Will Coronavirus finish off coal ?

[studiot]

 

Will Coronavirus finish off coal ?

Asks this BBC article on the day the UK has not burned any coal for electricity for 60 days.

Apparently it says that India has

Quote

Even in India, one of the fastest growing users of coal, demand for the fuel has fallen dramatically, helping deliver the first reduction in the country's carbon dioxide emissions for 37 years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52968716

Edited June 9, 2020 by studiot

[joigus]

Yes, but the author also says,

Quote

Coal plays a big part in China's latest five-year plan, with a potential 20% increase in the size of the coal sector.

It is also helping fund coal-fired power stations in many developing countries as part of the so-called belt and road initiative.

In India, the government is finalising a multi-billion-dollar coronavirus stimulus package that will include assistance for some parts of the coal sector.

Which leaves us in a strange limbo.

 

The limbo picture is the one lingering in my mind.

Also, I fail to see what the coronavirus has to do with coal in and of itself. Many other industries have been affected by CoVid19. In the energy department, oil, for example.

I find the article wanting in the causal analysis.

[Ken Fabian]

Post coronavirus investment decisions could involve significant divestment from coal but I think that is more a continuation of pre-pandemic changes. Renewable energy can be a beneficiary of governments providing short term economic stimulus - projects tend to have relatively short planning and build times and that will make them appealing, whilst avoiding the opposition that new coal or gas investments will attract. A big element of gesture politics; I remain doubtful it will be deep political commitment to the transition to low emissions driving such choices.

The growth of RE hasn't been built on deep mainstream political commitment; imo it looked more like a combination of "give em enough rope" and gesture politics, both of which tended to reinforce the popular (and politically expedient) perception that the issue was driven by fringe politics, and especially by unreasonable and unreasoning Environmentalists. Very few pundits expected wind and solar to deliver useful electricity, let alone do it at costs competitive with fossil fuels but once that line got crossed all presumptions that electricity producers would not willingly take it up went out the window. Certainly no cost comparisons (and predictions) based on historic data - even more than a few years old - remains valid in the face of that.

Myself, I think Environmentalists have done what Environmentalists should when science confirmed we have a serious problem with modern humanity's biggest waste stream - CO2 waste; ie made a huge fuss about it. It is mainstream politics that has been unreasonable and unreasoning and has failed to live up to minimum expectations for trust, responsibility and accountability.