Coal - Blog Posts

This supposed to be funny.

🤓🤓🤓

I have the victorious strategy for you chuds, but it requires complete muttization in society to extreme, we’re negative el monstro race. Everyone has to be mutt to horrible degree but especially potent indian genes need to increadr and african genes. The only way to win, is indeed to destroy aryan dream. I am sorry but this is the way, my brother.

so far through web ive seen..

a gacha game about rocks, flowers, candies, paintings, tanks, ships, rulers, heroes, gods, monsters, train stations, guns, it never fucking ends...

it never fucking ends..... why

how

consumerism is way too much

we need to literally j just destroy electricity

because

consumerism is fucking insane just shut up

we get it

we GET IT.

everything is moe my poop yesterday is moe

parasitic worms are moe

you will see wehn you pick up random ass sand that it is all moe each rock

More Bendy art :D

The fuel of the future, unfortunately

WHAT more could one want? It is cheap and simple to extract, ship and burn. It is abundant: proven reserves amount to 109 years of current consumption, reckons BP, a...

This article from The Economist magazine dated April 19th to 25th April suggests that Coal is going to play a large role in providing electrical power for he foreseeable future.  This will be especially true in poorer countries.  What we need is to make nuclear cheaper than coal.  

Twenty four hours 'round the clock

Inktober2018 day 19: scorched

In 2013 the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected global coal use to grow 39% by 2040. Their 2017 projected revises that growth to... about 1%.

From Vox:

“In recent years, China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, has been making major efforts to restrain its coal use and shift to cleaner sources of energy. When Donald Trump and other conservatives in the United States complain that China isn’t doing anything about climate change, they simply haven’t been paying attention...

Since 2013, China’s coal consumption has actually fallen — due in part to a major economic slowdown but also in part to sluggish output in heavy industries like steel and cement that have traditionally accounted for half the country’s coal use... On top of that, as China’s leaders start to take global warming seriously, the country has been making massive investments in clean energy. As part of the Paris climate deal, China has pledged to get 20 percent of its energy from low-carbon sources by 2030. The government is planning to install an addition 130 gigawatts of wind and solar by 2020 and making big bets on nuclear power.”

Carbon dioxide emissions in the UK are falling. CO2 emission fell 5.8% in 2016 from the previous year. Current emissions represent a 36% reduction from 1990 levels, and are at their lowest level since 1894 (outside the 1920s general strikes).

Why? The decline of coal. Coal use in the UK has declined steadily from its peak in 1956, and has experienced a dramatic decline since 2012. Coal use in 2016 dropped 52% from 2015.

The reduction in coal use is a result of multiple factors. The biggest is the expanded use of natural gas and renewables displacing coal. Other factors include an overall reduction in energy demand, the closing of Redcar Steelworks in 2015, and the UK’s carbon tax.

Source

“[T]he frequency of coal retirements highlights the speed at which the nation’s utilities are changing the energy mix by replacing coal with natural gas and renewables, particularly wind. Few new coal plants are in the works to replace those that are being shut down...As a result of a confluence of factors, the coal industry’s decline has been a long time coming. The story of coal’s decline goes far beyond the false narrative that Trump and his EPA pick Scott Pruitt are advancing that points to EPA regulations as the sole reason for coal plant retirements.” - Devashree Saha and Sifan Liu

(continued from previous post)

The big story in Houser and Mohan's study is where these cleaner forms of energy are coming from that are responsible for half of the drop in emissions. It's generally assumed that the drop is a result of cleaner and cheap natural gas pushing out dirty coal. However, Houser and Mohan show that we shouldn't be counting out reneables.

Plumer:

Natural gas is indeed pushing out dirtier coal, and that makes a sizable difference (burning natural gas for electricity emits about half the carbon-dioxide that burning coal does). But wind farms are also sprouting up across the country, thanks to government subsidies. What’s more, industrial sites are burning more biomass for heat and electricity, while biofuels like ethanol are nudging out oil. All of that has done a lot to cut emissions.

The reduction in CO2 emissions from the energy sector in the U.S. over the past 5 years (see previous post) was due in large part to a reduction in emissions from coal. In 2009, the financial collapse led to diminished use of all fuel sources and greenhouse gas reductions across the board. Since then, the expanding use of natural gas has increased it's carbon footprint, but the decline in the use of coal and the subsequent decrease in greenhouse gas emissions associated with coal is remarkable. Coal is the most carbon-rich fossil fuel, so any declines from that source is good news for the climate.

Even as global carbon dioxide emissions hit a record high in 2012, CO2 emissions from energy generation in the United States fell to 1994 levels. This is a 13% decrease over the past 5 years. President Barack Obama has set a climate goal of lowering greenhouse gas emissions 17% from 2005 levels over the next decade. By the end of last year, levels were down 10.7% from the 2005 baseline, meaning America is more than halfway towards that goal.

The reductions come from a variety of places. It is, in part, because of new energy-saving technologies. In part because of a weakened economy. In part because of a growing share of renewables in the energy sector. And in part because cleaner natural gas is displacing carbon-rich coal.

While this is good news, there are some important caveats. 1.) This is only the U.S. Emissions are rising rapidly in other parts of the world. 2.) This is only CO2 emissions from energy production. This is a big source of greenhouse gas emissions, but not the only one. 3.) This rate of decline is probably not fast enough to avert the worst of climate change.

A recent report from the Energy Information Administration found that U.S. plant owners and operators are getting ready to retire 27 gigawatts’ worth of coal generation, or about 8.5 percent of the coal fleet, between now and 2016. Considering the substantial contribution of burning coal to climate change, coal plant retirements are one of the greatest ways to reduce carbon emissions.

This graph is pretty self-explanatory. See the article from the Atlantic for further explanation of why natural gas is overtaking coal.

From the International Energy Agency:

Global carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil-fuel combustion reached a record high of 31.6 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2011, according to preliminary estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA). This represents an increase of 1.0 Gt on 2010, or 3.2%. Coal accounted for 45% of total energy-related CO2 emissions in 2011, followed by oil (35%) and natural gas (20%).

From the Washington Post:

"There are two ways to think about the cost of energy. There’s the dollar amount that shows up on our utility bills or at the pump. And then there’s the “social cost” — all the adverse consequences that various energy sources... end up foisting on the public."

"The blue bars represent the current market cost of various energy sources. On top of that, Greenstone and Looney have added estimated health damages from air pollution (the purple bar), as well as the cost of climate-changing carbon emissions that come with burning fossil fuels (the gray bar)."

"At the end of the paper, Greenstone and Looney argue that the government should put a price on the social costs of fossil fuels — either through a cap on emissions or a tax. “If firms and consumers faced the full cost of their energy use,” they write, “they would have a greater incentive to make more-informed and socially efficient decisions about energy consumption.”"

While the coal industry is fighting Clean Water Act protections for rivers and streams from mountaintop removal mining (MTR), this 2011 poll of residents in Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia and Tennessee found strong support.

Other interesting results:

57% of voters oppose MTR; 20% support

64% of Democrats, 60% of independents and 51% of Republicans oppose MTR

While coal companies claim prohibition of or restrictions on mountaintop removal mining (MTR) will hurt rural Appalachian economies, this figure suggests MTR is failing to lift rural communities out of poverty. Considering MTR destroys the land, degrading property values and tourism, and imposes health costs on nearby residents, it is more likely MTR is hurting rural Appalachian economies far more than any attempts to stop it.

Let's look at the false choice too often portrayed in the media and by politicians of jobs vs. the environment in the context of mountaintop removal mining (MTR). Coal companies claim that any efforts to stop or restrict MTR will cost jobs and devastate economies in Appalachia. Yet, the graph above shows that as coal production has increased, employment of coal miners has decreased. This is because MTR replaces coal miners with big machinery and explosives. The reason coal companies like it is because it increases profits, in part by decreasing labor costs. Thus, it is MTR, not efforts to protect the environment by restricting MTR, that is destroying jobs in the mountains of Appalachia

Coal's share of U.S. electricity generation has been steadily declining, a result of market forces, particularly the low price of natural gas and the expense of building new coal plants. Since throughout its life cycle coal is arguably our dirtiest fuel source (from mountaintop removal mining, to mercury and air toxics released during combustion, to carbon emissions, to hazardous coal ash), a move away from reliance on coal benefits public health, the environment and the climate.

Idgaf if you don't want to write essays for school. I don't care if you don't want to write corporate emails yourself. I don't care if you can't draw well, I don't care if you can't write well, I don't care if you just really really want to talk to your favorite fictional character but don't want to RP with a real person because you have social anxiety or whatever

If you're still regularly using generative ai, chatgpt or midjourney or character.ai or literally whatever the fuck, im personally blaming you when my utility prices start going up.

Lost somewhere in the nowhere

Surrounded by wide snowfields

Shrouded in the veil of the night

Voices in the distance

With uncomprehensible words

Taking a hurtful breath

To call them for help

And my aching voice

Dies down in the endless white

The burning coal

Inside my chest

Still keeps me warm

But I wonder for how long

Some of my recent experimental work, I’ve been trying to break my usual way of making pieces so I don’t repeat myself too much.

I was really looking forward to Rolycoly’s evolution line, I wanted a train Pokemon really badly, but instead we got a mediocre kaiju

Oh well, I guess I made my own concept for a final evolution, Locoalmotive

OPUS MAGNUS

I forgot I doodled this when I was barely awake one night

"do not be friends or enemies with evil people. coal burns your hand when hot, blackens your hand when cold."

A new zine from Tipatzeha band called “Ponyatno”. This word in russian has so many meanings and intonations like “OK” in english, but if you want word-by-word translation is “Clearly”.