Finland set to become first country to ban coal use for energy

[Suppressed]

Finland set to become first country to ban coal use for energy
23 November 2016  By Sally Adee

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113827-finland-set-to-become-first-country-to-ban-coal-use-for-energy/

Finland could become the first country to ditch coal for good. As part of a new energy and climate strategy due to be announced tomorrow, the government is considering banning the burning of coal for energy by 2030.

“Basically, coal would disappear from the Finnish market,” says Peter Lund, a researcher at Aalto University, and chair of the energy programme at the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council.

The groundwork for the ban already seems to be in place. Coal use has been steadily declining in Finland since 2011, and the nation heavily invested in renewable energy in 2012, leading to a near doubling of wind power capacity the following year. It also poured a further €80 million into renewable power this past February.

On top of this, Nordic energy prices, with the exception of coal, have been dropping since 2010. As a result of such changes, coal-fired power plants are being mothballed and shut all over Finland, leaving coal providing only 8 per cent of the nation’s energy.

Radical step
Regardless of the favourable circumstances, it would still be radical if Finland became the first country to bring in a law banning coal. That puts it ahead of other nations that have been looking for ways to end their relationship with the fuel.

Several – including the UK, Austria and the Netherlands – have announced plans to phase coal out within 10 or 15 years. France’s prime minister announced last week that the country will shut all its coal plants by 2023.

However, this approach has “more degrees of freedom” than a ban, says Lund.

Canada, for example, announced on Monday that it would phase out traditional coal by 2030. But its roadmap permits provinces to carry on using coal beyond this date provided they reduce emissions with carbon capture and storage.

Another pioneer
In March, the US state of Oregon threw its weight behind a tougher measure, writing into state law a measure that bans coal outright. By 2035, according to this law, no utility may produce coal-generated electricity or import it from another state.

[Excerpt.  Read more at https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113827-finland-set-to-become-first-country-to-ban-coal-use-for-energy/]

[EC]

No huge surprise about Finland - thanks to a geological quirk, they have no coal whatsoever in their territory and have to import it all. Oil, LPG, and natural gas simply give more bang per ton and produce less waste to be disposed of.

The little snip on Oregon at the end intrigues me - do the dumbasses that write the laws think that electricity knows how it's generated and can be easily separated out?

[Joe Wooten]

The Finns are also building big nuke plants, though Areva has screwed them over with the EPR. many years behind schedule and billions over budget.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

In reducing its usage of a cheap, plentiful energy supply, it lets those who use it benefit by lessening their costs.

Thanks, Finland.
Keep us getting cheaper energy.

[Oceander]

No huge surprise about Finland - thanks to a geological quirk, they have no coal whatsoever in their territory and have to import it all. Oil, LPG, and natural gas simply give more bang per ton and produce less waste to be disposed of.

The little snip on Oregon at the end intrigues me - do the dumbasses that write the laws think that electricity knows how it's generated and can be easily separated out?

Actually, for the large commercial infrastructure, it is possible to some degree for a particular utility to select the generation source(s) for the electricity it sells.

The fun part is going to be when there's an energy crunch - think a really hot sweltering summer - and that'll go out the window, after the obligatory black out, of course.

[Smokin Joe]

No huge surprise about Finland - thanks to a geological quirk, they have no coal whatsoever in their territory and have to import it all. Oil, LPG, and natural gas simply give more bang per ton and produce less waste to be disposed of.

The little snip on Oregon at the end intrigues me - do the dumbasses that write the laws think that electricity knows how it's generated and can be easily separated out?

So the downward pressure on coal as a fuel may not really be a question of environmental altruism, just economics presented as if it was.