From The GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser
Dirty Coal Revived As Europe Speeds Green Retreat
With Greenpeace successfully forcing the shutdown of nuclear power, and keeping out fracking for gas, what’s left? A boom in coal. In fact, over the next two years Germany will build 10 new power plants for hard coal. Europe is in a coal frenzy, building power plants and opening up new mines, practically every month. It might sound odd that a boom in German coal is the result of Greenpeace’s political success. –Ezra Levant, Toronto Sun, 7 January 2014
Germany’s wind and solar power production came to an almost complete standstill in early December. More than 23,000 wind turbines stood still. One million photovoltaic systems stopped work nearly completely. For a whole week coal, nuclear and gas power plants had to generate an estimated 95 percent of Germany’s electricity supply. –Daniel Wetzel, Die Welt, 24 December 2013
Europe’s appetite for cheaper electricity is reviving mines that produce the dirtiest type of coal. Across the continent’s mining belt, from Germany to Poland and the Czech Republic, utilities are expanding open-pit mines that produce lignite. Alarmed at power prices about double U.S. levels, policy makers are allowing the expansion of coal mines that were scaled back in the past two decades. Lignite demand worldwide is forecast to rise as much as 5.4 percent by 2020, according to the International Energy Agency. –Stefan Nicola and Ladka Bauerova, Bloomberg, 6 January 2014
Germany’s energy transition has also been a transition to coal: Despite multi-billion subsidies for renewable energy sources, power generation from brown coal (lignite) has climbed to its highest level in Germany since 1990. It is especially coal-fired power plants that are replacing the eight nuclear power plants that were shut down, while less CO2-intensive, but more expensive gas-fired power plants are currently barely competitive. Energy expert Patrick Graichen speaks of Germany’s “energy transition paradox”: the development of solar and wind farms, yet rising carbon dioxide-emissions. —Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 7 January 2014
Question: What happens when you forcibly implement an overly ambitious plan to overhaul your entire energy infrastructure by ridding yourself of both nuclear power and coal, instituting on outright ban on hydraulic fracturing and hence natural-gas exploration, and relentlessly subsidize politically preferred forms of so-called “green” energy that investors and consumers aren’t choosing to use of their own volition? Answer: Across the continent’s mining belt, from Germany to Poland and the Czech Republic, utilities are expanding open-pit mines that produce lignite. This is what happens when you let big-government delusions of “green” grandeur commandeer policy. –Erika Johnson, Hot Air, 7 January 2014
Coal remains the biggest source of fuel for generating electricity in the U.S. and coal exports are growing fast. Demand is being stoked by the rise of power-hungry middle classes in emerging economies, led by China and India. By the end of this decade, coal is expected to surpass oil as the world’s dominant fuel source, according to a recent study by consultant Wood Mackenzie. –John W Miller and Rebecca Smith, The Wall Street Journal, 7 January 2014
The Energy Information Administration estimates that hydrates contain more carbon than every fossil fuel available on Earth combined. EIA also reports that these ice-like structures could hold anywhere from 10,000 trillion to more than 100,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. By way of comparison, the administration, which acts as the independent statistical arm of the Energy Department, said in 2013 that there are just over 7,000 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable shale gas deposits throughout the world. –Clare Foran, National Journal, 24 December 2013
Fire up the coals!
Germany is such a strange country…..they destroy their beautiful rural areas with wind turbines, and then fire up more coal, which is what they are supposed to be eliminating. Why not just get rid of the useless turbines, and spend the money on modern filters, scrubbers, and co-generating systems, which would allow them to burn coal, without the negative effects on the environment. Jus sayin!!!
Good news too for W. Virginia, Germany is a major client for coal mining here.
@1957chev-It is mandatory to install those plats with scrubbers and filters to modern standard, that is factored already into the decision to build the ~30 plants plotted on the map. The lignite plants I think will be near-field (Braunkohlegebieten) belt-fed plants like those in the Chumotov-Most region in N. CZ, so there is an economy of delivery here. Those Bk fields on the CZ side will be exhausted in ~30/40y so the switch in CZ is in the opposing direction to that of Germany (i.e., Thermo-nuclear). Given proximity factors (CZ and the F system also), it seems hardly sensible to close the German T-n plants ahead of their time.
I’m in the UK and I want one 🙁 I’m fed up seeing these motionless windmills dotted around the countryside.
How long will it take to burn up the US Georgia swamp forests now the EU has made it mandatory to burn coal 1/3 together with wood pallets 2/3 ?
2 billion CO2 certificates stashed in the banks ready to compensate the CO2 emissions but they will be used when the CO2 trading prices are much higher.
Burning wood together with coal allows the industry to deliver relative cheap electricity for years to come.
I think the massive burning of wood in coal plants (4 times the volume of coal) is together with the bio fuel mandate one of the most criminal decisions made by the EU.
Spain lost it’s oak forests when Philips II during the 80 years war build his “Armada”.
A single coal plant burns 20 Armada’s in a week.
We’re talking about every coal plant in Europe here.
Where are the freaking environmentalists when you need them?
Typo? 5.4% doesn’t sound like much.
so new videos of bucket wheel excavators will be forthcoming?
cool.
spent a few years in germany, 87 to 89, and could see the tensions then between older land owners and younger activists regarding respectful land use. older ones respected and used it, younger ones worshiped it. could tell the populace was swinging towards the younger point of view but I never expected them to go as far as they did though.
the older people treated us army soldiers a hell of a lot better than young people did. maybe that was because tracked vehicles can really do a number on a field…
1957chev says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:04 am
Germany is such a strange country…..they destroy their beautiful rural areas with wind turbines, and then fire up more coal, which is what they are supposed to be eliminating. Why not just get rid of the useless turbines, and spend the money on modern filters, scrubbers, and co-generating systems, which would allow them to burn coal, without the negative effects on the environment. Jus sayin!!!
Modern coal plants ARE clean.
The crazy policies come from the environmentalists who pushed for the bird schredders and renewable energy like palm oil, bio fuels and now wood, masses of wood while at the same time collecting money to plant trees. It;s these people tat are completely bunkers and now pose a bigger threat to the biosphere than anything from the past.
The average German has had no say in this.
This is what happens if a country is run by a bunch of freaking Commies.
Germany = DDR 2.0
Is this the new black economy?
Sorry.
Question: In total, have Greenpeace’s efforts through the years harmed or benefitted the environment?
Unintended consequence strikes again.
Well done Greenpeace. You have pushed to stifle valid energy alternatives, such as fracking and nuclear, so much that everything has backfired. This makes me very happy 🙂
So how “dirty” is dirty coal? If the smoke stacks are equipped with modern scrubbers, is the effluvia still dirty? Or are scrubbers just there for show? Or do the coal haters hate just because they hate?
R.deHaan…..steady on there! Environmentalists have largely disappeared in Europe…I know, because I am one of the last ones standing! I belong to a society of conservationists that has stood out against turbines and biofuels. We don’t like nuclear, either. I also made a strong plea against wood-chips. These are ‘green’ policies….they have not had environmental impact assessment, instead they are based upon dogma and ‘collusion’ of interests….renewable energy companies like Siemens, bankers and brokers, and yes, modern day campaigners in the green NGOs – but these people are NOT environmentalists – they are professional political lobbyists, just like many climate modellers are….where the policies they promote guarantee them a role for life. If you want a serious analysis – read my book ‘Chill’…half the book deals with why the ‘greens’ have colluded in a false consensus on climate science. These people are not ‘commies’….(my wife is Czech and lived under their occupation for the first half of her life – so we have some idea), but ‘greens’ DO have something in common with communist regimes, and that is the belief in a command and control economy – as long as they happen to have a hand on the control levers. It is a syndrome not confined to any particular culture – its ugly head can arise anywhere.
There are many old-school environmentalists who believe passionately in freedom, local decision making, appropriately scaled technologies, a decent lifestyle that does not compromise the ability of others to live well, as well as clean air, pure water and unpolluted oceans, and abundant biodiversity – the latter for which you ought to thank the early environmentalists. Many of us have opposed the madness of turbines as well as the risks of nuclear power and do not support biofuels. The problem is that ‘green’ is some modern weird imperative that cannot examine its own assumptions – because it is the only pitch that many have for the levers of power and influence. These people are the ones in ‘denial’ of their own self interest – what someone called ‘willful blindness’.
rabbit says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:59 am
Question: In total, have Greenpeace’s efforts through the years harmed or benefitted the environment?
—-l
A question worthy of a research grant 🙂
negrum says January 7, 2014 at 12:10 pm “A question worthy of a research grant :)”
Great.
What do you want the answer to be?
Am I the only one who reads this and immediately thinks “insider futures trading”? How much money did the Greenpeace higher ups invest in coal during the downturn they helped cause before shoring it back up? So much of junk science centers around practices that just coincidentally have massive and sudden impacts on the price of various commodities. One well placed “preliminary finding” can send pork belly prices plummeting and a month later “New research” just happens to pop up causing a swing in the other direction. The average low-information voter will distrust a person because they work directly for one group or the other but lacks the basic understanding of how third parties can make billions by first trashing and then resurrecting a market.
Modern coal plants are basically clean of the old type pollutants such as sulfer and soot – why do you think the push for CO2 as a pollutant? Its the only real thing the enviros can use to pretend that coal/fossil fuels will be the end of us all.
This is an interesting development. In the UK the coal plants are being closed down due to an EU directive (or so we are told ) but Germany apparently does not have to comply with the same rules ! What are our politicians up to ? Oh I know – there is not a single Chartered Engineer in the house of commons, so none of them understand the difference between a kW and an MW, so what chance do we have of getting things right. Looking forward (not) to power cuts due to their lack of engineering competence and hence dithering for more than a decade now.
Peter Taylor says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:08 pm
“There are many old-school environmentalists who believe passionately in freedom, ”
Sure. In Germany, they got purged out of the Green party ca. 1980 by the maoists like Joschka Fischer and Kretschmann who recognized their ticket to power and quickly entered the young party. That was also when I voted the first and last time for the Greens.
John says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:12 pm
“This is an interesting development. In the UK the coal plants are being closed down due to an EU directive (or so we are told ) but Germany apparently does not have to comply with the same rules !”
Wrong. EU allows new coal power plants given they have flue gas scrubbers of a certain quality; doesn’t come cheap. If UK would spend as much money as Germany they could have for instance modernized Drax accordingly. UK decided not to do that due to the age of Drax.
I don’t know your tariffs but I guess we pay twice as much as you for a kWh. 26 Eurocents ATM.
@ Peter Taylor. Whilst the early technology of Fusion Reactors leaves something to be desired ultimately the mass production of Electricity lies with Fusion, even now the successor to ITER, DEMO is being planned and costed, powered by Hydrogen Isotopes they produce practically no ( in that the radioactivity is caused by the Neutron bombardment of the reactor chamber walls ) radioactive waste as compared to the current Uranium fueled reactors, whose technological development via Thorium was curtailed by political expediency under the Nixon administration and latterly by France possibly in an attempt to protect it’s very large and profitable Nuclear industry. The 2 countries that are the most likely to be the first to have Fusion on line, Japan & France both utilize Nuclear heavily, of the two France is the greatest to the extent that 85% + of their electricity production is by conventional Nuclear power, even though Germany is involved with the ITER project, how long do you think it will be before the average conservationist realizes that the scaremongering of Nuclear does not apply to Fusion and votes for it when it comes on line sooner than expected ( the latest forecasts predict around 2035 ).
Germany always gets a free pass with the global warming brigade.
In “Any Questions” a few months ago, Jonathan Porritt of Friends of the Earth was forced to deal with this inconvenient truth as it was mentioned by Lord Lawson. Porritt swatted it away quite casually, with yes, yes, it is true that Germany has taken to coal generation, but only as a TEMPORARY measure, which they HAD to do because they CORRECTLY removed themselves from nuclear generation following the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster.
Yet if the UK mentions cutting subsidies for renewables, you can be sure the likes of Porritt will breathe hell fire and brimstone upon all concerned.
This is not “EUROPE” Germany is not europe even though it pretty much funds it. The french have refused the right to drill, the spaniards have none, neither do the italians. The germans are doing their utmost to protect their thriving economy and have no choice but to build coal fired generators.
Though there are more problems ahead. The EU commisariate has demanded a reduction down to 130gco²/km by 2015 and to 98 grco²/km by 2020. The germans have one a delay of about a year but my gut feeling is that may change. That is why BMW have introduce the all electric car and daimler have introduced the hybrid and soon the EV. The crunch won’t come in my lifetime but it will come. Without germany the eu is bankrupt.
They are if you build them that way, which I’m sure the Germans will do. But it’s not a completely unreasonable assumption that true air pollution could result. Look at the Chinese, they chose NOT to include the filters and scrubbers necessary.
@ Peter Taylor. Whilst the early technology of Fusion Reactors leaves something to be desired ultimately the mass production of Electricity lies with Fusion
Nuclear fusion is like AGW. Great theory but no proven, viable outcome.
TomB says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:44 pm
R. de Haan says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:42 am
…
Modern coal plants ARE clean.
The german ones will burn lignite. This is a devil to clean but I’m sure the germans will manage.
Vince Causey says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Germany always gets a free pass with the global warming brigade
Not a free pass. The germans were better negociators than the rest of the idiots. The start year for co² reduction targets was agreed in such a way that they chose a year when germany emitted masses of co². Reduction becomes easy. The other idiots such as the UK and france had already made reductions in co² before the commissars had set the date.
Vince Causey says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:39 pm
“Germany always gets a free pass with the global warming brigade.”
Kyoto was written by the German Bundestag. We made sure we’d fullfil it without doing anything but close down obsolete DDR industries. It was a ruse. We were so awash in carbon credits we gave some for free to France for some political favor.
Now that carbon credits are a dime a dozen it doesn’t matter anyway.
Roots of Kyoto:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/secret-history-climate-alarmism , and
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43291
The reality is that Germany and other European countries have drastically reduced their coal use and carbon emissions as they have ramped up their use of wind energy. See the IEA data near the bottom here:
http://aweablog.org/blog/post/correcting-fossil-fuel-industry-misinformation-about-germanys-success-with-renewable-energy
Also, those “new” coal plants aren’t so new, and the number of planned coal plants is down six since the nuclear phaseout began.
http://energytransition.de/2013/04/germany-builds-minus-six-coal-plants-after-nuclear-phaseout/
Michael Goggin,
American Wind Energy Association
M Courtney says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:35 pm
negrum says January 7, 2014 at 12:10 pm “A question worthy of a research grant :)”
Great.
What do you want the answer to be?
—-l
My budget unfortunately does not allow for extensive research, so a double-headed coinflip should suffice – payment to be the coin itself and a berth on the Arctic Sunrise (as soon as the Russians release it.) A public institution or an eccentric billionaire might be a more lucrative option, if your morals were adequately flexible 🙂
rabbit says: @ January 7, 2014 at 11:59 am
Question: In total, have Greenpeace’s efforts through the years harmed or benefitted the environment?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Severely harmed.
Corn for Biofuel =====> Corn is heavy feeder and hard on the soil. Corn uses lots of fertilizer, herbicides and now insecticides as the GMOs lost effectiveness on corn parasites. All these cause chemical run-off into water ways for no reason except politics.. Also as of 1996 the land banked fields that supported wild live in the USA have been put back into producing Biofuel.
Palm Oil is doing even worse things elsewhere. Palm oil and orangutans
Cheap energy and a decent standard of living means people can AFFORD to care for the environment. Make energy expensive and impoverishing the people and people will do what is needed to live. Willis Eschenbach has an excellent photo that illustrates this in the WUWT article How Environmental Organizations Are Destroying The Environment
In Denmark they were clear cutting Thy, the first Danish national park to put in windmills. link Or as James Delingpole calls them bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes
That is just quick and random off the top of my head.
Most if not all of us here at WUWT are conservationists and look on all of this as madness.
Peter Taylor says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:08 pm
R.deHaan…..steady on there! Environmentalists have largely disappeared in Europe…I know, because I am one of the last ones standing! I belong to a society of conservationists…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Peter you are a Conservationist NOT an Environmentalist. An environmentalist uses little kids and fluffy animals to push a nasty hidden agenda. We need to continue making that distinction.
ENVIRONMENTALISM vs CONSERVATION A LOOK AT TWO ROADS
Germany has an almost oriental attitude to saving face. You can’t admit you made a mistake if you are the boss of a German organisation. Once they commit to a course of action, they stick to it, come hell or high water.
Eric Worrall says:
January 7, 2014 at 2:23 pm
“Germany has an almost oriental attitude to saving face. You can’t admit you made a mistake if you are the boss of a German organisation. Once they commit to a course of action, they stick to it, come hell or high water.”
That’s what you see. As with the CO2AGW scare, the pretense is not the real thing. There are background layers (as with the design of the Kyoto treaty).
@ Stephen Richards.
Nuclear fusion is like AGW. Great theory but no proven, viable outcome.
Nope, AGW is a Hypothesis, Hot Fusion Plasmas are not only a credible theory but also a proven reality; at present only in timescales too short to be of viable use to generate steam to power turbines but as the knowlege and technology in all fields continue to evolve via the ITER project, an international consortium of Nation States, so the reality of commercial Fusion generated electricity comes closer. The level of research is now not ‘ if ‘ but when.
Michael Goggin, AWEA says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:54 pm
“The reality is that Germany and other European countries have drastically reduced their coal use and carbon emissions as they have ramped up their use of wind energy. See the IEA data near the bottom here:”
Misleading. Data is from before Fukushima, after which half our nukes got switched off. Coal use ramped up after Fukushima, not before.
Last year, I was trying to think of a way to hedge against the crisis. I bet against the stock market, and my gamble so far lost the bet. Still I proposed that coal would see a resurgence. I still think it could be a viable energy source again. Germany will not tear down these plants, I think, and so I hope Europe follows with a clean technology. Brown coal is not as good as black coal, but scrubbers should clean the air so that mostly only life giving CO2 is emitted.
Anyone here have some advice?
To John and Dirk
For information ..
It is not the EU which blocks new coal fired generating stations in the UK. As Dirk says, emissions limits for SO2, NOx and dust is not a barrier to investment in Germany or elsewhere.
The UK has special additional rules relating to CO2. In 2008, DECC published a National Policy Statements (“National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure (EN-2)). New coal fired power stations will be refused consent to proceed if they do not have carbon capture and storage (CCS) as follows:
“2.3.6 As set out in EN-1, new coal-fired generating stations in England or Wales are required to be constructed with a full CCS chain fitted on at least 300 MW net of their proposed generating capacity. Coal-fired generating stations of less than 300 MW capacity are required to show that the proposed generating station will be able to capture, transport and store CO2 from their whole capacity….”
As CCS is not technically and economically demonstrated at this time, the above condition effectively blocks new coal fired generation investments. Germany has no such rule AFAIK, and they argue CO2 savings from efficiency gains when older plant are being replaced by modern and more efficient plants.
Did greens think that politicians were just going to use only wind and solar? Freezing voters is not a good political move for any politician.
Differences between UK and Germany re coal-fired generation?
1) UK plant closing now have not been upgraded to meet emissions standards applicable to all older stations from 2015. All German stations were much younger and already compliant, and some of those have been/are being replaced with newer technologies which deal with NOx, particulates, etc and increase output per tonne of coal and per tonne of carbon.
2) Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act gave legal effect to what had been de facto policy for at least a decade in that it bans new-build coal capacity without carbon capture on at least one of the new units. This applies also to replacement of units at existing power stations. The Act was passed even though CC remains unproven on a fully commercial scale and there are no authorised carbon sequestration facilities in UK. But the effect has been to kill any chance of updating UK c-f capacity in the way that Germany has.
3) Of course, remaining UK plant could have invested to meet next round of EU emissions constraints, which would have allowed them to continue operating normally to at least 2023. But the latest UK energy act – passed just before Christmas – commits us to a carbon tax specifically designed to price coal out of the generation mix by 2018.
The best UK can hope for is that a few coal-fired stations will take the “limited hours derogation” that will allow them to operate for a couple of months a year until 2023 (if the price is right, despite the carbon tax), but that will be it. We will be dependent on plant converted to burn (mostly imported) biomass, intermittent renewables, any nuclear base load that may be on line (and the chances of getting any new build by then look v. slim), plus any gas plant we can afford to operate as we become increasingly dependent on imported LPG. If we’re not careful, the last person to leave UK won’t need to switch the lights off…
It’s not just Germany opening up new coal fired power plants but around the world.
Greens have kept their eyes off the ball. As has been mentioned above and I have mentioned many times: Methane hydrates. We have a long way to go my friends, we will not run out of usable energy. France generates most of its electricity from nuclear.
Even Monbiot has given up on peak oil. Long live fossil fuels, the wonderful ingredient of modern day living and mass fertilizer of the biosphere.
It’s a paradox that the green energy needs a equal amount non-green energy if you wount to have a stable supply of electric energy . The only ‘stable’ green energy is hydro-electric power. It can be stored and used when needed.
Wind and sun i variable and can for day’s and weeks be very low. Then a backup is needed. On the other hand having a lagre amount off powerstation just on standby is also very expensive.
The result is that when a major part of the production is ‘green’ the market start to swing a lot and the avrage price goes up. Denmark has a high prosentage wind-power and the must exepnsive avarge price in europe, but spot price can change a lot in just a few days based on the amount generated. Powerstation based on coal or gas need time to change production. This result in to much produce when there i a lot off wind and not enough when ther is little wind-power.
Stephen Richards says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:44 pm
This is not “EUROPE” Germany is not europe even though it pretty much funds it. The french have refused the right to drill, the spaniards have none, neither do the italians. The germans are doing their utmost to protect their thriving economy and have no choice but to build coal fired generators.
Though there are more problems ahead. The EU commisariate has demanded a reduction down to 130gco²/km by 2015 and to 98 grco²/km by 2020. The germans have one a delay of about a year but my gut feeling is that may change. That is why BMW have introduce the all electric car and daimler have introduced the hybrid and soon the EV. The crunch won’t come in my lifetime but it will come. Without germany the eu is bankrupt.”
With all due respect but with the German Bank with an on/off balance liability of 10 x the German GDP and 100 x the total sum deposited on German savings accounts Germany is more bankrupt than any country in Europe.
Anyone who tells you the EU crises is over, take it from me, it’s just beginning.
Next step to drag the corpses a few months further in time: Mass bail ins just like they did in Cyprus. That’s when the Germans will know they have been sold out. Stock up on beer and popcorn and watch the show.
http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2014/01/05/iwf-studie-draengt-auf-rasche-enteignung-der-sparer-in-europa/
Peter Taylor says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:08 pm
“R.deHaan…..steady on there! Environmentalists have largely disappeared in Europe…”
That’s what I said, “Where are the freaking environmentalists when you need them (LOL).
Big Oil and Thatcherites grind their teeth. Coal is back, at least in Germany.
John Leon says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:36 pm
@ Peter Taylor. Whilst the early technology of Fusion Reactors leaves something to be desired ultimately the mass production of Electricity lies with Fusion, even now the successor to ITER, DEMO is being planned and costed, powered by Hydrogen Isotopes they produce practically no ( in that the radioactivity is caused by the Neutron bombardment of the reactor chamber walls ) radioactive waste as compared to the current Uranium fueled reactors, whose technological development via Thorium was curtailed by political expediency under the Nixon administration and latterly by France possibly in an attempt to protect it’s very large and profitable Nuclear industry. The 2 countries that are the most likely to be the first to have Fusion on line, Japan & France both utilize Nuclear heavily, of the two France is the greatest to the extent that 85% + of their electricity production is by conventional Nuclear power, even though Germany is involved with the ITER project, how long do you think it will be before the average conservationist realizes that the scaremongering of Nuclear does not apply to Fusion and votes for it when it comes on line sooner than expected ( the latest forecasts predict around 2035 ).”
It’s not going to be build.
We’re swimming in oil, gas, shale oil, shale gas and they are not going to be introduced.
The only opportunities I see is the small size Thorium Laser tech that is designed for mass production, static and mobile power generation and the project currently underway by the guy’s from Skunk Works: 17 trillion terrawatt doubling by 2050.
Skunk Works “Cheap Energy for All” solution: A series produced 100MW compact fusion reactor that runs on plentiful and cheap deuterium and tritium (isotopes of hydrogen). https://www.solveforx.com/moonshots/solve-for-x-charles-chase-on-energy-for-everyone
Both developments need another 5 years of development.
TomB says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:44 pm
R. de Haan says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:42 am
…
Modern coal plants ARE clean.
“They are if you build them that way, which I’m sure the Germans will do that.
But it’s not a completely unreasonable assumption that true air pollution could result.
Look at the Chinese, they chose NOT to include the filters and scrubbers necessary”.
The Germans will build their coal plants according to the highest standards.
I only wonder how long they will be burning wood pallets from Georgia USA because some activist environmentalists plan to cut down a tree in Germany for every tree they cut down in Georgia.
They have one guy in the group who can put down a tree in two minutes time but who can’t see the difference between a tree, a wind mill or a street lamp.
Now that could be a problem… for his chain saw.
So her we have it.
Plant a tree initiatives all over the world to prevent erosion and restore barren lands.
At the same time the mass processing of mature forests on a scale not seen since the Industrial revolution and the construction of the rail tracks in Europe.
I think the public will get very, very confused.
Michael Goggin, AWEA says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:54 pm
The reality is that Germany and other European countries have drastically reduced their coal use and carbon emissions as they have ramped up their use of wind energy. See the IEA data near the bottom here:
http://aweablog.org/blog/post/correcting-fossil-fuel-industry-misinformation-about-germanys-success-with-renewable-energy
Also, those “new” coal plants aren’t so new, and the number of planned coal plants is down six since the nuclear phaseout began.
http://energytransition.de/2013/04/germany-builds-minus-six-coal-plants-after-nuclear-phaseout/
Michael Goggin,
American Wind Energy Association”
Electric power in Germany has become expensive thanks to wind, solar and the abrupt faze out of nuclear. Besides that wind and solar are non performers. Last winter solar output was only 20% of the minimum scenario they calculated (dark days and snow) Wind didn’t deliver either due to high pressure area’s = no wind, very hot in the summer, very cold in the winter, in short no output when you need it the most. http://www.thegwpf.org/renewables-fiasco-doldrums-clouds-bring-green-electricity-production-halt/#
For the raw materials used to build 23.000 wind mills, the concrete, the steel, the composites, the rare earth minerals for the magnets and the electronic components, and the energy spend for construction transport and installation we could have build new fail safe thorium reactors a lot of happy Germans, birds, bats and 80% of the money spend still in the bank.
A wind power generator is a symbol of human stupidity.
Germany has created the most expensive junk yard in human history.
Within 10 years all those wind mills will be “Kaput
sulphur or sulfur
sulferIt’s even more ironicker than that. SO2 is a cloud-nucleating aerosol which promotes cooling, and sulphur is an essential nutrient whose absence renders grazing land crop/grass distasteful to cattle (and wildlife, presumably).
Michael Goggin, AWEA says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:54 pm
“The reality is that Germany and other European countries have drastically reduced their coal use and carbon emissions as they have ramped up their use of wind energy. See the IEA data near the bottom here:
http://aweablog.org/blog/post/correcting-fossil-fuel-industry-misinformation-about-germanys-success-with-renewable-energy”
Germany now has about 1 million families no longer able to pay their electricity bills.
The German Middle Class is collapsing and the average income is down the drain.
At the same time we now see a migration of the car industry and their suppliers abroad, so jobs are disappearing.
This adds up with the theory you can measure the prosperity by the quantity of power it consumes.
The higher the power consumption, the higher the standards of living.
The UK, another example of neglect and mismanagement of their energy infra structure now has introduced a scheme of diesel powered back up systems for the wind farms and a new policy where companies are paid to shut their doors when power is needed.
Non of this is necessary: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10389434/Mini-nukes-beat-monster-wind-farms-on-every-count.html#
And wind power at sea? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10500929/Wind-turbines-policy-is-all-at-sea.html
You already guessed it, I am not a fan of wind power.
As for the the savings of CO2: 2 x BS = Bad Science and Bull Shit.
Michael Goggin, AWEA says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:54 pm
See the IEA data:
i have read every text and document on their web site and they push any scam that brings profits.
I have dismissed the IEA as a reliable source of information.
As for the other link, :This is the “Energiewende” site from the new DDR 2.0
With all due respect Michael Goggin but If you quote from these two sites you’ turning in circles because both push the lunatic policies that ruin our economies today.
Gail Combs says:
January 7, 2014 at 2:04 pm
Peter Taylor says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:08 pm
R.deHaan…..steady on there! Environmentalists have largely disappeared in Europe…I know, because I am one of the last ones standing! I belong to a society of conservationists…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Peter you are a Conservationist NOT an Environmentalist. An environmentalist uses little kids and fluffy animals to push a nasty hidden agenda. We need to continue making that distinction.
ENVIRONMENTALISM vs CONSERVATION A LOOK AT TWO ROADS”
No he isn’t.
First they forced us to adopt their CO2 obsessions and import their wind technolgy which does not work. Then they figure the obvious, cheap power is good for the economy and they build 10 new plants. Then they will no doubt allow us to install coal burning capacity if we buy their coal plants which will be the only ones certified as “clean”.
R. de Haan says:
January 7, 2014 at 7:21 pm
“I have dismissed the IEA as a reliable source of information.”
IEA got their re-education 2 years ago or so; now they’re useless, 100% warmist-alarmist-pro renewables without regard to the economics.
THORIUM
DirkH says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:51 pm
Vince Causey says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:39 pm
“Germany always gets a free pass with the global warming brigade.”
Kyoto was written by the German Bundestag. We made sure we’d fullfil it without doing anything but close down obsolete DDR industries. It was a ruse. We were so awash in carbon credits we gave some for free to France for some political favor.
“Now that carbon credits are a dime a dozen it doesn’t matter anyway”.
Yes it does. Because the credits are a dime a dozen they keep the certificates and burn coal mixed with bio feeds so they can use the certificates when they have more value.
They didn’t pay anything for them so they can never loose.
Only the stupid masses loose and… mother nature.
Just what they UN AGENDA 21 crowd needs: humanity = a cancer to the planet
@ Eric Taylor
DirkH is quite right about the Greens. The communist groups who were not directly controlled by Moscow hijacked the Green Train and threw out driver and conductor, thus saving themselves from oblivion. Czech greens had already experienced communism and had had enough of that, thank you.
@Gail Combs
“An environmentalist uses little kids ..”
These very same groups used kindergarden-age children as living shields in their attacks on anti-communists. The Maoists/Trozkyists hurled insults, stones and sticks from behind while the row of little children in front attacked you clumsily or just cried helplessly. Had you comforted one of them, the cameras in stand-by would have clicked away and next days papers had been full of stories about the fascist re-awakening. The former Green foreign minister Fischer, now in the pay of BMW, has been part of these clubs of gentlemen.
Friends:
Several people have questioned the difference between EU legislation closing coal-fired power stations in the UK and allowing construction of coal fired power stations in Germany.
Questing Vole provides an excellent summary of the situation in the UK and how new UK legislation on CO2 emissions prevents new coal-fired power stations in the UK.
This link jumps to his post which is at January 7, 2014 at 4:17 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/despite-climate-campaigners-efforts-germanys-new-coal-boom-reaches-record-level/#comment-1528644
I write to add important detail to the explanation by Questing Vole. The detail is important because it directly pertains to problems now posed by the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) scare.
Before doing that, I draw attention to the post of DirkH at January 7, 2014 at 1:30 pm in response to John who raised this issue. This is required because – as is often true of posts by DirkH – it misleads by providing true but incomplete information and, thus, reduces the warning about effect of the AGW scare. His post says:
The true but misleading nature of this will be apparent from the following.
The Acid Rain scare was raging throughout Europe (and elsewhere) in the 1970s. It was claimed that oxides of sulphur and nitrogen (SOx and NOx) from coal-fired power stations were increasing acidity of rain to harm forests in Scandinavia and Germany.
The Acid Rain scare was typical of all environmentalist scares in that it exaggerated a small truth to become a Big Lie. All rain is sulphurous and acidic (all life on land would die if this were not so). And emissions of SOx and NOx do increase the sulphur content and the acidity of rain. Such increase to the sulphur in rain can – and does – have significant effects (e.g. damage to plants, statues, etc.) especially near to an emission source. But SOx is very soluble in water so it is washed out of the air by rain. Indeed, ‘scrubbers’ which remove SOx from power station flue gases put the gases through a shower to achieve almost complete SOx removal.
Hence, any significant damage to trees from the SOx emitted by power stations would be most severe adjacent to the power stations. But there was no sign of damage to trees surrounding and down-wind from power stations.
The claim was that the sulphur from the power stations was being transported significant distances to cause “forest death” (waldsterben) in German and Scandinavian forests.
I was then working at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment (CRE) which UK government had tasked to research Acid Rain, its causes, its effects, and methods to both prevent it and to overcome its effects. CRE was conducting large projects to fulfil these tasks. But I observed that the spatial distribution of the acidity of rain was not consistent with the Acid Rain scare.
Little sulphur was in rain near the power stations, but the sulphur content of rain was very high near places where large rivers discharged into the North Sea. For the sulphur from British and German power stations to reach Scandinavian forests it would need to
(a) not be much in rain until the sulphur reached areas near river outflows,
(b) be deposited by rain near river outflows,
(c) not be much in rain after passing river outflows,
(d) then be in rain falling on Scandinavian forests.
I suggested a more plausible explanation of the spatial distribution of the sulphur content in rain over Northern Europe. My hypothesis was that agricultural runoff containing excess fertilisers was being transported to the North Sea by rivers. This fertiliser was fertilising algae in the North Sea such that the algae grew. Algae emit DMS (dimethyl sulphide) and related compounds. Increase to the algae would increase sulphur in rain near the sources of the fertilisation. This suggestion for the observed spatial distribution of sulphur in rain was supported by the fact that algae had increased such that toxic algal blooms were washing up along North Sea shores.
My hypothesis – of itself – provided a serious doubt to the Acid Rain scare.
France was promoting the scare because France had adopted a policy of using nuclear power for its electricity generation. But the UK and Germany had adopted coal-fired power stations. Anything which increased the cost of coal-fired power (e.g. retrofitting scrubbers) would benefit the French economy by providing a handicap to its major competitors; i.e. the UK and German economies. However, French farmers were a significant political lobby that no French government could offend (without losing office) so a French government could not promote the Acid Rain scare if it were a result of farming practices.
Subsequent investigation supported my hypothesis, so the Acid Rain scare faded away. Nobody rejected it, but everyone quietly forgot it. Importantly, after the scare had assuaged it was discovered that forests had been increasing over Northern Europe throughout the period of the Acid Rain scare so ‘forest death’ was an effect which had not happened.
(People wanting more information on the evolution of the Acid Rain scare should read the two papers on it by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen: they are outstandingly the best studies of the subject and both are better than my paper on the matter.)
But by then the EU had established its Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) and the bureaucracy to enforce it. And the LCPD bureaucrats now continue to justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits for SOx and NOx from power stations.
SOx can be removed from flue gases by use of Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) systems. FGD adds about 20% to the capital cost and about 10% to the operating cost of a power station. These costs are spread over the entire life of a new power station.
An old power station may lack physical space to retrofit FGD so the LCPD enforces closure of such a power station. And the additional costs of FGD make every old power station uneconomic so it closes. Power stations with 15 or less years of remaining operational life have to expend an additional ~20% capital cost which has to be recovered over the remaining operational life while profits are reduced by the ~10% increase in operational costs. In the UK this provides the operators of coal-fired power stations with a choice
1. fit FGD and lose money
or
2. close their powers stations.
They are making the only sensible choice and closing the power stations.
This brings us to the AGW-scare.
The global cooling scare was being promoted while the Acid Rain scare existed because Acid Rain was not the only harmful effect asserted of SOx emissions.
It was said that SOx from power stations was cooling the Earth to provide a threat that global cooling would result in harm to global climate.
And global cooling had existed from ~1940 to ~1970, but global warming set-in around 1970. Hence, by ~1980 the global cooling scare was becoming non-viable. Also, the demonisation of SOx was assuaging because the demise of the Acid Rain scare was obviously imminent.
So, the global cooling scare was morphed into the global warming scare.
It was said that CO2 from power stations was warming the Earth to provide a threat that global warming would result in harm to global climate.
The AGW-scare then raged until it was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen where it was decided there would not be a successor Treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. I said then that the AGW-scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.
Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘Acid Rain’ scare. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the LCPD exists and is closing UK power stations. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing the enforced closure of UK power stations.
Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.
As the AGW-scare fades away people will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.
And such rules and bureaucracies are being established. As Questing Vole says of the UK
I again link to his informative post.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/despite-climate-campaigners-efforts-germanys-new-coal-boom-reaches-record-level/#comment-1528644
Richard
Ok, Richard, I didn’t give a history of the Acid Rain scare, we can agree that it was an entirely misguided thing, and it is the reason for todays flue gas scrubbing requirements in the EU.
I think you place the demise of the Global Cooling / SO2 / Acid Rain scare a little too early. I would place the definitive switchover to Global Warming and abandoning of the Acid Rain / Waldsterben story at the 1988 congress lecture by James Hansen. It took that long for the Global Warmers to replace the established Acid Rain scare – due to simple inertia.
And thanks for the information about the UK’s Carbon Capture laws; I didn’t know those; and I must say, quite a mad idea to require installation of such unproven gadgets by law, for no gain at all. Just mandate it into existence.
It’s a little off topic, but I live in the west part of Norway and acid rain caused by SO2 released from Germany an UK was the cause off complete loss of fresh-water fish in several thousand lakes.
After 20 year off redused SO2 the fish is returning. At least in my country acid rain was no scare, it was very real.
DirkH:
Thankyou for your response to my post which you provide at January 8, 2014 at 6:57 am.
You say
I think you are pointing to a significant – and now important – difference between the Acid Rain and AGW scares.
As you say, and I agree,
“the definitive switchover to Global Warming and abandoning of the Acid Rain / Waldsterben story at the 1988 congress lecture by James Hansen”.
But by then the Acid Rain scare had faded and was being replaced by the AGW scare.
Hansen was invited to make his stage-managed presentation to the US Congress because by then politicians were willing to adopt the AGW scare as a result of activities by Mrs Thatcher; see
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/
The AGW scare is following a different course.
A stake was put through the heart of the AGW-scare at Copenhagen in December 2009 when it was decided there would not be a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The AGW-scare is fading away but (unlike the Acid Rain scare) has no obvious successor so the dead AGW-scare rambles on and continues to do its harm while scare-mongers search for its successor.
And ‘true believers’ in the AGW-scare are becoming increasingly extreme in their demands (e.g. for censorship of truth about climate, by sailing into waters they expect to be ice-free, etc.) because they can see that support for the scare is assuaging and they don’t know why.
Hence, I am strongly of the opinion that we need to guard against AGW- supporting bureaucracies while being watchful for the next big scare so we can try to ‘nip it in the bud’.
Richard
Oldseadog says: January 7, 2014 at 11:52 am
Is this the new black economy?
Sorry.
It’s okay, I was afraid we were heading for a red one.
Kjetil Nesheim:
Thankyou for your post at January 8, 2014 at 9:40 am which is not at all “off topic” and says
You raise three issues; viz.
1. acid addition to Scandinavian lakes.
2. the nature of the added acid
and
3. the source of the acid.
Several Scandinavian lakes did suffer fish loss as you say. The problem was addressed by liming of some lakes to increase their alkalinity.
Perhaps some of the problem resulted from additional sulphur in rain. But most of it was caused by changed forestry practices following WW2. Acid exists in water that runs-off from pine trees.
But I am certain that sulphur from German and UK power stations could not have been a significant contribution to the problem which foresters have addressed.
Your post raises an important point. Many things can cause unfortunate environmental effects. And it is important to determine the correct cause when an effect is observed. Otherwise the true cause is not addressed while efforts to address the incorrect ’cause’ have costs which may include additional environmental damage.
Unfortunately, whenever an unfortunate environmental effect is observed then there are people who are willing to use it as an excuse to further their own aims, and this inhibits actions to determine true causes.
Richard
I don’t know where you get your info from, but it plain wrong. The curralation between how acid the rain is and how asid the lakes an rivers are very high and only a few rivers and lakes was treatet because off the high cost.
Since much off the area that was affected is high country there has never been any logging ther the last 2000 years. In other areas there is logging, but done the same way as it has been done the last 100 years. They uses tractors and chainsaws, not horses and handpowered saws, but that is really the main difference.
Also in areas used manily as grassland the effect off acid rain was clear. All biotope was effected and they did not start to recover before the acidity in the rain dropped.
“Cutting off the nose to spite the face” is described in Wikipedia as “an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: “Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face” is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the object of one’s anger.
Hard to think of a better example of this than Germany’s shut-down of nuclear power generation or the UK’s shutdown of its coal fired plants.
Kjetil Nesheim:
re your post at January 8, 2014 at 10:45 am.
Assuming all you say is true, can you please explain why
when such damage to grasslands was not observed in the UK and Germany but you claim the acid originates from the UK and Germany?
Richard
>when such damage to grasslands was not observed in the UK and Germany but you claim the >acid originates from the UK and Germany?
Yes i can, and a lot can be expalned just looking at the following gfx presentation of data collected in Norway.
http://www.miljostatus.no/PageFiles/955/ph_innsjoer_1990-2012.png
http://www.miljostatus.no/Tema/Luftforurensning/Sur-nedbor/Avsetning-av-svovel-nitrogen/
Text on the last page is in norwegian, but ‘svovel’ = sulfor and the page display the data for sulfor and nitrogen in mesurement since 1978.
Why Norway is much more effected then Germany and UK is based on hich smoke-stacks and weather-patterns. High stacks prevented much SO2 from falling to the ground ‘locally’. It will follow the wind up to the very south of Norway from Germany and SO2 from UK will rain down at the west-coast. Testing has shown that over 80% off the high SO2 on the west-coast in the 70’s and 80’s was UK based and simelar factor from Germany at the very south off Norway.
The prosentage is not as high today, but still close since Norway also have reduced SO2 pollution and no longer allow oil-based heating (98% off the electrisity in Norway is hydro based).
Kjetil Nesheim:
Thankyou for your reply to me at January 8, 2014 at 12:46 pm and especially for its charts.
So, there was slight elevation of precipitation acidity in Southern Norway. That is not evidence of why the elevation existed. And it is certainly not evidence of sulphur transport from Germany and the UK to the southern tip of Norway.
Assertion is not evidence.
What is your evidence that the elevated acidity was not increased DMS emission from the North Sea?
What is your evidence that reduced oil-based heating in Norway was irrelevant?
What is your evidence that …. etc.?
Show me the pH distribution of rain in the tracks you claim are to Norway from Germany and the UK and I will be interested (hint: the plots do not support your assertion).
The high stacks of power stations assist flue gas dispersal and avoid flue gas grounding but they do NOT prevent SOx being washed down by rain. So, your answer does NOT answer my question which I remind was a request for you to justify how sulphur from German and UK power stations had no effect on German and UK grasslands when you claim it damaged Norwegian grass lands. Indeed, your answer does not address my question.
In conclusion, I remind that I wrote saying to you
and I now add that there are other people who assist them by swallowing their excuses.
Richard
I did not said that it harmed grassland, but rivers and lakes surrounded by grassland was effected by acid rain in the same way as those surrounded by pine forrest or in high montain areas. If you have a check some weatersites you will see that the normal way that air moves is from west to east int the atlantic. That means weather-system cross the UK and then over the Norht-sea in such a way that air from the south off UK hits Stavanger/Bergen.
SImilar patterns can be seen over land moving from Germany north to Sweeden and Norway.
As I think you are cherry-picking info to support your own teori, and nothing can change it and you are not reading what is written. Like i did not say that:
‘reduced oil-based heating in Norway was irrelevant?’.
What i said was that the reduction in sulfor from Norway because off this resultet in a fearly stabel distribution as the absolutt amount was reduced. When the graph show an reduction to 1/3 of what is was 30 years ago that is not a ‘slight elevation’.
Kjetil Nesheim:
In your post at January 8, 2014 at 3:24 pm you say to me
Absolutely untrue!
I merely point out that your assertions fail to agree with reality.
SOx washes out in rain. Its highest concentrations in rain are near its emission sources.
You claim that SOx emitted in Germany and the UK did not wash out to do damage near its emission sources but traveled to Norway to do damage.
I say, give me some evidence for your claim because I know that DMS production from the North Sea quadrupled at the time.
And that is my last comment on the matter.
Richard
http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/current?LANG=en&CONT=euro&LAND=euro®ION=&SORT=2&UD=0&INT=24&TYP=windrichtung&ART=karte&RUBRIK=akt&DATE=–&CEL=C&SI=mph
1. This is a link to today’s wind-patterns and they show what very often is the case. Wind blows from Germany towards the south of Norway and from UK towards the west-coast. Rain very often will not fall before it hits the mountains in Norway.
2. There is very little sedimentary rock in Norway. The ground is therefor less of a buffer then what it is in Germany and UK.
3. We have more rain. 2000mm/year and more is not unusual
4. SO2 and NO2 can travel long distances before rain washes it out off the air
What this mean is that even if it had been OK for Germany and UK to do nothing, it would not have been OK for Norway.
richardscourtney says:
+++++++++++
What a fantastic history. Thank you!
richardscourtney says:
January 8, 2014 at 10:26 am
+++++++++++
What a fantastic history. Thank you!
I should be clear, I meant, fantastic history “lesson”, and not that the happenings were fantastic.
Rain is always acidic, as it dissolves carbonic acid, AKA CO2. Note the point that forests most exposed to SO2 and NOx were healthier than others.
RdH;
They didn’t pay anything for them so they can never loose.
Only the stupid masses loose
lose
lose.
you goose! 😉 :p