As U.S. Cleans Its Energy Mix, It Ships Coal Problems Abroad - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The EIA estimates that due largely to the drop in coal-fired electricity, U.S. carbon emissions from burning fossil fuel declined 3.4 percent in 2012. If the numbers hold up, it will extend the downward trend that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) outlined last month in its annual greenhouse gas inventory, which found greenhouse gas emissions in 2011 had fallen 8 percent from their 2007 peak to 6,703 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (a number that includes sources other than energy, like methane emissions from agriculture). In fact, if you don't count the recession year of 2009, U.S. emissions in 2011 dropped to their lowest level since 1995. President Barack Obama counted the trend among his environmental accomplishments in his State of the Union address last month: "Over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen." The reason is clear: Coal, which in 2005 generated 50 percent of U.S. electricity, saw its share erode to 37.4 percent in 2012, according to EIA's new short-term energy outlook. An increase in U.S. renewable energy certainly played a role; renewables climbed in those seven years from 8.7 percent to 13 percent of the energy mix, about half of it hydropower. But the big gain came from natural gas, which climbed from 19 percent to 30.4 percent of U.S. electricity during that time frame, primarily because of abundant supply and low prices made possible by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The trend appears on track to continue, with U.S. coal-fired plants being retired at a record pace. [B]But U.S. coal producers haven't been standing still as their domestic market has evaporated.[/B] They've been shipping their fuel to energy-hungry markets overseas, from the ports of Norfolk, Baltimore, and New Orleans. Although demand is growing rapidly in Asia—U.S. coal exports to China were on track to double last year—Europe was the biggest customer, importing more U.S. coal last year than all other countries combined. The Netherlands, with Europe's largest port, Rotterdam, accepted the most shipments, on pace for a 24 jump in U.S. coal imports in 2012. The United Kingdom, the second largest customer, saw its U.S. coal imports jump more than 70 percent.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The [URL="http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/technical-report/2012/has-us-shale-gas-reduced-co2-emissions"]Tyndall Center study[/URL] estimates that the [B]burning of all that exported coal could erase fully half the gains the United States has made in reducing carbon emissions[/B]. For huge reserves of shale gas to help cut CO2 emissions, "displaced fuels must be reduced globally and remain suppressed indefinitely," the report said.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/03/130315-us-coal-exports/"]Energy markets, ladies and gentlemen.[/URL] No amount of feelgood bullshit about reducing your carbon emissions domestically means anything without considering what happened to all those nasty black rocks you decided not to burn.

Well, the U.S does have more coal than any other country in the world. I can't wait until the coal mines go out of business and stop ruining the Appalachians. [IMG]http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/mudriver.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=_Kent_;39961449]Well, the U.S does have more coal than any other country in the world. I can't wait until the coal mines go out of business and stop ruining the Appalachians. [/QUOTE] You're thinking of China.

[QUOTE=Stopper;39961540]You're thinking of China.[/QUOTE] No, he isn't. [IMG]http://www.worldcoal.org/media/jpg/585/115105new_fossil_fuel_reserves_to_go_on_where_is_coal_map2012.jpg[/IMG] China consumes the most and IIRC they put the most money into mining, but they don't have the most on hand.

Regardless of any of our power usage statistics, biofuel, solar, nuclear. None of it will matter until there's a global energy grid in which we can actually measure what fuel is putting in what intake. All the changes in the first world wont do diddly if every mom, pop, and Akbar are using impure glass, coal, and burning tires for their cooking and warmth.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;39961596]No, he isn't. [IMG]http://www.worldcoal.org/media/jpg/585/115105new_fossil_fuel_reserves_to_go_on_where_is_coal_map2012.jpg[/IMG] China consumes the most and IIRC they put the most money into mining, but they don't have the most on hand.[/QUOTE] Yes, he is. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_by_country[/url]

[QUOTE=Stopper;39962397]Yes, he is. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_by_country[/url][/QUOTE] wat [img]http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/6200/nkcoal.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Stopper;39962397]Yes, he is. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_by_country[/url][/QUOTE] I meant reserves. [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/2007_Coal_Reserves_in_BTUs.png[/t] [editline]18th March 2013[/editline] Note that the US is darker blue than China.

[QUOTE=Stopper;39962397]Yes, he is. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_by_country[/URL][/QUOTE] No, he isn't. That page cites a BP spreadsheet from 2006 which, in addition to being out of date, is also used incorrectly. "Proved recoverable coal reserves at end-2006" does not lead with China. [TABLE] [TR] [TD][/TD] [TD][B]Anthracite and bituminous [/B][/TD] [TD][B]Sub-bituminous and Lignite[/B][/TD] [TD][B]Total[/B][/TD] [TD][B]Share of Global Total[/B][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]USA[/TD] [TD]111,338 million tonnes[/TD] [TD]135,305 million tonnes[/TD] [TD]246,643 million tonnes[/TD] [TD]27.1%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]China[/TD] [TD]62,200 million tonnes[/TD] [TD]52,300 million tonnes[/TD] [TD]114,500 million tonnes[/TD] [TD]12.6%[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] I assume, unlike the Wiki editors, you actually know what numbers mean.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;39964027]No, he isn't. That page cites a BP spreadsheet from 2006 which, in addition to being out of date, is also used incorrectly. "Proved recoverable coal reserves at end-2006" does not lead with China. [TABLE] [TR] [TD][/TD] [TD][B]Anthracite and bituminous [/B][/TD] [TD][B]Sub-bituminous and Lignite[/B][/TD] [TD][B]Total[/B][/TD] [TD][B]Share of Global Total[/B][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]USA[/TD] [TD]111,338 million tonnes[/TD] [TD]135,305 million tonnes[/TD] [TD]246,643 million tonnes[/TD] [TD]27.1%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]China[/TD] [TD]62,200 million tonnes[/TD] [TD]52,300 million tonnes[/TD] [TD]114,500 million tonnes[/TD] [TD]12.6%[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] I assume, unlike the Wiki editors, you actually know what numbers mean.[/QUOTE] Man, you take Wikipedia as granted-for-true so often that it's mystifying to see it debunked.

[QUOTE=_Kent_;39961449]Well, the U.S does have more coal than any other country in the world. I can't wait until the coal mines go out of business and stop ruining the Appalachians. [IMG]http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/mudriver.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] I hate my county. They all voted to elect Corbett because he was for coal production in the state, but they have actually halted wind production down the spines of our mountains because "It destroys the natural beauty." Fuck stupid people.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39964148]Man, you take Wikipedia as granted-for-true so often that it's mystifying to see it debunked.[/QUOTE] People often are too lazy to correct it or whine on talk page [sub][sub]like me[/sub][/sub]

[QUOTE=valkery;39964422]I hate my county. They all voted to elect Corbett because he was for coal production in the state, but they have actually halted wind production down the spines of our mountains because "It destroys the natural beauty." Fuck stupid people.[/QUOTE] Ha, and sawing the tops off mountains while dumping slurry into the stream system doesn't?

No suprise there. Hell, Canada is still a major exporter of asbestos.

[I]At least America's air will be clean![/I] :v:

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;39964027]No, he isn't. That page cites a BP spreadsheet from 2006 which, in addition to being out of date, is also used incorrectly. "Proved recoverable coal reserves at end-2006" does not lead with China. ... I assume, unlike the Wiki editors, you actually know what numbers mean.[/QUOTE] It seems those numbers were added by somebody at a school in Western Australia, reverted for being incorrect, then somebody in Perth reverted the revert claiming the numbers were properly sourced. Seems that it's one of the few articles the Wiki editors don't watch like a hawk.

[QUOTE=valkery;39964422]I hate my county. They all voted to elect Corbett because he was for coal production in the state, but they have actually halted wind production down the spines of our mountains because "It destroys the natural beauty." Fuck stupid people.[/QUOTE] Corbett is just a fucking asshole in general. He's cut education to pretty much nothing, he's destroying the environment, he has corruption written pretty all over him; I don't even understand what people see in this guy.