higher, the state consumes less electricity per household than most others. That’s partly because of mild weather along the coast but also the greater efficiency of household appliances used in the state.

California’s average monthly bill in 2014 was $23 less than the national average.

“Energy efficiency has been an important part of California’s energy policy in not only reducing pollution from dirty fuels like coal, but helping consumers use less power to do more work,” Corcoran said.

As the use of coal has dropped, natural gas has risen. It’s now the largest single source of power generation in California.

In 2005, natural gas made up about 48% of in-state electric generation. In the most recent figures from the California Energy Commission, that number jumped to 61.3%.

“It’s great that we’re dropping coal, but it’s bad that we’re picking it up with natural gas,” Jacobson said. “What we need to do is move away from fossil fuels and go toward clean, renewable energy.”

The transition highlights a larger debate that extends beyond California.

“Our electricity prices in this country have been historically low by any standards set in other countries,” Popovich said. “There’s no way those prices are going to stay low as long as we stay on this trend. It’s not going to happen.”

But coal’s critics say the public-health costs linked to pollution have to be taken into account.

The Obama administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have stepped up enforcement and rules designed to reduce levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. A 2011 analysis by the Associated Press estimated that 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in 12 states would close because of tougher regulations.

The EPA’s rollout of the Clean Power Plan, which calls for a 32% cut in carbon emissions from hundreds of mainly coal-fired power plants by 2030, has put even more pressure on coal companies.

Even before the rise of nuclear power in the 1960s and increases in wind and solar energy use in recent years, California never had many coal mines. The vast majority of its coal was imported from coal-mining states in the West.

Those numbers have dropped precipitously.

According to the California Energy Commission, the state imported coal from just four out-of-state facilities in 2014 — in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Oregon. That was down from seven in 2007. And by 2025, affiliations with all out-of-state coal-fired plants are expected to end.

In 2000, electricity generated by coal and petroleum coke provided about 11% of California’s electricity. The commission expects that percentage to hit zero by 2024.

Jacobson acknowledged the problem of “intermittency” when it comes to solar and wind energy — that is, generating energy when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.

“We have to be concerned about that, but that means more investment into the [research and development] for solar and wind, in the battery technologies and various programs, not more fracking and coal mining,” Jacobson said.

latimes.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (69974)5/13/2016 9:36:30 AM
From: Eric  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 86350
 
Lithium Mining vs Oil Sands Meme: A Thorough Response

May 12th, 2016 by Guest Contributor

EDITOR’S WARNING: It is important to read the article below. The meme at the top is being debunked as nonsense, not supported.

Originally published on Daily Kos.
By Mark Sumner

Somewhere, someone is wrong on the internet. Yes, that’s shocking. And normally I’d feel just about as compelled to correct that someone as I would to put my hand in the corned beef slicer at the deli. But dammit, sometimes someone is just so wrong on the internet, that you must get out the mustard.

Lately (or more specifically, perpetually off and on for the last few years), this set of images has been circulating.



Why golly, that does look bad, doesn’t it? Know what? Someone is a f#@%ing liar.

That top image is, in fact, a mine. It’s a copper mine. This particular mine is BHP’s Escondida Mine, one of the 10 largest in the world.

Before this continues, to repeat … that’s a copper mine. In 2015, we used about 19 million tons of copper. Getting that copper out took digging big holes in the ground, just like the one in that first picture. It also involved using millions of pounds of blasting agent, carrying rock to crushers, spraying that crushed rock with millions of gallons of sulfuric acid, then letting the resulting toxic sludge sit around in leach fields to extract the copper.

How many times has someone approached you and warned you that copper is a bad thing and that you shouldn’t use it? I’m willing to bet that number is zero.

On the other hand, the world produces about 650,000 tons of lithium each year. Lithium exists mostly in the form of concentrated salts. Almost all that lithium—greater than 95 percent of it—is produced through a process of pumping underground brine to the surface and allowing it to evaporate in big pans. It’s separated from the brine using electrolysis.

There’s nothing you would think of as mining. No blasting. No trucks driving around carrying loads of crushed rock. No sprays of sulfuric acid.

The primary sources of lithium are from the Atacama Desert in Chile, and the Uyuni salt flat in Bolivia. These are two of the deadest places on Earth. It’s not exactly that nothing lives there, but …

“In 2003, a team of researchers published a report in the journal Science in which they duplicated the tests used by the Viking 1 and Viking 2 Mars landers to detect life, and were unable to detect any signs in Atacama Desert soil in the region of Yungay.”

Not all of the Salar de Atacama (the big Atacama salt flat) is this dead. There are some pools there with very salt-resistant shrimp, and weirdly enough, flamingos come to this desolate, otherwise empty place. So you know what they did? They made the area where the flamingos go a national reserve. It’s both desolate and lovely. They don’t extract lithium there.

Now, it’s a safe bet that someone, sometime has told you that lithium mining is awful. That it requires big holes like that one that was used to make the copper pipes, and copper wires, and copper electronics you use every day. Someone told you that, even though it’s not true.

Why did they tell you that? Because someone knew just enough to know that lithium is used in electric car batteries, and that someone was enough of a dickweed to want to make electric cars look bad. Even though they knew they were lying.


Atacama salt flats. Those blue rectangles are basins where lithium is extracted from brine.

Now, about those oil sands. “Oil sands” is one term for them. The phrase you hear more often is actually “tar sands.” Why? Because what’s in those sands isn’t nice, fluid oil. It’s sticky, thick, blocky, and solid. If you cut a chunk of it, oil doesn’t pour out. It’s just stinky black sand.

And getting oil out of the tar sands? That’s not done with a neat little well. There are two primary ways of extracting oil from tar sands. One is to force steam into the sands through a series of horizontal wells. Then another series of wells is drilled to extract the oil freed by the steam. And all it takes is about 1,500 cubic feet of natural gas to make the steam that drives out a single barrel of oil.


SUNCOR’s oil extraction plant outside Fort McMurray. Photo credit: MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images

But that steam extraction? It accounts for a small fraction of the oil extracted from the Athabasca tar sands. Most of it comes from a process that looks like this:



And like this:


Photo credit: MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images

Gosh, you know what that looks like? Mining. That’s what. There’s the blasting, the trucks, the crushing, and then a mixture of hot water and caustic lye (sodium hydroxide) is added. It’s all mixed up into a black, sandy paste, then the paste is piped over to a plant where it gets churned until the oil floats to the top. Then the oil gets sent down some fine pipeline (Keystone, anyone?) while the remaining muck is dumped. It takes about two tons of sand to make a single barrel of oil.

So … yeah. That’s the truth. That’s what lithium “mining” is like. That’s what oil sands “extraction” is like.

That’s how stupid this meme is.

Now, it’s the internet, people. Play nice.

cleantechnica.com