40% of US electricity is now emissions-free

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/12/40-of-us-electricity-is-now-emissions-free/

by MilnerRoute • 3 years ago

132 175 3 years ago

arstechnica.com

vinniepukh3• 3 years ago

I like the term “emissions-free”.

It keeps our eyes on the target - not emitting CO2 and other gasses to the atmosphere.

Other qualities like “renewablility” or “greenness” are cherries in the top. Nice to haves!

foolfoolz• 3 years ago

it downplays the negative impacts of dams. dams prevent sediment from flowing to the ocean which leads to sand loss and erosion

ehnto• 3 years ago

Which isn't trivial but there is no perfect solution, even wind and solar have externalities. We will always have some impact on the planet, but I will take erosion over a totally broken ecosystem. Erosion is inevitable over time, and if we don't reduce emissions and the seas rise, erosion will be abit of a moot point.

mmazing3• 3 years ago

Every choice we make has compromises, but I think coal pollution is magnitudes worse than soil erosion.

One affects the entire environment with air pollution, and the other affects a localized area by modifying terrain.

redundantly• 3 years ago

I wonder what is worse: the consumption of sand for manufacturing, construction, and man-made islands & beaches or the loss of sand generation that dams cause.

polotics• 3 years ago

Also btw about dams: they kill! a great deal of a lot more death and also lost land because of dams than all deaths and land loss issues with nuclear.

rocqua7• 3 years ago

We can do without beaches. We can give up some land, and some spawning grounds for fish. If it means we can help against global warming, it is clearly the lesser of two evils.

globalnode2• 3 years ago

i agree, but i also dislike the term "natural gas" sure its natural just like everything in the universe is -- just a bit of greenwashing to go with our CO2 emissions

zyl1n• 3 years ago

What does natural gas have to do with greenwashing? It is naturally occurring gas; different from other hydrocarbon gas that is man-made.

ivan_gammel8• 3 years ago

Saying that it is “greenwashing” is ridiculous. The gas is called natural because when it was discovered it came from nature, not from manufacturing by heating coal. This name is older than marketing or green politics and it is quite natural way to call this gas.

nicoburns• 3 years ago

"natural gas" is a historical term, to contrast with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas

ekianjo3• 3 years ago

"natural gas"

Gas can be created by many other means (combustion, chemistry, etc). Natural gas means it's gas that is found "as is" without any kind of synthesis.

iraqmtpizza5• 3 years ago

electric cars are greenwashing. not that CO2 is actually a problem, but if it were and it was even mildly urgent you would be rightly yelling for more natural gas. because that actually kills coal plants while electric cars are responsible for increased coal usage

skrebbel• 3 years ago

If only you folks would stop using the word “gas” for car fuel, which isn't a gas at all, then you could drop the prefix “natural” without confusion like in the rest of the world.

SllX• 3 years ago

People’s perceptions around the word “natural” has always been a bit unnatural to me. Plenty of things, good, bad, and every gradation in-between are “natural”, but the word itself got greenwashed somewhere along the way.

Having a few terms like “natural gas” as a way to counteract people’s perceptions of the niceness of “natural” isn’t so bad.

weebull• 3 years ago

It's because Americans use the term "gas" to mean the liquid fuel they put in their cars. In the UK it's just "gas".

It would be far better if we called it methane, but that's not really accurate either. It might contain ethane, propane, butane pentane and hexane. A lot of that stuff is condensed out before use, but not all.

uxp8u61q5• 3 years ago

CO2 and methane ("emissions") is one target. A very important one, but let's not forget the other concerns altogether - plastic pollution, contamination of the environment through mineral extraction, etc.

The only path forward is a drastic reduction in overall consumption. Even if we reach 100% emissions-free electricity, we'll end up with an unlivable planet anyway if we don't focus on the other issues too. If we limit warming to 1,5°C — which isn't even realistic anymore — what good will it do to us if our water and arable land are contaminated beyond repair?

anovikov2• 3 years ago

But well, the goal is about increasing consumption. No matter if we like it or not, it will increase massively - probably more than an order of magnitude overall - this century, simply because countries that are now poor, will no longer be so once massive amounts of renewable energy become the norm. We have to decrease pollution while also quickly increasing consumption - probably at same rate as in the "main" fossil fuel era - in 1870..1970, between oil becoming a thing, and Arab embargo.

rocqua7• 3 years ago

If that is the case, we are fucked anyway.

There is no way 80% of the planet is willing to give up any comfort to stave off future ecological problems they cannot feel yet. We saw how much effort it took with global warming, and I doubt that will have made subsequent changes for the better easier. In fact, I suspect a lot of 'what, there is another thing wrong according to the scientific bozo's even though I can't see it' that will make people more resistant.

Actually reducing consumption globally won't happen. Not until it is too late. The best we can do is slow down consumption, and make consumption better. We have seen decent improvements in plastic free packaging. And power draw of devices is also getting much more attention. One big point here is pricing in externalities. That will push people into the less damaging choices.

Not to say that we should give up, nor to say that we should be quiet about other issues, nor even to say that people shouldn't reduce their consumption. My point is that a global reduction of consumption isn't going to happen voluntarily, and therefore shouldn't be the solution we pursue.

vincvinc• 3 years ago

upvoted you not because I 100% agree but your (completely reasonable) comment looks to have been downvoted very heavily.

I do feel there needs to be space to discuss what kinds of reductions of consumption make sense, esp for rich countries.

influx• 3 years ago

Great, when are you giving up your computer and internet connection?

Dalewyn• 3 years ago

Assuming this includes solar panels, windmills, dams, et al. their ecological negatives are very conveniently evaded with such terminology.

rocqua7• 3 years ago

Good. We need to solve global warming a lot more than we need to reduce the kind of ecological damage done by dams, panels, and windmills.

If we refuse to choose the lesser of two evils, we will be fucked.

dotancohen3• 3 years ago

The ecological impact of windmills and dams do not present a threat to the existence of human civilization as we know it.

ekianjo3• 3 years ago

I like the term “emissions-free”.

Because it's false? Nothing is emissions-free: making solar panels and wind turbines create emissions, and since they are all made in China, just transporting them around the world where they are used cause emissions as well. And when they become garbage they are shipped once more around the world to be disposed (and not recycled). So it's only "emissions-free" if you ignore the whole supply chain.

sedatk• 3 years ago

I think the term's used for "emissions-free when running", not "emissions free during manufacturing".

YPPH• 3 years ago

This argument lacks substance. Are you suggesting the benefits of emissions-free operation are set-off, wholly or to a substantial degree, by the emissions produced in the manufacture of those products? The answer is clearly "no". There is a net benefit. That is all that is needed, and it's not a marginal benefit, it's significant.

bamboozled• 3 years ago

Well everything that burns fossil fuels also needs to be built, therefore also is part of the problem, the difference is they have ongoing emissions where as something like a wind turbine doesn’t.

fsh• 3 years ago

I think this concern is often vastly exaggerated. Even with current "dirty" production and transport, renewables have orders of magnitude lower lifetime emissions than fossil fuels. And this will only get better once production and transport increasingly use renewable energy.

jacquesm2• 3 years ago

since they are all made in China

High grade bullshit stated with confidence.

adrianN11• 3 years ago

Most wind turbines are made in China, because China is installing most wind turbines. Nobody ships 120m long blades around the world, it's hard enough to ship them within one country.

andsoitis• 3 years ago

So it's only "emissions-free" if you ignore the whole supply chain.

Actually, burning natural gas does result in emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2).

About 117 pounds of CO2 are produced per million British thermal units (MMBtu) equivalent of natural gas compared with more than 200 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu of coal and more than 160 pounds per MMBtu of distillate fuel oil.

Source: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/natural-gas-...

The article also specifically says that natural gas is not emissions-free: "The explosive growth of natural gas in the US has been a big environmental win, since it creates the least particulate pollution of all the fossil fuels, as well as the lowest carbon emissions per unit of electricity. But its use is going to need to start dropping soon if the US is to meet its climate goals, so it will be critical to see whether its growth flat lines over the next few years."

vinniepukh3• 3 years ago

it's referring to "marginal emissions" per unit energy produced

abenga2• 3 years ago

I don't understand the arguments that "solar panels and wind turbines use mined resources and are transported around the world". And coal, oil, and gas waft down into our arms from trees in the backyard?

maelito• 3 years ago

Good thing ! 60 % to go urgently.

The US has the biggest responsability on this planet, being the largest rich country, having emitted more than twice the CO2 per capita of Europe in the recent decades.

Can't expect pour countries to go quicker than the US.

Scarblac2• 3 years ago

Much more than 60% to go, as all the non-electricity fossil fuel use (heating, transport, industry) will also need to be replaced by emissions free electric alternatives.

jupp0r2• 3 years ago

It doesn't have to be electric, thermal is fine too where appropriate.

Gibbon1• 3 years ago

Yeah I roughly guesstimate we need about 4 to 5 times as much as we currently have installed. Bright side is the various technologies we need are developed and in production.

ZeroGravitas2• 3 years ago

On the bright side, this makes intermediate progress simpler in some ways.

You can replace say, gas powered heating with heat pumps and transfer the gas to storage for use in electric generators for when demand and supply diverge.

These transitions can be done in parallel but once you hit a certain degree of carbon free electricity it makes sense to redirect focus to shift towards electrification as things that may have been borderline become viable.

ozr• 3 years ago

This is just wrong. Looking at 2016, the US isn't even in the top 10 per capita, and it's behind 4 EU states.

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...

seydor• 3 years ago

Great. How about the % of energy consumption?

ZeroGravitas2• 3 years ago

Being careful to use "final energy" not "primary energy" as the measure. You don't want to be worrying about replacing all the energy that is currently wasted as heat when electrification can be 4x as efficient partly by avoiding that waste entirely.

divbzero2• 3 years ago

Looking at the trend since 1950, I’m struck by two details:

1. We reached peak coal in 2007. Coal generation has declined since.

2. We reached a consumption plateau also in 2007. Electricity use has been more or less level since.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...

The neighboring chart that tracks renewables since 1950 is also interesting. Growth in renewables really started around 2007 with growth in wind being the primary contributor. Growth in solar has made a smaller but significant contribution in the past decade or so.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...

mmazing3• 3 years ago

Those are interesting indeed. I would have thought cryptocurrency farming might have made a blip on there somehow but seems not.

I wonder how those charts compare with the rest of the world?

jsiepkes• 3 years ago

I don't think you can draw those conclusions.

For example without crypto you might have seen a decline due to more efficient products such as LED's.

davedx• 3 years ago

No idea why you were downvoted. Crypto has had a significant impact on electricity demand, I'd be interested to see if it was visible too.

mytailorisrich3• 3 years ago

Crypto mining in the US consumes 1-1.5% of electricity [1]. This is very small to show on graphs like these ones. If there is a downward trend on electricity consumption it probably just dampens it slightly.

Now, with EVs on the other hand, consumption will probably pick up a lot.

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/09/08/fact....

mytailorisrich3• 3 years ago

The story with coal is that it has been replaced mostly by natural gas. Probably a lot to do with the shale gas boom.

rich_sasha3• 3 years ago

I wonder, does nat gas release less CO2 per MWh or sth? Because coal is mostly carbon, which can only get burnt to CO2, but eg methane is one carbon, four hydrogens per molecule. Still mostly carbon by weight I guess...

adrianN11• 3 years ago

Hopefully electricity use will soon start to climb as more sectors are electrified.

jsbisviewtiful• 3 years ago

2. We reached a consumption plateau also in 2007. Electricity use has been more or less level since.

What’s even wilder about this is the population of earth just hit an estimated 8 billion total. The US population isn’t 100% indicative of the whole planet, but one of the largest superpowers balancing out despite further planetary growth is a great sign.

divbzero2• 3 years ago

“The US population isn’t 100% indicative of the whole planet” is an excellent point to keep in mind. The US economy has trended towards exporting services and importing goods, and the electricity used to produce imported goods does not contribute to domestic usage.

andy_ppp3• 3 years ago

The astonishing amount of gas being flared off from US shale production can be seen from space. Nobody is actually reducing emissions as far as I can tell, we are running the experiment of far more that 2°C increases in temperature. What should we expect to happen at say 3.5°C?

hanniabu2• 3 years ago

What should we expect to happen at say 3.5°C?

More meetings and deliberations

simonhorlick• 3 years ago

Anything about 2C is extremely risky for civilised society. It’s likely that we’ve already surpassed the tipping point for the West Antarctic ice sheet which over time will lead to meters of sea level rise. Changing weather patterns and simultaneous breadbasket failures will mean food becomes a lot more expensive - if you’re lucky enough to have access to it at all. At 3.5C many places on the planet become uninhabitable. People aren’t able to work outside for much of the year due to wet bulb temperatures. Regular storm surge causes a large percentage of the planets population to migrate. Salination of ground water and water for crop irrigation becomes a serious problem. Mountain glaciers that provide clean drinking water for millions of people dry up. In all, it’s hard to see a situation where we’d be able to maintain a reasonable quality of life under the conditions of >2C of warming.

logicchains• 3 years ago

At 3.5C many places on the planet become uninhabitable

Which places in particular? Here in the middle east temperatures regularly get up to 45-50 degrees celsius in the summer and people get by okay. Most places have average temperatures much lower than that, so how would a rise of just 3-4 degress make then uninhabitable?

chrisco2552• 3 years ago

We're nowhere near any such levels. Temperature trends are roughly 0.13C per decade and have not accelerated in spite of the bigger issue of nations like China and India expanding global coal demand.

adrianN11• 3 years ago

Climate scientists disagree, see for example the IPCC reports. Or here https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/

ekianjo3• 3 years ago

astonishing amount of gas being flared off from US shale production can be seen from space

Everything can be seen from space...

badpun4• 3 years ago

Except for things covered with e.g. tree canopy.

rocqua7• 3 years ago

Diffraction limits truly prevent seeing an ant from space.

andy_ppp3• 3 years ago

Okay, if you want to be pedantic, 1.3% of all CO2 emissions come from gas flaring (500 Million Tonnes annually on roughly 37.15 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted). Seems like a lot to me at a time when we are meant to be reducing all greenhouse gasses. It might be better to build power stations near these shale deposits to reduce coal and use this resource rather than pollution for no gain.

iraqmtpizza5• 3 years ago

First you claim to care about CO2 emissions, then you're mad when natural gas emits a bit of light pollution while eliminating coal and wood burning

andy_ppp3• 3 years ago

The gas from shale oil production is just pure pollution, it's not being used for anything so they burn it off into the atmosphere.

once_inc2• 3 years ago

Natural gas flaring requires you to consider two things:

1. Flaring isn't efficient. You only burn about 90% of the gas, the rest leaks into the atmosphere.

2. Gas includes Methane. Methane is a 10x more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, though it lasts considerably less long (about 10y i believe).

This means that a single well flaring methane is emitting just as much as 10 wells just releasing co2 into the air. To combat this, we need to install an internal combustion engine attached to something to bleed the energy generated by the engine into something else.

Traditionally, this is not something affordable. There is a significant upfront cost, and very few solutions to use the energy, as most of these installations are far removed from the grid.

Luckily, there is a new solution that can make this a profitable situation for everyone. It is rapidly seeing more interest, and it is even powering a system that can benefit everyone in the world: Bitcoin mining.

Bitcoin mining requires cheap, dependable energy. It doesn't require a grid connection, and adding a satellite connection is enough to start mining. You can drive a single container full of mining ASICs onsite, and maintenance is mostly possible off-site.

uxp8u61q5• 3 years ago

I'm confused, GP didn't say anything about CO2 emissions specifically. GP said "emissions". Methane emissions are bad too.

itishappy3• 3 years ago

Flaring does not eliminate coal or wood burning, it does not generate electricity or heat. We burn usable natural gas for no direct benefit in order to produce more oil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_petroleum_gas

Ericson2314• 3 years ago

Will be interesting when we start hitting the storage binding constraint.

megamike• 3 years ago

eVinci™ Microreactor Westinghouse is currently developing the eVinci™ Microreactor, a next-generation, micro-modular reactor for decentralized remote applications. https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/evinci-mi...

gtirloni• 3 years ago

What's the next target once all our electricity is "emissons-free" but climate continues to get worse?

Ringz• 3 years ago

Capture co2

dgellow2• 3 years ago

Improve infrastructure, make humanity more resilient.

And massively invest in research to find realistic ways to improve the situation (aka not the current concept of carbon capture)

advisedwang• 3 years ago

Work on the other sources of greenhouse gases, ie transport, construction, industry, agriculture etc. Many of which will depend on clean electricity in order to decarbonize successfully.

kakaz• 3 years ago

More taxes and bailouts to green companies. Gods of climate ask for that

badpun4• 3 years ago

Can you name some bailouts to green companies so far? I've never heard of that.

adrianN11• 3 years ago

We switch sectors that still burn fossil fuels to use electricity or hydrogen instead.

nozzlegear• 3 years ago

Pina2bo! A big ol gun shooting sulfur into the atmosphere.

aksss• 3 years ago

Global barrels per day demand globally still going up, not flatlining, not going down. It’s great that demand isn’t rising at a faster rate. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

utkarsh858• 3 years ago

The 40% electricity is emissions free, but it has more adverse effects on environment than fossil fuels. Solar panels, once they break down its difficult to dispose of them without harming the environment. The metals in batteries like lithium, cobalt etc are very harmful for people and environment when they are mined. So not something much to be happy about. We need more innovation.

Gare• 3 years ago

but it has more adverse effects on environment than fossil fuels

Does it really? Or are your claims just baseless fearmongering? What are your sources that back up those claims?

jillesvangurp• 3 years ago

Nonsense, solar panels are recyclable and mostly consist of silicon. Batteries are recyclable and are in fact being recycled. Even lead batteries are recycled. And lithium batteries are a lot more valuable to recycle. Cobalt free batteries are now quite common.

Compared to the staggering amounts of emissions, pollution, and environmental destruction; and indeed countless of people whose health is destroyed by that caused by the fossil fuel industry, mining related to batteries is nothing. It doesn't register as anywhere near similar in scope or impact. Most mining and mineral extraction is coal. Then you get a bit of iron ore and other metals. And then some long way into the long tail of mining you'll find lithium extraction. The amount of lithium mined per year is measured in the hundreds of thousands of tonnes. The amount of coal mined per year is billions of tonnes. All of that is burned. The lithium on the other hand is nearly 100% recyclable. Once extracted, it stays useful.

adrianN11• 3 years ago

In contrast fossil fuels are created in Santa‘s workshop by elves and have no environmental impact at all.

duckmysick• 3 years ago

The metals in batteries like lithium, cobalt etc are very harmful for people and environment when they are mined.

How harmful are they exactly? Like how many deaths/how much damage in $ per ton mined - and how does it compare to other metals or coal?

timbit42• 3 years ago

While ground and water pollution are bad, air pollution is critical. Let's worry about reducing air pollution now and worry about ground and water pollution secondarily.

ngcc_hk• 3 years ago

2008 is the raise of china and that might be a key reason for the decline of industrial use of electricity. You export your pollution etc to the communist and think that it is ok. It is not.

RecycledEle• 3 years ago

No, it's not.

40% of US electricity is now emissions-free

Related Stories