JemmyThe coal industry is collapsing
www.forbes.com/sites/we-dont-have-time/2025/10/…
cross-posted from: https://piefed.social/c/climate/p/1393070/the-coal-industry-is-collapsing
14 Comments
Comments from other communities
Time for them to bring out the super coal!
AllNewTypeFaceI think that’s called uranium
Here’s a fact: Coal plants produce more radiation than nuclear plants, even if you take all the accidents into account.
magnetosphereI wouldn’t go so far as to call the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone a “nature preserve,” but…
in a similar note, the DMZ is also very similar, a nature safe haven for endemic species, that was largely extirpated from the rest of both koreas.
soloCoal plants produce more radiation than nuclear plants, even if you take all the accidents into account.
In a way yes, but only in the sense that nuclear waste is supposed to be well contained and stored for disposal. Still, the accidents are not taken into account, at least in the studies I took a look at. If you have any that says otherwise, please share.
Ah, I misspoke. Waste. @magnetosphere@fedia.io dropped this above.
The waste part, for some reason, I thought it was kinda implied.
The part that you say more or less that coal plants produce more radioactive waste than nuclear plants even if we take into account nuclear accidents, is the one that made me wonder tbh.
Btw, perhaps, one of the most famous papers about this topic was written in 1978 [abstract, full pdf], but it doesn’t even mention accidents. Actually, in the abstract they say that the study does not even asses, the total radiological impacts of a coal versus a nuclear economy.
I thought you might have a relevant paper to share about the accident part you mentionned?
Right up front, I want to sincerely thank you for insisting that I back up my claims. Not kidding, not internet sarcasm; I truly appreciate it.
Let’s take a look here.
According to Wikipedia, at Chernobyl:
An early estimate for total nuclear fuel material released to the environment was 3±1.5%; this was later revised to 3.5±0.5%. This corresponds to the atmospheric emission of 6 tonnes (5.9 long tons; 6.6 short tons) of fragmented fuel.
Data on Fukushima is more difficult to find, but the World Nuclear Association estimates that:
The 770 PBq figure is about 15% of the Chernobyl release of 5200 PBq iodine-131 equivalent.
While there remains uncertainty about the amount of radioactive material released from Fukushima, it’s certainly below half of what Chernobyl produced.
From the earlier posted link about coal power plants:
[E]very [coal power] station creates fly ash containing around 5-10 tonnes of uranium and thorium each year.
Now, I totally get that the kind of radioactive materials released by a nuclear accident are different from what comes out of coal plants, and that a concetrated release is more dire than a diluted one - but given that there are ~2500 coal-fired power plants in the world, that means that coal plants produce about 12,500 to 25,000 tons of radiactive material every year.
If what is certainly the worst nuclear disaster produced just 6 tons, I believe that “including accidents” is not inaccurate.
cRazi_manWe’ve already got uranium. I think super coal is unobtainium.
orcaGood. Remember, “two shots in the head. Make sure it’s dead.”
logiThat’s a really good read! Very positive despite certain groups trying to keep fossils relevant to milk profits a while longer, fuck em, hope this really is the turning point that clean energy takes the lead…
AndyI think this might be an unpopular take, but I think we – and I’m talking about activists and ecosocialists here – should be advocating for a just transition away from fossil fuels in places like Russia.
Reading the article, my first thought was gleeful schadenfreude. The people responsible for Russia’s coal industry are frankly monsters. They have so much blood on their hands for the human toll they have imposed on the climate, but also because they’re authoritarian war-mongers. And seeing them hoisted by their own petard is a wonderful thing to see.
But then my second thought was this: the workers in this industry are suffering badly, and will suffer worse. They are in an economic crisis that is getting worse, and ruled over by oligarchs who amplify all their suffering.
And then my third thought was of revolution. As much as we hate to admit it, revolution in the real world is a value-neutral proposition. In the face of awful circumstances, it’s hard to imagine the outcome of a revolution not being better. But that’s just a failure of imagination. This kind of event fuels revolution, but there’s no guarantee that such a revolution won’t simply move to another form of exploitation and barbarism. If we want the workers of Russia to be able to live lives of dignity and comfort, and we want the whole world to decarbonize as fast as possible, then I think that Russia needs access to the technologies and ideas that provide that. My point is that we should begin advocating for tech transfer.
Tech transfer to a regime like Putin’s? I don’t love it. But I think it needs considered.
Okay Coal barons! Line up for your taxpayer bailouts!
A HAHAHahahahaaaaaa! Ha! Maaaaan fuck them kids!
The Steampunk fandom is in shambles.
We can still have steam. And punk.
Honestly solar steampunk with big crazy arrays of glass lenses to focus sunlight onto tanks sounds like a hell of an aethstetic.
But with more brass and some elaborate power distribution network involving focusing beams of light and pupming water in place of electricity
MisterOwlit actually make sense, and has been known for a while, why they are invading ukraine, less reliance on russian oils and minerals have gotten vlad very concerned and flailing about his hold on the world. thats why he invaded ukraine he needs thier resources and upped his propaganda machine, and pressured his russian agents in the west.
The original title is,
Coal is dead, gas is not. It will be the resilient goddamn cockroach running along the floor because some clown with the keys to the European Parliament will always yell that we need base load coverage capacity in fossils.
Then we’ll import it at a stupid price from one genocidal maniac or the other and be told to be happy we are paying 8x the cost of pretty much any other modern production method. Worst part is, it’s just as dirty as coal when it comes shipped in.
Nah, it natural gas will become too expensive at some point too.
But it’s competing with batteries, not PV panels. So it will take a longer time ti get there.
This is a story about the coal industry in Russia.
Although predominantly about coal, it mentions the end of the fossil era and the hydrocarbon experts as a group.
The article cleverly uses the rut of coal too the rest of the fossil industry, but I think this is not (yet) the case.
Not only, if you read it, the article adresses the global market and price collapse in coal actions in the US as well.
You apparently edit the title which is now misleading.
So we need more Ukrainean special operations … /s
This article is specifically about russia’s coal industry, which is currently operating at a loss. It seems that it is only operating to create at least some foreign income, but a significant number of companies went bankrupt.
Globally, the usage of coal is expected to peak in the next few years. Some countries still rely quite a lot on coal, far more than what we in europe can imagine.
The linked Wiki page starts:
I guess the details are more complex. And I have seen the Ember report that showed that now USA out of fuck knows what reason increases coal even at the cost of gas.
I was referring to this sentence:
We probably can determine the peak only in hindsight, but based on China’s expansion of renewable energy alone, the age of needing 8 billion tonnes and more is probably over somewhere soon.
No, it is not only about Russian coal. If you read on, a few paragraphs later you find:
Hurray!
:)