231
G7 countries agree to shut all their coal power plants within the next 10 years
(theprogressplaybook.com)
this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
231 points (98.7% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5212 readers
438 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Your own source specifically says to be wary: "Note that life cycle CO2 emissions depend strongly upon details of supply chains, production techniques, forestry or agricultural practice, transport distances, etc."
Japan's coal imports are overwhelmingly local -- AUS and Indonesia. So even just on your claim that they are importing either way, the LNG is clearly a significantly worse supply chain. And to be clear, I am not arguing that coal should be their future; they might not have much of a better choice here in the short term, but there's also nothing to celebrate about switching to gas. They have the tech and know-how for other energy sources. They have opportunities for geothermal, expertise in nuclear, access to plenty of wind/tidal opportunities. I'm not sure how bad their landscape is for solar, though I would be a bit skeptical of any "there's just no room!" claims for them. Instead, they're putting huge capital into LNG, committing to longterm use of that product.
Again, nothing to celebrate here.
Besides which, consistently and throughout the product's history, LNG has had its emissions massively underestimated. I see no reason to suddenly believe we've suddenly started getting it right.
e.g.: https://www.research.howarthlab.org/publications/Howarth_LNG_assessment_preprint_archived_2023-1103.pdf
The cause of this is a long series of serious, terrible problems in the LNG supply chain from methane leaks at production sites to various leaky infrastructure at surface transportation to leaks at the export/import hubs (not to even mention the enormous energy costs of condensation). These issues that have so far largely gone unaccounted for in estimates that predicted how "diet" the fossil gas would be compared to coal, leading to a LOT of people holding a now orthodox belief that LNG is massively better that is, to say the least, highly optimistic.
When you also factor in things like the goddamn bunker oil used to transport the stuff, all that efficiency is gobbled up.
Anyone serious about climate, at this point, should be operating on the assumption that shipped LNG is no better than coal because the evidence we have that it is better is, frankly, really bad.
Further digging down now, I think you have a point, UK quotes Natural gas that's uncompressed, LNG will add more on those factors. So howarth LNG assessment probably makes more sense here.
However couple of things that bother me
Also I am not advocating for starting new LNG based plants, any new investment should be towards renewables. But if there is flexibility of shifting loads between existing plants, one should prefer LNG over coal.
That's roughly as local as France or GB to US east cost, similar distance and similar other differences. IMHO both connections aren't even regional anymore. But yeah, it's fairly short what coal import routes concerns.