COP26: Climate deal sounds the death knell for coal power

The Glasgow climate deal is a "game-changing agreement" which sounds "the death knell for coal power", Boris Johnson says.

Although countries only agreed to "phase down" rather than "phase out" coal, the prime minister said this was a fantastic achievement.

The wording change was made after a late intervention by China and India.

But it remains the first time plans to reduce coal have been mentioned in such a climate deal.

COP26: Climate deal sounds the death knell for coal power

Coal is too widespread and too efficient to be done away with.
We'll still be burning coal long after these COP greenies are gone.

really irritates me. a bunch of first-world elites flying jets to hotel suites to pass judgment on poor third-worlders that can barely keep a roof over their heads and their kids fed.

The Human Race is hugely blessed to have coal and will continue to utilize it for many many years.

Please remove this reply. Accidental discharge.

From COP26 to FLOP46 😃

US coal shipments to China surge more than 30-fold amid Australian trade dispute

originally posted by: ElGoobero
Coal is too widespread and too efficient to be done away with.

What are you basing your efficiency claim on? The thermal output of coal for electricity generation is very poor.

a reply to: ElGoobero

Interesting that China and India got them to make that charge. China I'm not shocked by, India however apparently has more backbone than I thought.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Cost, likely.
Digging up old sun energy is easy compared to making your own.
Nuclear is good if done right, but doing it right is expensive...

originally posted by: lordcomac
Cost, likely.

It's efficiency is still poor. Nuclear far outstrips coal in all measures of efficiency and capacity.

a reply to: Hypntick

If coals phased out as power generation what would it then be used for? Its still a resource that has use. One thing that annoys me in this world is how instead of lets try and make the existing technology cleaner its thrown out the window all together much like how LED lights are when improving Halogen lighting would be a far better way forward as unlike LED lights Halogen doesn't kill your eye sight, actual improvements on incandescent.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: lordcomac
Cost, likely.

It's efficiency is still poor. Nuclear far outstrips coal in all measures of efficiency and capacity.

Nuclear outstrips everything. Coal has the advantage over gas in that it can be piled up next to the combustor whereas gas needs a pressure vessel (including underground) for storage. Advanced nuclear, such as the Thorium reactors and High Temperature Gas Reactors should be the wave of the future if anthropogenic carbon emissions are important. Historically, atmospheric temperature and CO2 concentrations don't correlate.
Wind and solar have too low an energy density and require 200-500 times the land area of a conventional plant of equivalent size. The Netherlands was disappointed to find out that they didn't have enough land area to have a totally renewable energy supply based on existing technology. Solar cells are not readily recyclable and only recently, windmill blades have been designed to be recyclable. There are piles of blades laying about. Renewable energy isn't as environmentally friendly or as problem free as most people think.

a reply to: ElGoobero

FYI: China and Russia didn't attend COP26

originally posted by: mammothtank
a reply to: Hypntick

If coals phased out as power generation what would it then be used for? Its still a resource that has use. One thing that annoys me in this world is how instead of lets try and make the existing technology cleaner its thrown out the window all together much like how LED lights are when improving Halogen lighting would be a far better way forward as unlike LED lights Halogen doesn't kill your eye sight, actual improvements on incandescent.

Coal can return to its previous use as a chemical feedstock. When we stop using petroleum for fuel we'll need a low cost source for the asphalt surfaced roads for all those electric cars. We'll only have to double our electrical output and distribution to electrify the fleet.
Alternatively, we can gasify coal to H2 and stuff the CO2 down a hole somewhere. Then we only need $3-5 trillion+ in infrastructure to distribute it. Making it into a liquid requires finding a better way to flip the ortho spin H2 molecules to para spin, maybe even before we liquefy it so the slow spin flip of o to p doesn't evaporate a goodly quantity of it.

originally posted by: pteridine
Nuclear outstrips everything.

I am very pro-nuclear, everything else is a joke compared to that.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: pteridine
Nuclear outstrips everything.

I am very pro-nuclear, everything else is a joke compared to that.

Common sense should eventually prevail with regards to permitting nuke designs. Right now we are using giant submarine power plants for electricity. We should approve a fixed number of designs, say a 10MW and a 250MW for starters. The 10MW is for a local grid and the 250MW is for a normal, base load power plant. One set of plans, no customizing. Chevys not Phaeton bodied Rolls Royce customs.
Then site permits are all that would be needed. If this still takes forever, the NIMBY set don't get any power while they think over the relative importance of the fate of the Snail Darter. If you want 1000 MW, put in a train of 4. Off peak can be anything such as electrowinning of metals, hydrogen production, charging electric vehicles, charging batteries or ultracapacitors for storage, electrocutions, etc., all happening external to the power plant. Once over the fence, it is not a nuke problem.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Despite living in NZ, i tend to agree modern nuclear power plant designs are much safer than 20 years ago. I find it hard to believe in the year 2021 that we still haven't really got nuclear powered rockets for space exploration.

After America spent millions for scrubbers to make coal a clean burning fuel China gets to burn all they want with zero pollution controls while we close clean and efficient plants. Makes sense, if you want to see China become the sole super power.

Whose going to replace the Coal to heat up homes, apartments, condos in the winter?

a reply to: HawkEyi

They have no replacement.
But they do have replacements for citizens who expect rights and other such nonsense.