The report I took the data from does not quantitatively specifie the "Other", but most of it is co-generation of heat and power with other fuels mainly wood, municipal waste and biogas. There is a small amount of energy from hydro and solar.

Natural gas may be an alternative to Coal as it burns more cleanly than oil and coal as well as produces less carbon dioxide per unit of energy released. Beside this, we may also think for solar, wind,nuclear and geothermal energy as substitute of Coal.

The position of International Energy Agency (https://www.iea.org/topics/coal/) seems to me to be relevant: “Coal supplies a third of all energy used worldwide and makes up 40% of electricity generation, as well as playing a crucial role in industries such as iron and steel. Despite legitimate concerns about air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, coal use will continue to be significant in the future. Therefore greater efforts are needed by government and industry to embrace less polluting and more efficient technologies to ensure that coal becomes a much cleaner source of energy in the decades to come.”

The EU already committed on the Paris Agreement to phase out coal from the electricity sector. Several countries are already changing their plants and one of the suggestions is to use biomass instead. However, the calorific number of biomass is still lower than the one of coal which is not convincing for many.

If they use natural gas, yes it will be less polluting but again they will depend on Russia and Middle East for their supply. There is always politics behind and the US is not supporting much reducing the dependency on coal because they have more than 20% of the total reserve of coal.

The coal is a highly pollutant fossil fuel, but it is relatively cheap as you mentioned. In addition, the coal resource is expected to last much more time than other fossil resources. Consequently, the clean production of electricity using coal forms is still among the focal points. I don't think that such a resource will be neglected in the near future.

Dear Fazleh Mahomed, Thank you very much for asking this very important question.

Question:

Should we stop using Coal as a source of energy?

this is a very important issue that requires scientific research.

It seems to me that it is good that there was a discussion in the question of this question. This is a very interesting and scientifically important topic. Because the topic is very important so I still read the answers, I follow the interesting discussion.

The problem is when the economically weak, small domestic economy has only traditional energy minerals, such as hard coal or lignite, and there are no developed different forms of renewable energy sources.

I answer an interesting question:

The problem is when the economically weak, small domestic economy has only traditional energy minerals, such as hard coal or lignite, and there are no developed different forms of renewable energy sources. In such a situation, there is a lack of financial resources for switching energy to renewable energy sources so as to move towards sustainable development according to the philosophy of the new, green economy, in order to limit the emission of greenhouse gases.

I invite you to the discussion

The warming of the Earth's climate is already a fact and is a serious growing problem. Therefore, renewable energy sources should be developed. Rich countries should support countries characterized by weaker economy, lower incomes and based on traditional energy technologies. It is therefore necessary to strengthen international cooperation in the area of ​​promotion, support and financing of investment projects, thanks to which it will be possible to develop renewable energy sources in the future and aim at sustainable pro-ecological development.

I invite you to the discussion

The above discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

Will changing the entire energy, communication and industry to renewable energy sources and ecological technologies significantly slow down the greenhouse effect on Earth?

Does any of you conduct research in this area? Apparently, the greenhouse effect is an irreversible process. the only thing that can be done is to slow down this process and thus adverse weather anomalies, unusual atmospheric phenomena, disasters caused by climate change. The development of industry based on traditional energy sources, ie burning of minerals, still dominates in many regions of the world. In domestic terms, the management of economies often boils down to economic growth, development of the industry without taking into account environmental protection issues and analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. In national economic policies, the tendency of the race is dominating for a higher number of economic growth, and the negative effects of this growth are forgotten. An attitude is assumed that the next generations are worried about how to solve this problem. Such an approach will accelerate only the negative effects of the global greenhouse effect and the emergence of disasters and natural disasters about the sources of climate change in a larger part of the world. More and more often the question is asked: how can we stop this process only as this process of warming up of average temperatures on Earth could be slowed down? What scale of this downturn could be generated if mankind would start to take this problem seriously? Does any of you conduct research in this area? Has any of you developed a theoretical model that would answer the question: Will switching all energy, communication and industry to renewable energy sources and ecological technologies significantly slow down the greenhouse effect on Earth?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

In addition, I note the interesting discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

Will it be possible in the future to fully sustain economic development in harmony with ecology?

Sustainable development is very important in the context of the increasing use of resources and environmental pollution.

The basic issue that must be achieved within the framework of full sustainable development is the renewal of resources, reduction of economic growth to the optimal level ensuring renewable resources, reduction of environmental pollution, creation of biodegradable substitutes for fossil fuels, replacement of traditional energy based on mineral combustion for technological innovations in in the field of energy, including the development of energy based on renewable energy sources of renewable energy, etc. To this should be added a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to slow down the negative aspects of the oceogenic climate of the Earth. There is so much to do in these themes and, above all, a great deal to do in the 21st century so that it would not be too late.

To effectively carry out this process, it is necessary to develop universal, precise measures of sustainable development that will be used globally and will be recognized as the standards for assessing the process of achieving and achieving sustainable economic development in harmony with ecology.

But it is very difficult to establish precise measures for the sustainable development process. Sustainable economic development in correlation with ecology should be measured to determine if it is being implemented. It is necessary to define precise determinants that on one hand will determine the pace of economic development and on the other hand will take into account specific issues of ecology. It should be a set of quantified indicators based on selected measurable and quantitative data, so that the whole analytical process can be considered as a research objective method. The best solution will therefore be to develop an analytical scoring method, for which the basic components of this method will be defined economic and ecological quantitative indicators.

In the light of the above, the question arises: Is sustainable development possible taking into account the full harmony of economic development with ecology?

Even if it is unrealistic, what are the reasons for building a theoretical model that would present such a fully balanced development?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion

Will man manage to create innovative technologies of renewable energy sources, which will stop the greenhouse effect on Earth?

Every year new sources of clean energy and technologies are created. New, innovative technologies in the field of renewable energy are being created. The existing technologies of renewable energy sources have been successively improved in the direction of creating more and more economically efficient and energy-saving technological solutions. New patents and innovative technological solutions are being created. New types of materials used in new energy sources devices are being discovered. The main determinant of technological progress in this field should be the process of implementing the most energy-saving technologies on the industrial scale and promoted for industrial implementation and the transport sector should be sources of energy under RES that will emit the least harmful external effects to the planet Earth environment.

In view of the above, the current question is: Will man manage to create and develop on a mass scale in industry and energy innovative technologies of renewable energy sources, through which will stop the greenhouse effect on Earth?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

What next with the global warming of the Earth's climate?

The report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that greenhouse gas levels on the globe are the highest in 800,000 years. Further emission, which arises according to the authors of the report mainly due to the combustion of fossil fuels, will lead to climate changes, which will be the greater, the more intensive will be the release of gases into the atmosphere. The report is a synthesis of earlier findings of the IPCC.

The conducted prognostic analyzes show that if the industrial development proceeds in the same way as before, i.e. without the implementation of eco-innovations, without reducing greenhouse gas emissions, etc. there is a risk that by 2050 the average temperature on the Earth's surface may increase by another one degrees ° C. It would have been an increase in the average temperature on the surface of the Earth from the end of the first industrial revolution, from the beginning of the 20th century by two degrees ° C. Then the pace of climate change will increase so much that the global warming process can escape any control and then the person will not be able to stop or significantly slow down this process. In such a dark scenario, the average temperature on the surface of the Earth until the end of the twenty-first century may increase by as much as four degrees ° C. Then it will be several times the increase of any negative external effects of climate change on the current state. Slak of emerging climatic cataclysms, including tornadoes, droughts, volcanic eruptions, melting of glaciers in chains of mountain peaks and in the arctic circle region at the Arctic will significantly accelerate. The melting of eternal decay in the Arctic region will release further millions of tons of methane and the greenhouse effect will accelerate even further and in the XXII century an increase in the average temperature on the Earth's surface can achieve a geometric pace. Then it will be a disaster not only for human civilization but also for a large part of life forms on Earth. Pradoxically, man as a rational, intelligent being who, evolutionarily gained an advantage over all other forms of life on Earth and subordinated the whole planet to itself, may lead to self-destruction. Or maybe it is not too late to implement a new eco-friendly economy to at least try to stop greenhouse gas emissions and reverse unfavorable global warming processes? It is therefore necessary to promote and implement the principles of sustainable development within the framework of the new green economy.

Please, answer the following questions:

What next with the global warming of the Earth's climate?

Please reply. I invite you to the discussion

Chart. Global Warming. CO2 emissions of greenhouse gases, a forecast of the increase in the average temperature on Earth. Source: NOAA, NASA.

Currently, the UN climate summit in Katowice is taking place in Katowice. COP (Conference of the Parties) on climate policy on Earth. UN climate summits, i.e. COP (Conference of the Parties) are global conferences during which climate policy actions are negotiated. Poland twice hosted them - in 2008 in Poznań and in 2013 in Warsaw. In December 2018, the climate summit is held for the first time now in Katowice in Poland.

During this summit, conferences are held, discussions are held on the need to develop a sustainable development policy and the need for development of ecological, renewable energy sources in order to generate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the future and ultimately reduce the average annual temperature rise on the Earth's surface. From the discussions it follows that it is necessary to develop eco-innovations, new pro-ecological energy sources, development of electromobility of transport means. It is necessary to develop and implement on a large scale renewable energy sources. In addition, it is important to increase the scale of afforestation, as forests and the flora contained in them absorb a large proportion of greenhouse gas emissions.

As part of this year's UN Climate Summit, the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP24), 14th Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 14) and the Conference of the Paris Agreement signatories (CMA 1) are held. About 20,000 people from 190 countries participate in the event, including politicians, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and scientific and business spheres.

Perhaps during this UN climate summit important and specific agreements, declarations and signed agreements on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will be taken. The present lectures show that in recent years the warming process of the Earth's climate has accelerated significantly and therefore, in the black scenario of future climate changes, the temperature on the Earth's surface can rise by 4 ° C to the end of the 21st century. If this happened, then the scale of climate-related cataclysms that are dangerous to humans, including droughts, floods, fires and weather anomalies in many places around the world, will increase many times. The problem is very serious globally and therefore a lot depends on whether international cooperation will develop in order to limit these problems and their negative effects.

In view of the above, I would like to ask you: Should you think that international cooperation should increase to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on Earth? In addition, another key question arises: how much of this international cooperation is possible, to what extent will real and effective measures be undertaken on the basis of the discussions and declarations undertaken to reduce greenhouse gases?

Please reply. I invite you to the discussion

Data source: http://cop24.katowice.eu

Because there is a lot of waste

Thank you for the valuable insights so far.

May the debate continue

regards

Please see the following link

https://www.ran.org/why_we_need_to_quit_coal/

Best Regards Fazleh Mahomed

Not really.

I would approach this from a different angle . What would the position be if greenhouse gas from coal fired electrical generation could be eliminated (treated, altered, changed) so it no longer was a problem.. would the whole eliminate coal movement go away?

Aaron Morrison

That is an interesting angle: so, add a modification to the coal fired process to cut the harmful emissions?

Is this feasible/possible?

Certainly believe so.

It is very difficult to burning the coal without adding to global carbon dioxide levels. The most promising clean coal technology involves using the coal to make hydrogen from water, then burying the resultant carbon dioxide by-product and burning the hydrogen. However, coal combustion also releases nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury and dozens of other substances which is hazardous to human health, we have to get rid of it with suitable technologies.

@J. C. Tarafdar I agree it is most difficult. We will see in early 2019 if our Technology can have the desired effect on first Carbon Dioxide then all the others.. It is going to be a great year. Cheers

Dear Fazleh Mahomed

Coal can be replaced with renewable energies such as wind, sun, sea and rivers, and since these energies are still not all the needs of the world can be used filters and other materials and devices that stop or reduce pollution in the environment and to reach the minimum renewable energies that can be adopted The gap between energy production and consumption

Greetings

Renewable energy sources serves as good alternative to coal power plant.However since most of these renewable technologies haven't been fully developed a strategic transition from use of coal to renewable energy needs to be done.Advanced technology can be used to capture Carbon(iv) oxide produced in coal plant

Many countries are already far in their plan to move away from coal use.

In Denmark we were mostly using coal 25 years ago but now it is almost gone.

Thanks Henrik Rasmus Andersen

What was the "Other Group" of energy source?

Regards

The report I took the data from does not quantitatively specifie the "Other", but most of it is co-generation of heat and power with other fuels mainly wood, municipal waste and biogas. There is a small amount of energy from hydro and solar.

large number of our power plant works by coal, we have to stop their work but it take a lot of time.

I agree this takes decades of planning ahead. In Denmark we didn't initially close coal power plants, but first added new capacity in the forms of windmills and gas powered plants. The first goal was that then there is ideal wind the power plants shut down, but a lot of the time there is a mixture of energy source for the electricity.

Next we have converted coal plants to run on natural gas, solid waste, biogas and a lot of biomass burning. Almost all these plants are co-generation meaning they produce both electricity and district heating from the low temperature excess heat.

We can't burning the coal without adding to global carbon dioxide levels. So , we are need to use clean technology such as using the coal to make hydrogen from water,

Coal is not cheap energy when you facture in the cost to public health and the environment. With the rise of developing countries and the need for additional energy generation the best method of reducing our dependency on coal is , yes, technology, but also we need to reduce the amount of energy we use. By making energy efficiency improvement to our homes and buildings, we could reduce our dependency on coal. We must also take into consideration the amount of energy loss in transmission. We need to make improvement to the transmissions and distribution of energy from the source. Technology should include net zero buildings and high efficiency mechanical systems. If we reduce energy at the site we can reduce the need to generate energy using coal...their is no such thing as clean coal.

Global climate change is attributed primarily to the use of fossil fuels, not just coal, but oil and gas too. The remainder arises from other anthropogenic causes mainly land usage and agriculture. Coal accounts for 35% of global emissions, oil 29%, and gas 17%., so although coal is the greatest contributor eliminating it entirely might slow but would not halt global temperature rise.

I agree that coal usage should be reduced but so too should that of oil and gas. In the power and heating sectors, any new coal and gas plants should be built with CO2 capture but this will put up the price of energy to the consumer, domestic and commercial, and so prevent deployment. No nation is going to prejudice its economy and the well-being of its citizens by taking an action in isolation to the rest of the world. It is to be hoped our politicians reach agreements that allow such actions to be taken collectively.

The same short-term economic objectives prevent many operating plants from being shut down. In the USA and Europe, various regulations have helped make older coal plants uneconomic and many have ceased operation. This transition has been eased by the availability of competitively-priced natural gas, so eliminating coal did not eliminate CO2. Throughout the world in the last 20 years (USA, Europe, China, India) many coal plants have been built that still have considerable economic life left and to avoid becoming stranded assets these will continue operating until they become uneconomic.

In many developing nations, coal plants will continue to be built (without the cost penalty of CO2 capture) because coal is the most economic fuel choice for them as they endeavour to grow their economies and improve their living standards.

The need to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C has been identified and can only be achieved by taking drastic action over the next 20 years. Although it might seem to be the right thing to do, eliminating coal is exceedingly difficult and highly unlikely. Further, the world’s appetite for fossil fuel energy is so large it is difficult to see what will replace it in the short term. Change will come but not at the rate required so I believe that the 1.5C limit will be exceeded, maybe the 2C limit as well.

Having now read the question more carefully, I note that it asks for viable alternatives to coal. I asked a similar question on ResearchGate for fossil fuels, “If CCS is not deployed what technologies will be used for power generation, heating, and motive power?” There was little response, I think because currently there are no alternatives to fossil fuels ready for widespread deployment.

Certainly, renewables can fulfil a role but they are used for power generation. If fossil fuels were eliminated full-scale electrification would be required, which would require a massive amount of interconnected, relatively small “power plants” Perhaps someone would like to work out the number and then multiple it by 3 to account for the intermittent nature of renewables and allow for power on demand.

Nuclear can also fulfil a role but it faces a number of challenges. There are concerns over spent uranium fuel disposal, locating new plants (usually on existing permitted sites), nuclear proliferation (Iran and North Korea), and generally uncomfortable feelings over safety (Chernobyl and Fukushima). Perhaps more effort should be spent in developing liquid fluoride-thorium reactors to alleviate many of these concerns, if not all?

Some suggest hydrogen is the solution, but how to produce hydrogen? Gasification of biomass, but is there sufficient biomass? Plus, the alkali content of biomass makes for operating difficulties and currently, biomass gasifiers are all small scale. Maybe fermentation of suitable wastes; again, constrained by availability of raw material. Electrolysis perhaps using electricity generated either by renewables or nuclear? Why not just use the electricity? Or use fossil fuels (coal gasification, methane reforming) and store the resulting CO2. Plentiful fuel, feasible approach.

I do not see fossil fuels being displace in the short term; there are no alternatives that satisfy the demand for energy. Fossil fuels with CO2 capture is a viable alternative to using fossil fuels with the CO2 released discharged to atmosphere. Even so, one-day fossil fuels will run out or CO2 storage space become unavailable but at least the approach gives us time to come up with a new energy source (nuclear fusion?) and meanwhile not destroy the planet.

John M Wheeldon

valuable points

regards

Yes we should. It is not the only source of CO2, but it is the biggest single one and also kills people in its production and through air pollution. It is only cheap if you have the mines and transport infrastructure in place and already paid for, and a favorable tax regime. Anywhere else, other power sources are cheaper. The UK has replaced dominant coal by a mix of gas (with about half the CO2 emissions), renewables, and nuclear over the last 15 years without any economic disruption.

We may all agree that coal should be eliminated (in my case the elimination of coal with unconstrained CO2 emissions), the issue is the practicality of doing so. Environmental regulation and economics have resulted in coal plant closures in the US and Europe, but primarily for plants approaching the end of their economic life. The same circumstances are in play currently in India. Renewables and gas plants are less expensive and are gaining favour in these three regions and throughout the world. Notwithstanding, global coal demand grew by 1 percent in 2017 and is projected to remain steady until 2023. Falling demand in the US and Europe being offset by increased demand in south-east Asia. These new plants will likely remain in service for 30 to 40 years and operate without CO2 controls, much like the new plants in the USA and Europe. Not an encouraging fact, but what is to be done? National governments must decide; all citizens can do is pressure our elected representatives to take action.

Incidentally, the rapid development of renewables has been encouraged by generous tax incentives (a good investment I agree). In contrast, CO2 capture technology development has received very little incentive. It too has a role to play and requires similar consideration. For economic reason, when deployed the most likely application is with natural-gas-fired power plants using a solvent absorption process to remove the CO2 from the flue gas. When coal-derived flue gas is treated similarly, the solvent removes the bulk of the air-borne contaminants so that the CO2-lean flue gas discharged is very much cleaner than the flue gas entering.

Modern life with its many benefits has extended life expectancy by 20 years in the last 100 years; coal has played an important role in this advancement. Over the same 100-year period, Health and Safety regulations have reduced work-related deaths by a factor of 20. Occupational hazards are, and will remain, with us. The most dangerous jobs in the world today include logging, a source of biomass that can be used in place of coal. Choose your poison.

@John M Wheeldon. I agreed that Coal Plants should be eliminated, but only if it can not be rehabilitated to become a energy producer without harmful emissions. If Coal Plants can change to be a producer which both produces energy and eliminates the harmful emissions then I say it should be allowed to remain. Of course it has to be both economically viable and Environmentally sound. I think it would have to be not only CC but everything that is harmful that goes up the stack needs to be Captured and eliminated. Not too long ago I would have thought that to be impossible, but doing the impossible is where all the fun is.

It is true that carbon capture and storage at power stations is theoretically possible and has been done in small-scale demonstrations. It may make economic sense where huge coal plants sit on cheap coal sources, but it adds to power costs and thus makes renewables look even better.

Aaron and Dr. Corlett, Thank you for responding

Demand for energy, its delivered cost, and the associated environmental impact will determine what technologies are deployed. I do not believe that one source can meet the immense, ever-increasing demand for energy (heat and power), all those available will have to play a role. In most of the OECD member countries, coal is currently not competitive, even without CCS; renewables and nuclear provide new and replacement power, gas provides both heat and power. As electric vehicles become more popular, power demand will increase even more. If space for renewables (and they do take up a lot) becomes restricted, nuclear plant construction is limited by the myriad of concerns surrounding it, and gas (because of the enormous demands placed on it) becomes less available, then energy prices will rise. Under those circumstances, and as a new energy source has yet to emerge, coal with CCS, provided it is economically attractive, will emerge to fill the gap. Coal-fired generation with CCS is operating commercially at 250-MW providing CO2 for enhanced oil recovery and confirming that flue gas is stripped of most of its contaminants. I concede readily that it may never be as clean as a wind turbine (which nevertheless produces pollution in its chain of supply) but the technology would appear to be ready for deployment when, or if, circumstances call upon it.

Fazleh Mahomed

As soon as possible, the energy based on the burning of minerals should be reduced and stopped. Renewables should be developed on a massive scale to reduce and slow down the global warming process.

Best wishes

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG In order to achieve sustainable pro-ecological development in the future in accordance with the green economy concept, it is necessary to develop in an integrated way multi-faceted, simultaneous different projects and pro-ecological activities. By combining various pro-ecological activities carried out in various branches of the economy, additional economic added value of integrating many different projects should be generated.

Do you agree with my opinion that it is necessary to create and develop various types of ecological innovations?

Will ecological innovations protect the Earth's nature from the progressive devastation of natural environments and increasing environmental pollution?

If the pace of devastation and pollution of the natural environment continues to increase, the nature of Earth and humanity may be threatened with grave dangers on the scale of several decades.

Some researchers suggest the possibility of a total annihilation of most species of flora and fauna on Earth in the 21st century.

Will humanity manage to develop and implement new ecological innovations as part of renewable sources of energy, green economy, restoring balance in natural ecosystems to prevent the growing risk of global annihilation?

If the majority of species of flora and fauna come to this destruction, it may be comparable to the cataclysm of dinosaur destruction that occurred on Earth millions of years ago.

But then it was a random cosmic accident because then the comet hit Earth, which caused global cataclysms that lasted for months.

This random case in space happens once in many millions of years.

However, the destruction of a large part of the biosphere, ecosystems, species of flora and fauna on Earth, which humans can lead to, is not a random event.

Unless we assume that the creation of an intelligent thinking being on one of the millions of planets is a kind of cosmic random event, then this whole analysis changes its interpretation.

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Best wishes

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

Do you agree with my opinion that in the context of the projected acceleration of the global warming process, humanity, in order to avoid global climate catastrophe, should change the classic economy in the 21st century to a new green economy to develop economies according to the concept of sustainable pro-ecological development, including replacing classic energy sources based on the combustion of minerals for renewable energy sources. In addition, in economic processes should be implemented as soon as possible and possibly the largest funds programs for reduction of greenhouse gases?

It is also necessary to develop eco-friendly, material and energy innovations, including in the field of perfecting renewable energy technologies so that pro-ecological energy solutions are ever cheaper to implement and develop and more and more common.

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Best wishes

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

Does any of you conduct research in this area? Apparently, the greenhouse effect is an irreversible process. the only thing that can be done is to slow down this process and thus adverse weather anomalies, unusual atmospheric phenomena, disasters caused by climate change. The development of industry based on traditional energy sources, ie burning of minerals, still dominates in many regions of the world. In domestic terms, the management of economies often boils down to economic growth, development of the industry without taking into account environmental protection issues and analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. In national economic policies, the tendency of the race is dominating for a higher number of economic growth, and the negative effects of this growth are forgotten. An attitude is assumed that the next generations are worried about how to solve this problem. Such an approach will accelerate only the negative effects of the global greenhouse effect and the emergence of disasters and natural disasters about the sources of climate change in a larger part of the world. More and more often the question is asked: how can we stop this process only as this process of warming up of average temperatures on Earth could be slowed down? What scale of this downturn could be generated if mankind would start to take this problem seriously? Does any of you conduct research in this area? Has any of you developed a theoretical model that would answer the question: Will switching all energy, communication and industry to renewable energy sources and ecological technologies significantly slow down the greenhouse effect on Earth?

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Best wishes

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

Sustainable development is very important in the context of the increasing use of resources and environmental pollution.

The basic issue that must be achieved within the framework of full sustainable development is the renewal of resources, reduction of economic growth to the optimal level ensuring renewable resources, reduction of environmental pollution, creation of biodegradable substitutes for fossil fuels, replacement of traditional energy based on mineral combustion for technological innovations in in the field of energy, including the development of energy based on renewable energy sources of renewable energy, etc. To this should be added a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to slow down the negative aspects of the oceogenic climate of the Earth. There is so much to do in these themes and, above all, a great deal to do in the 21st century so that it would not be too late.

To effectively carry out this process, it is necessary to develop universal, precise measures of sustainable development that will be used globally and will be recognized as the standards for assessing the process of achieving and achieving sustainable economic development in harmony with ecology.

But it is very difficult to establish precise measures for the sustainable development process. Sustainable economic development in correlation with ecology should be measured to determine if it is being implemented. It is necessary to define precise determinants that on one hand will determine the pace of economic development and on the other hand will take into account specific issues of ecology. It should be a set of quantified indicators based on selected measurable and quantitative data, so that the whole analytical process can be considered as a research objective method. The best solution will therefore be to develop an analytical scoring method, for which the basic components of this method will be defined economic and ecological quantitative indicators.

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Best wishes

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

In a few years, strategic classic energy raw materials, ie minerals contained in the Earth's crust, will be exhausted.

Extracting these minerals from deeper layers of the earth's crust may be unprofitable.

In addition, it may be unnecessary in a situation of global warming and the development of renewable, ecologically clean sources of energy.

However, which type of power supply for motor vehicles should be developed so that the economic, social and ecological effects are the most in line with the strategic goals of the balanced economic development of the world?

If it is electromobility it will be necessary to significantly increase the production of electricity.

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Best wishes

The issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is currently one of the most important problems for urgent solutions in connection with the accelerating process of global warming.

The fact that the development of human civilization is largely responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases is an irrefutable fact confirmed by numerous independent research centers.

However, in individual countries, the development of industry is at various stages of development.

In individual countries, sources of greenhouse gas emissions can be presented in a different source structure of these emissions.

In some countries, in large agglomerations, the main source of greenhouse gas emissions is transport based on traditional combustion of fossil fuels, combustion of low-quality mineral and non-mineral minerals in domestic furnaces, and energy based on mineral combustion.

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Best wishes

Chart. Global Warming. CO2 emissions of greenhouse gases, a forecast of the increase in the average temperature on Earth. Source: NOAA, NASA.

The problem is when the economically weak, small domestic economy has only traditional energy minerals, such as hard coal or lignite, and there are no developed different forms of renewable energy sources. In such a situation, there is a lack of financial resources for switching energy to renewable energy sources so as to move towards sustainable development according to the philosophy of the new, green economy, in order to limit the emission of greenhouse gases. The warming of the Earth's climate is already a fact and is a serious growing problem. Therefore, renewable energy sources should be developed. Rich countries should support countries characterized by weaker economy, lower incomes and based on traditional energy technologies. It is therefore necessary to strengthen international cooperation in the area of promotion, support and financing of investment projects, thanks to which it will be possible to develop renewable energy sources in the future and aim at sustainable pro-ecological development.

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Best wishes

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

In view of the above, it is also important to include in the above discussion also the following issue:

Can we still avoid a global climatic catastrophe and what should be done to avoid it?

Humanity has reportedly only had a decade of time for necessary changes in the energy sector to avoid a global climatic catastrophe, i.e. to implement the principles of sustainable pro-ecological development in line with the concept of a new, green economy

Much has to change in consumer awareness, business must change and different social groups should force policies and change legal regulations. It is necessary to develop co-financing of investment projects in the field of renewable energy sources by the state from public funds. In addition, businesses must see this business. The development of renewable energy sources should be profitable, and it is not because it is cheaper to mine minerals, to devastate the natural environment. It is cheap to run classic energy based on mineral combustion because this classic energy and mining industry of hard and brown coal, oil refinery industry, automotive industry of vehicles equipped with internal combustion engines etc. is not burdened with the costs of natural environment devastation, costs of treatment of people who suffer from due to poor air, smog and no negative effects of global warming. If the mining, energy, processing and automotive industries were burdened with these costs, then it would not be worthwhile to devastate and pollute the natural environment. Then it would be more profitable to develop energy and industry based on renewable energy sources. Inventions of electricity have over 100 years of history. 100 years ago, electric cars should be produced, but the oil business this scenario of more sustainable development has crossed out. Therefore, for over 100 years, archaic energy based on the burning of minerals has been developed. During these 100 years, the average temperature of the Earth's surface has increased by 1 degree ° C. From specific scientific studies, it appears that humanity is only 12 years left to make the necessary changes, to switch energy and industry to renewable energy sources and the automotive industry to electromobility, to reduce poor quality of stoves and domestic ovens, on the development of large and small, home solar, wind and other power plants. At the same time, investment projects in renewable energy sources should be widely developed and entire economies should switch to sustainable pro-ecological development according to the concept of a green, new economy. If during this time these changes are not implemented then the average temperature of the Earth until 2030 will increase by another min. 1 degree ° C and then in the following years the greenhouse effect will accelerate and the problem of global warming will become an irreversible process, which will mean the widespread apocalyptic climate disasters covering most of the Earth's surface before the end of the 21st century.

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Best wishes

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

Probably the future of humanity depends on the next decade. If, over the next few years, renewable energy sources replacing traditional energy based on the burning of minerals are developed on a massive scale, it might be possible for humankind to avoid a climatic catastrophe in the 21st century. The international climate agreement that currently (December 2018) concluded in Katowice in Poland may be a late and insufficient agreement, because most countries do not intend to develop high-budget projects for the construction and development of power plants based on renewable energy sources. In addition, changes in the automotive industry, changes leading to the development of motorization in the direction of electromobility are too slow. The problem is serious because it concerns the future of all humanity in the perspective of the next two to three generations, yet the necessary changes and reforms in the implementation of economic principles of sustainable pro-ecological development are too slow. With the current pace of changes, there may be a shortage of time to implement the necessary pro-ecological undertakings, and then the problem of global warming will become an irreversible process and will constantly accelerate!

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Best wishes

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

Are the main barriers to the development of renewable energy sources the lobbying of enterprises in the energy sector producing electricity and heat based on traditional energy of burning minerals? Is there a lack of financial resources in the majority of countries regarding the financing of high-budget pro-environmental projects from public finance funds? Should there be new, new ecological innovations, new technological solutions in the field of renewable energy sources, electromobility in the automotive field, new generations of batteries, photovoltaic panels, energy storage and transmission stations, hydrogen engines, etc. to produce and use electricity generated on the basis of renewable source of energy has become profitable to become a profitable business? If this process lasts for a long time, there may be a shortage of time to implement the necessary reforms aimed at disseminating in the global economy a model of sustainable pro-ecological development based on the concept of green economy. If this process lasts much longer than by 2030, there may not be enough time to carry out the necessary reforms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, consequently, the planet's warming process will accelerate considerably, this process will be irreversible and will continue to accelerate and towards the end of the 21st century century will lead to a global climate disaster that threatens the life of all humanity and most other forms of life on Earth.

Best wishes

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

The report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that greenhouse gas levels on the globe are the highest in 800,000 years. Further emission, which arises according to the authors of the report mainly due to the combustion of fossil fuels, will lead to climate changes, which will be the greater, the more intensive will be the release of gases into the atmosphere. The report is a synthesis of earlier findings of the IPCC.

The conducted prognostic analyzes show that if the industrial development proceeds in the same way as before, i.e. without the implementation of eco-innovations, without reducing greenhouse gas emissions, etc. there is a risk that by 2050 the average temperature on the Earth's surface may increase by another one degrees ° C. It would have been an increase in the average temperature on the surface of the Earth from the end of the first industrial revolution, from the beginning of the 20th century by two degrees ° C. Then the pace of climate change will increase so much that the global warming process can escape any control and then the person will not be able to stop or significantly slow down this process. In such a dark scenario, the average temperature on the surface of the Earth until the end of the twenty-first century may increase by as much as four degrees ° C. Then it will be several times the increase of any negative external effects of climate change on the current state. Slak of emerging climatic cataclysms, including tornadoes, droughts, volcanic eruptions, melting of glaciers in chains of mountain peaks and in the arctic circle region at the Arctic will significantly accelerate. The melting of eternal decay in the Arctic region will release further millions of tons of methane and the greenhouse effect will accelerate even further and in the XXII century an increase in the average temperature on the Earth's surface can achieve a geometric pace. Then it will be a disaster not only for human civilization but also for a large part of life forms on Earth. Pradoxically, man as a rational, intelligent being who, evolutionarily gained an advantage over all other forms of life on Earth and subordinated the whole planet to itself, may lead to self-destruction. Or maybe it is not too late to implement a new eco-friendly economy to at least try to stop greenhouse gas emissions and reverse unfavorable global warming processes? It is therefore necessary to promote and implement the principles of sustainable development within the framework of the new green economy.

Best wishes

Dr. Prokopowicz

Replying to only your first point, "As soon as possible, the energy based on the burning of minerals should be reduced and stopped." I suspect we all agree with the sentiment, but how long is “as soon as possible?”

The IPCC report calls for net-zero emissions by 2050 to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C. The EU recently issued its plans on how to achieve this objective. The measures represent a massive and unprecedented shift in how energy is generated and consumed. Some features of the plan and the link are presented below.

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/docs/pages/com_2018_733_en.pdf

· Energy consumption decreases by 30 to 50%, achieved primarily by efficiency improvements and smart technologies.

o Thermal efficiency of all buildings will be improved and industrial processes modernized.

o Measures to enable a shift from aviation and sea-born transport to high-speed rail will be introduced.

· Most of the energy will be supplied by zero-carbon electricity. Renewable sources will account for +80% of generation (wind 50%, solar 15%, with the remainder primarily from biomass and stored hydro), nuclear will be 12 to 16%, and fossil fuels (coal and gas) less than 5%.

o Hydrogen may be supplied for high-temperature industrial heating but this will be generated by electrolysis, not methane-steam reforming.

o Although still in the research phase, electrification is anticipated for heavy vehicles and shipping, even for aviation.

o The high-speed rail will be electrically driven, not by hydrogen the focus of much current R&D

· The circular economy will be developed, including the production of biofuels for transportation (still mainly driven by electricity). This will involve CO2 capture technologies but not storage.

· Natural carbon sinks will be developed by sustainable land-use and improved agricultural methods

o If this does not reduce GHG emissions sufficiently then negative emission technologies will be deployed such as BECCS, capturing and storing the CO2 from bio-wastes (wood and agricultural residues). Energy-crop schemes are eschewed because of the large land areas they occupy.

All this is to be achieved by 2050, 30 years hence. Over this period the EU’s population is projected to increase by 20 million, from 510 to 530 million (provided no nations leave meanwhile). The change in society (living, travelling, working) is gargantuan, and how does society respond to change? Certainly not meekly, ask the gilets jaunes protesters in France.

Meanwhile, understandably, the developing nations striving to improve their living standards will continue to use fossil fuels without CO2 capture well past 2050

Change has to come and it will be as soon as possible, but regrettably, I think that it will take more than 30 years and the global temperature rise will be more than 1.5C.

Energy is required for each and every country for the development. for example industry, transport, etc.

Coal is a cheap source for energy. But in Tamil nadu, lignite coal is available (poor coal), contains about 40-55 % Carbon and 35 % moisture.

Due to incomplete burning, it produce more smokes containing oxidized form of trace elements that are hazardous to nature and human beings.

Since in tamilnadu coal is available as a energy source, government is utilizing it.

After depletion, in about 50-60 years, the boom will take place for alternative energy source.

Many alternative energy source are available, such as solar, tidal, hydro power, nuclear etc. But have both advantage and disadvantages.

The best, cheap, wealth from waste, eco-friendly method for future will be bio related fuel.

May be our future generation will use Cow duck method, which our ancestors followed

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318984196_Hotspots_of_Solar_Potential_in_India

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318984196_Hotspots_of_Solar_Potential_in_India

Fazleh Mahomed

Some countries already have, and the UK is very close. We have odd days now where no coal is burned in power generation, and even when it is, it’s only a few percent of the total power generated, and dropping over time. Right now, at the time of writing (around 1pm on a Friday) coal is 1.4% of the power generated. This site shows live updates on usage:

National Grid: Live Status-http://nationalgrid.stephenmorley.org/

Solar is usually a lot higher but it’s pretty overcast in the UK right now…

Other countries will transition at different times, depending upon their demand and the economics/practicalities of doing so.

In Denmark we have even more windmills relative to population than UK and we have long periods (weeks) there wind supply the entire electricity used. https://en.energinet.dk/

Coal occurs in many different qualities. It is not only a source of cheap energy but needed for various relevant technologies (smelting, steel production, cement production, actived coal, special chemical processes etc). It appears relevant to cut down coal use as much as possible concerning climate reasons, but it would also be of importance to increase research that aims to tackle CO2 emissions from coal burning for energy production. If this could be solved coal utilization may be valid under certain conditions and especially assist those countries that have own coal resources within their national territory but lack access to other energy sources. I consider to proceed with coal research as very relevant. To spread the 'message' that coal is dirty and must be abonded will restrict us to explore options, to reach out for new discoveries and to prepare the needed innovations to provide sound development opportunities for all nations.

See the recent developments on coal in Australian and how it will effect...

"Troubling signs for the future of Australia’s giant coal industry"-Economist; What will happen in near future?

Japan and China are the biggest coal importers from Australia. How this will effect on their energy sources?

"China, Australia’s second-biggest coal customer, after Japan, was reported on February 21st to have imposed delays on coal imports from Australia at the northern port of Dalian, but not on those from other countries. A day earlier Glencore, a Swiss-based company and Australia’s biggest coal miner, announced it would cap coal production at current levels. And, for the first time, an Australian judge has refused to allow a new coal mine because it would have contributed to climate change."

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Troubling_signs_for_the_future_of_Australias_giant_coal_industry-Economist_What_will_happen_in_near_future_China_Japan_Energy?_ec=topicPostOverviewAuthoredQuestions&_sg=K1je5MBrgaqsAOJWYxHRdp1M9f_t9nqBueB7ojOPCYS5S5-MsElpZvK3y9W7PW6oqFL6gJ3wsEMpInPK.PXB1okh-WLm-jHL5VzY2_0RvBF_H_g58YVZrnHJ8QbRsT0ga_xZvigpGRWFGPUwaf2R4Y6HE5_KL9GZweti1HjU

A fluidized bed creates conditions suitable for the uniform combustion of fuel throughout its volume, which means, as a final result, more perfect fuel burn-up (high efficiency of a fluidized bed boiler) at lower combustion temperatures and whilst reducing the production of harmful waste gases at the same time.

With reference to the intermittent and the fluctuating nature of renewable energies,back up energy from fossil fuels is unavoidable.It will totally be uneconomical to stop coal usage all at once.Instead more research and improvement of carbon capture and storage technologies needs to be done.Truth to be told all developed countries at one point majorly(and maybe today) used coal as their source of energy.It is on my view that the fight against climate change is a sentiment greatly sent to the developing nations only.

The plans to limit global warming require society to turn itself inside out but when financiers are asked to provide funding for this extreme act of contortion, they turn on their heels saying that there is no money to be made. Money trumps environmental concerns; so, it is entirely understandable that developing nations will continue to use the lowest-cost fuel to evolve their economies. This natural economic act is not restricted to developing nations.

The UK’s last deep mine, Kellingley Colliery in North Yorkshire, shut-down in 2016. It provided steam coal and although extensive reserves remained it was no longer profitable to extract them. Moreover, as the UK intends to close all coal-fired power stations by 2025, the mine’s market was about to disappear. The closure was a marriage of environmental and financial concerns. Now it is proposed to open a new deep mine near Whitehaven in Cumbria extracting coking coal. This creates jobs locally and nationally and feeds the steel industry with a product at a lower cost than imported coking coal. This time money overcomes environmental concerns.

Until such time that coal carries an economic penalty (a carbon tax), it will continue to be used where it benefits the local economy, be it that of a developing nation or a developed one. What are the arguments against a carbon tax? It will increase costs for business and reduce levels of investment and economic growth. The banks win again. Meanwhile global temperatures inch progressively higher.

Coal is not cheap. It is only that one of the costs has not been factored in. Extraction and combustion is accounted for but the cost of clean-up is nowhere to be seen on the P&L. Everything is cheap if you take out one of the processes or elements. Nuclear fuel could be free if you just ignore the extraction and processing costs.

I suggest if you factor in the cost of removing the CO and other GHGs from the atmosphere and surface of the planet to landfill then the 'cheap' source might be very expensive indeed. I am sure a cost accountant of merit could do that with ease - if she was instructed (and permitted) to do so.