Talk:Coal phase-out

citing other wikis?

I was thinking about adding more to the introduction of the article, since it needs cleanup. I was looking at sources to learn more about coal phase out and found this article from another wiki site: https://www.gem.wiki/Coal_phase-out#cite_note-1 Just wanted to know if it's okay to cite this wiki directly or if I should instead look at the sources this wiki uses? Also if there are any specific points I should be adding to the introduction please let me know!

Thanks!

Rpaul98 (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rpaul98: Hi, thanks for contributing! Articles should be referenced to reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for details), so it is not ok to cite other wikis or self-published content (see also Wikipedia:Verifiability). You should try to find the original source used. Thanks! --Ita140188 (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks! I just edited the introduction by adding some more background information. Please let me know if this is sufficient for the intro and if my changes flows well with the rest of the intro/article. Rpaul98 (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rpaul98: I just reverted "for energy" - rest looks v good - please continue Chidgk1 (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Coal phaseout in sectors other than electricity

I think this article has a bit of an error of omission in barely acknowledging the long-standing use of coal for fuel in ships and trains - which has been all but phased out - and the still extant use of coal in home heating. I think this should be discussed if for no other reason than providing historical context. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hobbitschuster Sounds good to me - go ahead and add a history section Chidgk1 (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Utility action in the US

I moved below here as likely too detailed - might be better in a US specific article Chidgk1 (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Progress Energy Carolinas announced on 1 June 2007, that it was beginning a two-year moratorium on proposals for new coal-fired power plants while it undertook more aggressive efficiency and conservation programs. The company added, "Additional reductions in future electricity demand growth through energy efficiency could push the need for new power plants farther into the future."
• Public Service of Colorado concluded in its November 2007 Resource Plan: "In sum, in light of the now likely regulation of CO₂ emissions in the future due to broader interest in climate change issues, the increased costs of constructing new coal facilities, and the increased risk of timely permitting to meet planned in-service dates, Public Service does not believe it would not be prudent to consider at this time any proposals for new coal plants that do not include CO₂ capture and sequestration.
• Xcel Energy noted in its 2007 Resource Plan that "given the likelihood of future carbon regulation, we have only modeled a future coal-based resource option that includes carbon capture and storage."
• Minnesota Power Company announced in December 2007 that it would not consider a new coal resource without a carbon solution.
• Avista Utilities announced that it does not anticipate pursuing coal-fired power plants in the foreseeable future.
• NorthWestern Energy announced on 17 December 2007, that it planned to double its wind power capacity over the next seven years and steer away from new baseload coal plants. The plans are detailed in the company's 2007 Montana Electric Supply Resource Plan.
• California Energy Commission (CEC) has initiated its review of two 53.4-megawatt solar thermal power plants that will each include a 40-megawatt biomass power plant to supplement the solar power.

References