Leonard Foster Jr October 26, 2016 09:56 PM People in the Coal industry have been long warned and this is just the tip of the iceberg VincentWolf October 26, 2016 10:59 PM the beginning of the end of fossil fuels worldwide. First coat, then oil, then gas. It's either renewables or die. Tom Lee Mullins October 26, 2016 11:16 PM I think there is still a place for coal and gas since these 'renewable' resources don't always work everywhere. Solar power does not work very well when they are covered in snow. Wind power is only good when there is a constant wind. MQ October 26, 2016 11:41 PM Coal miners of Australia rejoice, metallurgical coal demand isn't affected by lower utilisation of thermal plants. Coking coal is hard to replace. aksdad October 27, 2016 03:53 AM News flash: an even more stable power power output can be achieved by only using base load power plants like coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Renewables only work as supplemental power because they're unreliable. It doesn't matter how much capacity you have if you can't provide power when it's needed. The only practical solution to the unreliability of wind and solar is to keep operating fossil fuel and nuclear power plants to make up the difference. So, no, dear readers, renewables aren't replacing fossil fuels anytime soon. However, going all nuclear, which is the cleanest, "greenest" option, would be an interesting proposition. Incredibly efficient, extremely low waste, no atmospheric pollution... watersworm October 27, 2016 07:09 AM Agree with askdad, specially with the yet to come development of thorium base nuclear power. Anyway the future is in energy MIX smartly applied with local geographic/social conditions. For instance Norvege will continue an almost 100% clean electricity production, since their geography allows so much hydroelectricity, taken in account the low population figures (even with high standards of living). For solar, the best and more efficient is thermal for hot water uses... in somehow sunny/hot countries (though not only). dugnology October 27, 2016 01:50 PM The title is misleading. Coal is still the largest installed base by far, but the renewable energy segment is the fastest growing for NEW energy installations. I believe that mass storage including energy sharing with plugged in cars and new cleaner technology like Thorium reactors or the inevitable fusion reactors will he the key to electrical production. I can see that installed solar for homes will further reduce the need for large distributed grids, local DC buses in homes that will lower electrical conversion drains, and more efficient appliances will help to lower energy usage habakak October 27, 2016 02:11 PM As always, the future will be an energy mix (of mostly renewables). Affordable high-density batteries will make solar and wind power available 24/7. Just like with redundancy or excess capacity fossil fuel plants, there will be peaker or excess renewable capacity. Nuclear is too expensive although it's something we should pursue. Eventually hopefully fusion. The transition to a completely renewable energy system will take many decades, but the pendulum is swinging. Lbrewer42 October 27, 2016 02:47 PM I have to wonder how much of this is unscientific propaganda at its roots? When we were being told under obama how wonderful the large windmills were - the fact was that they were more expensive to run b/c not only did they have to have diesel generators backing them up to keep a constant supply, but also they had not even developed a lubricant capable of keeping the things going without overheating. The number of times of changing what lubricants they had also made for a lot of expense (check youtube for these things catching fir).Then there was the scandal with the solar company obama gave so much money to. It was uncovered that the company already knew at the time they got the money, that their producy was not capable - and the company was going to fall. But his supporters there did get paid off well.Do the homework for yourself.Then we get down to the fact of every time you will delve into the actual reports behind data that supposedly shows global warming as reality, you find the data is fudged to fit the theory. ts like the ozone hole scare of the 80s and 90s. You could not have the TV on for more than 10 minutes without the shrinking ozone hole being crammed down your throat as an attempt to promote global warming. Then in the year 2000 - while the frenzy was still going, all of a sudden the media fell dead silent on the issue of irreparable damage we had done to the ozone hole. Why? The ozone hole closed up all by itself. Was there a retraction from the global warming crowd? Of course not. But they did make their money off of the scare they initiated. However, this kind of homework takes time, and people would rather ridicule people who won't go with the flow on this money-making dream that can always prove itself right (with media help) every time the actual weather we experience is exactly the opposite of what the doom and gloom people have been claiming all these years. Has happened since its inception.in the late 80s it was claimed we would be planting palm trees on Lake Erie shore by 2000. When, instead the climate overall was experienced as being cooler (despite the scary ozone hole), the GW people said that they were still correct b/c global warming actually could cause global cooling. So the term "Climate Change" was being introduced more ad more on the media to save a little face. Then in 2015 when the IPCC annual reports (each one, in their year had proven global warming), side by side the compiled data showed no warming (download it and read it for youself - google Game Over, The IPCC quietly admits defeat). So in GW circles, they talked about the 15 year hiatus that had occured in GW. Was there ever any official retraction that their reports that they people had used to literally ridicule scoffers were mistaken? Of course not - too much money is being made with newer and greater restrictions.And of course, this is all in light of the fact CO2 is chemically incapable of holding in heat. The radiation it supposedly reflects back to warm the oceans has failed to warm the oceans according to the past 150 years of Naval temperature records. Douglas Bennett Rogers October 27, 2016 02:47 PM If you sit on a bench in English Landing Park in Parkville, MO, you can watch the trains go by. Almost every train is a mile long train, full of coal for Kansas City Power and Light.