undefined

[-]

Both of those are big wind tubine manufactres as well.

by tadfisher49 minutes ago|

[-]

Luckily, the wind futures market is pretty bullish for the foreseeable future

by skywal_l2 hours ago|

[-]

Isn't there Ansaldo Energia too?

by toomuchtodo2 hours ago|

[-]

Yes, but their production volume is limited (imho) compared to the two companies I mentioned. Good callout regardless. I'll have a post put together to share here enumerating and comparing.

(i track global fossil generation production capacity as a component of tracking the overall rate of global energy transition to clean energy and electrification, but some of my resources are simply an excel spreadsheet)

by rapnie2 hours ago|

[-]

And clean. Really, really clean. Just look at coal. A no-brainer. Go for it.

by kube-system2 hours ago|

[-]

You mean "clean coal", right? Of course it's clean, it's right in the name.

[-]

People laugh at this, but anthracite genuinely is cleaner than other coal in every regard save CO2 emissions. People just think it's a joke because they've come to believe that CO2 is the only coal emission worth caring about, which definitely isn't true.

by tadfisher33 minutes ago|

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

[-]

The oxymoronic term "clean coal" refers to carbon-capture-and-storage (CCS) technology [0], touted by the fossil fuel industry as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and continue employing coal workers.

Thus far, it is incredibly expensive, at a time when solar and wind generation is cost-competitive with fossil-fuel plants which don't employ CCS. It is simply a dead end. You can generate more renewable energy, and store it, for far less than it takes to equip and operate CCS in conjunction with a fossil-fuel-fired plant. Only direct government subsidy makes it viable for a vanishingly small amount of GHG emissions.

by kube-system1 hours ago|

[-]

No, the criticism isn't because people get caught up about CO2 -- it's because "cleaner than other coal" is a very low bar to meet to be calling something "clean" full stop.

Also "clean coal" is not a type of coal being burnt (although that does matter too) but pollution control systems added to coal plants.

[-]

Anthracite burns clean enough to use in a pizza oven. If your neighbor told you he was going to install a new furnace and offered you the choice of it burning wood pellets or anthracite, from a smell standpoint you should absolutely choose the anthracite.

Anthracite, in these regards, is very different from bituminous coal.

by hatthew1 hours ago|

[-]

And both are very different from not burning anything.

[-]

Undoubtedly. Doesn't change the fact that one kind of coal burns smokeless with a clean blue flame while the other will cover everything for miles in a film of soot and tar.

by kube-system1 hours ago|

[-]

>Anthracite burns clean enough to use in a pizza oven.

Yeah, so does wood, which is horribly polluting.

[-]

The smell of wood might be nice for flavor, but that's beyond the point of anthracite being clean. That particulate pollution from wood burning is severe compared to the smoke you'll get off anthracite, which is virtually nonexistent.

by kube-system1 hours ago|

[-]

Regardless of how good it might be at being the cleanest dirty thing, it's not what the US trope of "clean coal" refers to anyway. Anthracite is not used in the US to generate power because it is too expensive.

by terminalshort44 minutes ago|

[-]

The doesn't cause acid rain version is called "clean" and that seems pretty fair to me when the other version causes acid rain.

by kube-system29 minutes ago|

[-]

It is still dirtier than all of the alternatives we have.

by 38 minutes ago|

[-]

deleted

by hatthew1 hours ago|

[-]

"Clean coal" is like saying "a fast snail". Sure it can be faster than other snails, but even if it's twice as fast as the second fastest snail, it's still a snail and I'll still laugh when an ant runs circles around it.

by thecarbonista2 hours ago|

[-]

[dead]

by ecshafer3 hours ago|

[-]

The US (with Canada and Mexico) is self-sufficient with fossil fuel energy.

by triceratops4 minutes ago|

[-]

It didn't look like that at the gas pump today.

by munk-a2 hours ago|

[-]

It's awesome the US hasn't destabilized one of those neighbors and alienated the other one by declaring it the prospective 51st state. Soft power really is America's super power.

by jwr2 hours ago|

[-]

Unfortunately, we share the planet and the atmosphere with it.

by follie1 hours ago|

[-]

If the US taunts someone into a nuclear war, the rest of us get to live but should be investing more in cancer research.

by create_accounts1 hours ago|

[-]

[dead]

by eecc2 hours ago|

[-]

I’d wager the US is self sufficient also in terms of renewable energies.

by krige3 hours ago|

[-]

> The US (with Canada and Mexico) is self-sufficient with fossil fuel energy.

Oh boy can't wait for the reenactment of third reich intervening peacefully in czechoslovakia, for their own safety and wellbeing of course, and not at all for the resources they're hoarding, the filthy hoarders.

by Mashimo2 hours ago|

[-]

But it gets traded globally. That means if the price goes up in Asia, it also goes up in NA.

by greeneggs5 minutes ago|

[-]

It doesn't have to be traded globally. The US could ban oil and gas exports, and that would decouple local prices from the global market.

by idle_zealot2 hours ago|

[-]

Sure, if we build out refining capacity for the next ten years. Then we're golden until we run out of the finite well of combustible dead algae. So if you think we can revitalize American manufacturing and resource processing starting now, and you're okay with those investments being worthless in a few decades, and you don't give a shit about rendering the planet significantly less habitable to human life, then yeah, we're totally self-sufficient with fossil fuels.

Or we could, you know, pull energy out of the air and sun, a strategy which will be viable until our star dies.

by bryanlarsen2 hours ago|

[-]

Alberta tar sands have hundreds of years worth of reserves. They're also expensive and incredibly dirty to extract and emit significantly more CO2 during processing than a light oil well will. (The tar is usually melted by heating with natural gas).

I'm quite confident cheap renewable alternatives will make the tar sands inviable far before they run out.

by munk-a1 hours ago|

[-]

Some good news though, with the war in Iran the spiking oil price means that Albertan executives can ramp up operations and stay quite profitable! Push the price to 200/barrel and we'll just strip mine the entire province after airlifting out Calgary and Edmonton.

by mullingitover22 minutes ago|

[-]

This assumes that there isn't profound demand destruction caused by the stratospheric energy prices.

Fossil fuels were already an inferior energy source when oil was $60/barrel. Electrification has been moving fast and accelerating, even at the pre-energy crisis prices.

Now? Current events are likely to take fossil fuels out back and give 'em the Old Yeller treatment with surprising speed.

by saidnooneever2 hours ago|

[-]

another option is not to shit on all countires who do have resources driving the prices up for everyone.

by idle_zealot12 minutes ago|

[-]

This is an article about paying private industry to not build wind capacity.

by Barrin921 hours ago|

[-]

I do find the slow Sovietization of America funny, both mentally and economically. The year is 2050, autarky on energy has been established, the markets cut off, politics in the hands of erratic and geriatric leaders. Americans proudly drive 30 year old Fords the way people used to drive Ladas, while China exports green energy, cars and infrastructure to the world.

by IncreasePosts2 hours ago|

[-]

Ireland during the famine was self sufficient with food production but that didn't stop people from sending food to the highest bidders abroad.

by HDThoreaun2 hours ago|

[-]

The US is unable to implement export controls so consuming less than it creates doesnt mean theres enough since producers will export if international prices are better

by 2 hours ago|

[-]

deleted

by exe342 hours ago|

[-]

[flagged]

by MaxHoppersGhost2 hours ago|