China ‘the coal monster’ fuel dominated energy use overwhelms Obama’s EPA CO2 reduction schemes

clip_image002Obama’s ideological war on coal unnecessary, is wasteful, costly, inept, and pure political theater.

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

China’s energy consumption is climbing so rapidly that it’s energy use, which already exceeds ours, will be double U.S. levels by 2040 as shown from EIA data below. (1)

clip_image005

Furthermore the astounding growth in China’s energy consumption is dominated by coal fuel energy resources.(2)

clip_image007

Coal fuel use provided more two thirds of China’s 2012 total energy consumption requirements.(2)

clip_image009

This massive growth in both energy use consumption and coal fuel resources have driven China’s CO2 emissions to the highest level in the world and far above U.S. levels with continued large future increases expected.(3)

clip_image011

Obama’s EPA proposal seeks to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions by mandating reductions in our use of coal fuel in the production of electricity. But the U.S. is already in the process of reducing  the use of coal fuel for the production of electricity with free market energy forces driving the increased use of natural gas with declining use of coal to meet both our present and future growing needs for electricity as shown in EIA data below. (4)

clip_image013

This is not the case for electricity production in China where coal fuel is used in even greater abundance than it is used in providing total energy consumption. (2) In 2012 China’s electricity from coal accounted for 76% of the countries total electricity production.(5)

clip_image015

While the U.S. is expected to have little increase in future coal use (see EIA Figure ES-5 above) for electricity the same cannot be said for China. China is expected to see about an 80% increase in its 2012 level of coal fuel use for electricity by 2030 as shown below from EIA data. (5)

clip_image017

Compare China’s huge growth in use of coal fuel above with U.S. estimated coal fuel use (absent Obama’s EPA proposed schemes) shown in the EIA data below. (5)

clip_image019

This increased coal fuel use by China results in its CO2 emissions climbing from 2012 levels of 8,994 million metric tons to 14,029 million metric tons in 2030 (EIA data shown below) which is an increase of 5,014 million metric tons of CO2. The Obama EPA CO2 reduction proposal  amounts to a maximum reduction of about 500 million metric tons of CO2 by 2030 which is overwhelmed by the China’s increase which is 10 times larger than Obama’s EPA proposed reduction. (5), (6)

clip_image021
clip_image003[9]
Compare China’s growth in CO2 emissions above against the U.S CO2 emissions future profile from EIA data shown below.(5)

clip_image023

The EPA cost assessments for the costs of complying with its CO2 reduction mandates are erroneous. The EPA assumes that by 2030 U.S. electricity growth can be reduced by more than 11% from its present rate of growth. But the EIA 2014 AEO report estimates that to achieve modest GDP growth of about 2.4% per year means that electricity growth between now and 2030 needs to increase by more than 16%. The difference between the EPA’s 11% reduction in growth by 2030 versus the EIA GDP economic growth needed increase of more than 16% amounts to tens of billions of dollars of increase costs to electricity consumers. (4),(7)

While the climate alarmist press here in the U.S. provide erroneous and misleading stories claiming that China is going to agree to emissions reduction targets in the future (8) the reality is quite different. China is struggling to continue to grow its economy and the latest intentions announced by their government are that future emissions growth will occur consistent with achieving the desired growth of their economic objectives. (9)

The monumental climate impact futility of Obama’s EPA proposal is demonstrated by estimates of so called global temperature reductions which would be achieved by complying with the EPA demands even using flawed climate model projections which grossly overestimate global temperature impacts based on atmospheric CO2 emissions.
Estimates of the global temperature “benefit” from Obama’s schemes vary between less than a hundredth of a degree by 2050 and less than 2 hundredths of a degree by 2100. (10), (11) With the reality of global CO2 emissions growing hugely between the present and 2030, despite Obama’s EPA dumb CO2 reduction schemes, as demonstrated by the material discussed above even the trivial, miniscule, pathetic and grossly overestimated global temperature “benefits” suggested are completely wiped out.

Other nations from around the world are growing in number and rebelling against the absurd climate fear political ideology that is wasting massive national resources and pushing scientifically unsupported climate alarmist claims trying to falsely impose the need for measures to clamp down on reasonable future energy use growth, use of diverse fuel resources including fossil fuels and economic growth needed to create better futures for disadvantaged peoples. Countries engaged in this growing rebellion against misguided climate fear politics include Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India. (12)

Meantime the great global temperature “pause” continues with the RSS satellite global temperature measurements showing no increases in global temperatures occurring in 17 years and 9 months.(13)
(1) http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_07252013.pdf

(2) http://euanmearns.com/china-the-coal-monster/

(3) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/11/china-and-co2/

(4) http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/executive_summary.cfm

(5) http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=IEO2013&subject=0-IEO2013&table=1-IEO2013&region=0-0&cases=Reference-d041117

(6) http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602ria-clean-power-plan.pdf Pages ES-6 and ES-7

(7) http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602ria-clean-power-plan.pdf Pages 3-14 to 3-17

(8) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/china-denies-u-turn-on-co2-emissions/

(9) http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/09/uk-china-climatechange-idUSKBN0EK0QR20140609

(10) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/02/the-epas-political-futility/

(11) http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80456333/

(12) http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/its-on-abbotts-message-to-david-cameron-join-us-and-canada-nz-india-skeptics/

(13) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/the-pause-continues-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-9-months/

About these ads
This entry was posted in Coal, Energy, EPA. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to China ‘the coal monster’ fuel dominated energy use overwhelms Obama’s EPA CO2 reduction schemes

  1. Charles Nelson says:

    One of the most bizarre aspects of Australian Warmism, is that its hand wringing exponents who carefully count ever gram of carbon that is emitted in Australia cheerfully ignore the millions of tonnes per annum of coal being exported to China. Their smug, sanctimonious attitudes are based entirely on either ‘denial’ or ‘hypocrisy’ got to be one or the other!

  2. Alan Poirier says:

    The irony, of course, is the U.S. as well will be shipping coal to both China and India to feed those new power plants there. Too funny.

  3. John says:

    Burn baby burn!!

  4. pat says:

    MSM still desperate to prove China is serious about CAGW. like the last rubbish about China capping emissions, this one has not been confirmed by the Chinese Govt.

    what next – capital punishment?

    11 June: Reuters: China’s Shenzhen to punish firms if carbon targets not
    met-media
    by Kathy Chen and Stian Reklev
    China’s Shenzhen will impose sanctions on companies that fail to comply with
    targets under the city’s carbon trading scheme, an official said according
    to a local media outlet, despite criticism about the rules.
    The Shenzhen government, hosting the oldest of China’s six pilot carbon
    trading markets, last week arranged a special CO2 permit auction to help
    local emitters meet their targets for 2013 by the June 30 deadline.
    But only around a third of the permits on offer were picked up, with some of
    the 635 scheme participants saying they didn’t participate because they were
    unhappy about scheme rules and planned to appeal to the government about how
    their emission targets had been set.
    Guangdong province faces a similar situation in its market, casting doubt
    over China’s ability to enforce targets in its carbon markets…
    “Non-compliers will be asked to pay a fine of three times the market value
    (of each permit they fail to hand over to the government),” Zhou Quanhong,
    head of the Shenzhen government carbon trading office, told a ***conference on
    Tuesday, according to news service provider Crystal Carbon.
    He said those who failed to pay a fine would be dealt with by the court, and
    that violators would have their lending credibility downgraded and lose any
    subsidies or preferential fiscal treatment they might receive.
    ***The government did not immediately respond to questions regarding Zhou’s
    comments, but they were confirmed by several sources who participated at the
    conference…
    Zhou’s message was seen by market players as sending a strong message that
    the government intends to ensure the scheme is properly implemented and
    reassure traders that market regulations would be upheld…
    But finding sellers could be a challenge for buyers, who only have 19 days
    to get their books in order.
    Liquidity in the scheme is poor with only a handful of thousand permits
    trading each day. Some 12,000 permits changed hands on Wednesday…
    The China Emissions Exchange, which hosts trading of permits in the Shenzhen
    market, on Wednesday began offering trading of 2014 permits.
    (LOL) Bids and offers opened far apart, with the first trade going through in the afternoon at 60
    yuan, but only for a single permit.
    The government has issued 33 million permits for 2014, according to the
    exchange.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/11/idUSL4N0OS0XS20140611

    ***this is obviously the conference referred to above:

    WALCC (World Alliance for Low Carbon Cities): Sixth Low Carbon City
    Development World Forum; June 10-11, 2014, in Shenzhen, China
    The event will host over 1,000 leaders from government, industry, investors,
    academia, international organizations, business associations, and media from
    over 40 countries…
    Confirmed Participants include:
    Graham Meadows, Special Advisor, European Commission
    Mariana Fay, Chief Economist, Sustainable Development Network, World Bank
    Travis Bradford, Director, Energy and Environment Concentration, School of
    International and Public Affairs, Columbia University
    Jonathan Woetzel, Senior Director, McKinsey & Company
    http://walcc.org/index.php/material-bank/events/101-sixth-low-carbon-city-development-world-forum-june-10-11-2014-shenzhen-china

  5. euanmearns says:

    I was pretty surprised to hear that the USA aims to reduce CO2 emissions from existing power stations by 30%. What does that mean? Close down 30% of existing stations? Run stations at 70% of nameplate capacity? Or carbon capture and storage? CCS converts power production plants into power consumption plants. For coal about 25% more energy is required for the capture, compression, and sequestration of CO2. But at least in the USA you will probably use the CO2 in enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Capital cost of a CCS station is about double the normal. It increases the demand for coal.

    Germany is building 12 new coal fired power stations and is in process of abandoning Energiewende. In the UK we took the wrecking ball to about 12 coal fired power stations this past 24 months for loss of about 12 GW generating capacity, preferring to be dependent upon Qatari and Russian gas.

    Carbon Capture and Storage and 1984

    Why does the concept of CCS exist?

    The only reason that the concept of CCS exists is to assist the UK and other nations to meet CO2 emissions reduction targets imposed by the EU and UK 2008 Climate Change Act [3].

    Meeting these targets will have close to zero impact on the natural world. The only guarantee is that electricity prices will rise significantly and energy poverty will spread. The logical way to deal with these legally binding targets is to abolish them.

  6. euanmearns says:

    Those who like my charts for China can find a similar set for the USA here and a list of links at the end of that article for several other countries including Germany, the UK, Egypt, Turkey, Nigeria, Russia etc.

    America energy independence

  7. lee says:

    Charles Nelson says:
    June 12, 2014 at 12:09 am
    There are those in Australia who want the Chinese burned Australian coal to be attributed to Australia.

  8. David Archibald says:

    The possessive singular of country is country’s. Countries is the plural of country.

  9. michael hart says:

    lol
    Is the EPA going to declare war on China or threaten to fine them? I don’t think so.

  10. luvthefacts says:

    As Charles mentioned in the first response, a vast amount of Australian coal is sold to China & our country benefits immensely, being able to support a wide range of age, unemployment and disability pensions as well as programs for indigenous advancement, green initiatives and universal education and health care.
    The opposition to this is very loud from the green and environmental groups but they have no guilty conscience at putting their hand out, wanting to say more than their fair share in any conversation and refusing to recognize that their own existence is just as valid as that that of every other person on the planet.

  11. Wayne Butler says:

    The logical conclusion, for the sake of Mother Gaia, is that saturation bombing of China should commence immediately.

    After all, it’s a crisis and isn’t doing something better than doing nothing?

  12. cedarhill says:

    Redistributionist take note: you don’t “spread the wealth (energy)” the folks will make and spread it around themselves. For the Sophomoric Reasoning genuis of the Left and Greens, they’re simply making the pie larger and not making more slivers.

    One note about India. Their recent elections put very pro-capitalist (MSM “conservative”, “right-wing”) in office. If they only slightly implement what they propsoed, India’s expansion of energy will be as dramatic as China. China and India recognize energy is life and plentiful, cheap energy is prosperity. Unlike the Sophomoric Reasoning of the Left and Greens, they also know if the pie isn’t made larger, redistribution will only result in equal shares of misery. And when they make the pie large enough, they’ll begin implementing some of the greenie stuff. China is using what some have labled “capitalist-totalitarian”; we’ll know in a few months the direction India chooses.

  13. M Simon says:

    A comment I left at a warmist site:

    What we need to do is get CO2 below 250 ppm. We don’t want to go below that or else plants will have a big problem. Which could lead to extinction. So the Ideal number for CO2 is between 250 and 275ppm. Has anyone notified the Chinese?

    What we may need to do is take US CO2 production to zero to make up for what China is doing. Or maybe we could go to war with them to make them stop destroying the planet.

    A World War would be totally worth it to stop planetary destruction don’t you think?

  14. Robin says:

    Having read current federal officials at the US Department of ED stating that China is in the ascension and the US in decline like it was no big deal, I do not think harming of the US via policy troubles our public class in the least. Plus CO2 moderation is the excuse for Regional Equity which takes the prosperity where it exists still and transfers funds to the Blue States and inner cities.

    Called Metropolitanism now, the Low Carbon push is actually a means of fostering racial justice in the US as former federal officials like Van Jones have openly stated. It ensures “that people of color have equal access to jobs, schools, and housing throughout metropolitan regions.” The Obama Administration calls these areas Promise Zones and it is a major and increasing priority.

    So when these CO2 policies seem to make no sense in light of costs and a Middle East in turmoil and the lack of factual support for the models, there is always the cui bono analysis to keep in mind. Especially since the policymakers have so openly proclaimed this as their rationale. I have sat in the audience and gasped at times at the forthrightness.

  15. LT says:

    With all that growth in global CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2 levels do show any growth change associated with China’s output, it does not matter what rate our emissions are, atmospheric CO2 levels keep growing based on other factors.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1980/derivative/normalise/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1980/mean:3/normalise

  16. Leo Geiger says:

    The second essay in as many days on this subject, and once again not a single mention of the key concept surrounding emissions reductions: total cumulative emissions. The United States and its 300 million people have put 1.5 to 2 times more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than the 1.3 billion Chinese have up to now. Even with increasing Chinese emissions and flat to declining U.S. emissions, the Chinese won’t match the U.S. in total cumulative emissions until about 2030 on a nation-to-nation level, and likely never will on a per capita level.

    That is why the developing world asks that developed nations which are responsible for the majority of excess greenhouse gas currently in the atmosphere (a situation that will remain for some time yet) need to take the lead right now in emissions reductions.

    Looking only at annual emissions numbers ignores all this.

  17. richardscourtney says:

    Leo Geiger:

    Your post at June 12, 2014 at 5:07 am says

    The second essay in as many days on this subject, and once again not a single mention of the key concept surrounding emissions reductions: total cumulative emissions. The United States and its 300 million people have put 1.5 to 2 times more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than the 1.3 billion Chinese have up to now. Even with increasing Chinese emissions and flat to declining U.S. emissions, the Chinese won’t match the U.S. in total cumulative emissions until about 2030 on a nation-to-nation level, and likely never will on a per capita level.

    That is why the developing world asks that developed nations which are responsible for the majority of excess greenhouse gas currently in the atmosphere (a situation that will remain for some time yet) need to take the lead right now in emissions reductions.

    Looking only at annual emissions numbers ignores all this.

    Your post rightly says this is “The second essay in as many days on this subject” but every other thing in your post is wrong.

    “Cumulative emissions” are NOT the “key concept surrounding emissions reductions”. You made that assertion on WUWT yesterday hereand I refuted it here saying

    Leo Geiger:
    At June 11, 2014 at 5:42 am you say

    The number that is relevant for emissions reduction policies and climate change is the total cumulative emissions, not annual emissions. Developed nations have a big emissions head start. In round numbers, the United States has still put 1.5 to 2 times more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere than China has up to now. Even with annual U.S. emissions reductions and annual Chinese growth, it will probably take until about 2030 for the Chinese to catch up.

    Our estimates differ.
    I suggest it will probably take until about 2025 for the Chinese to catch up and after that to out-do the GHG emissions of “developed nations”.

    Of course, none of this is “relevant for emissions reduction policies and climate change”.

    If the improbable assertions of AGW are correct then what matters for policies to constrain AGW is increase to total atmospheric CO2 and the contributions of individual nations to that increase.

    And if the policy objective is totalitarian control then the Chinese government already has it while constraint of GHG emissions is the policy tool other governments want to use to obtain it.

    Repetition does not convert untrue assertions into reality. Your assertions were refuted yesterday and you have not answered the refutation.

    Richard

  18. Alan Robertson says:

    M Simon says:
    June 12, 2014 at 4:13 am

    “A comment I left at a warmist site:

    What we need to do is get CO2 below 250 ppm. We don’t want to go below that or else plants will have a big problem. Which could lead to extinction. So the Ideal number for CO2 is between 250 and 275ppm. Has anyone notified the Chinese?

    What we may need to do is take US CO2 production to zero to make up for what China is doing. Or maybe we could go to war with them to make them stop destroying the planet.

    A World War would be totally worth it to stop planetary destruction don’t you think?
    ___________________________
    “I’ve been to one world’s fair, a picnic and a rodeo and that’s the stupidest thing I ever heard…”
    -Slim Pickens, as: Maj. T.J. (King) Kong- “Dr. Strangelove”

  19. gnomish says:

    ok, why wait any longer- i’ll just dive right into pre-traumatic stress syndrome- beat the rush, right?
    because everything we do leads to disaster – in time
    if it’s whirling down the vortex ever faster, then fiiiiiiine
    i finally got it- it’s worse than we thought
    it’s the biggest crisis of all time!
    so fine, let it blow cuz it’s time to get it over!
    i’m tired of it preying on my mind.
    when the end of the world just won’t stop being nigh!

    ya know, i think i’ll just go do whatever i usuallly do and wait for it…
    hmm – what if the apocalypse came and went – and i never knew it?
    i mean – what if armageddon happened… and i just sorta slept thru it?

    hey- so wake me when oblivion is over- okay?
    it’s hard to whip a fervor to a froth every day.
    i’m not in any hurry, see- so please don’t try to worry me-
    i suffer from catastrophe fatigue in a very big way.

    so wake me when it’s over and done.
    when it’s time for doing something new and fun.
    a second coming’s nothing but another rerun
    i’d like to give a fuck but i don’t have a free one-
    so wake me when it’s over and the parasites are gone!
    wake me when it’s over and done!

  20. Col Mosby says:

    I have no idea who came up with these projections for future Chinese power sources, but they are pure BS with respect to nuclear, for certain, and therefore highy questionable for everything else.
    The chart , which ends in 2012, doesn’t show any Chinese nuclear, nor does the text even mention same. That’s pretty strange, since just in the past 3 months the Chinese have completed and connected 3 nuclear plants to the grid, and are currently building 37 nuclear plants, all of which will go online within the next several years. And that’s far from the last- Chinese plans are for 600 nuclear plants by midcentury and 1600 by the end of the century. They will easily surpass U.S. nuclear capacity within the next decade. Recently China notified Westinghouse that they will shortly order an additional 25 AP1000 nuclear plants, to follow the 4 AP1000 plants they currently have under construcion. China can build, all by herself, nuclear power plants equal to our best technology – for example their CAP1000 and CAP1400, variants and extensions of the Westinghouse-Toshiba AP1000. They are also far advanced in their testing of fast reactors. The Chinese do NOT like burning coal and will be building facilities to allow importation of LPG to replace coal.
    I have no idea who created these estimates of future Chinese power sources, or how dated they are, but everything I’ve read about Chinese energy programs tells me they cannot be taken seriously.

  21. ferdberple says:

    Damages for cumulative emissions are a weakness in the negotiating position of the developed nations, which China intends to exploit to its advantage.

    http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/climate-talks-walk-out-compensation-un-warsaw
    Representatives of most of the world’s poor countries have walked out of increasingly fractious climate negotiations after the EU, Australia, the US and other developed countries insisted that the question of who should pay compensation for extreme climate events be discussed only after 2015.
    The orchestrated move by the G77 and China bloc of 132 countries came during talks about “loss and damage”

  22. Ed Reid says:

    US EPA is overdue in releasing the NAAQS required under the CAA as a result of its 2009 Endangerment Finding regarding CO2. EPA could satisfy the President, his Secretary of State, his Science Adviser, Joe Romm, Bill McKibben, etc. by setting the NAAQS at 350 ppmv and then retreating to its secret bunker and monitoring the “fun”.

  23. Ed Reid says:

    ferdberple @ June 12, 2014 at 5:57 am,

    I can hardly wait to review the official definition of an “extreme climate event” and the criteria for establishing that such “extreme climate event” was caused by AGW. The poor countries are demanding compensation now for “loss and damage” which exist only in the “modeled” future. They have no apparent interest the “gain and enhancement” which has resulted from the past actions of the developed nations. Interesting worldview.

  24. David in Michigan says:

    @Leo Geiger: So, (1) “total CUMULATIVE emissions and (2) “per capita” emissions are your important points. Sigh, so many things to say about that but I’ll make it short. First, let me sum up your message:

    (1) Cumulative Emissions: Guilt should govern our future actions. We must pay for past “sins”. A very common theme in current politics. Also known as LIBERAL GUILT. In what way does punishing people of today for past events in any area help anything going forward? How did Hillary put it? Something like “what difference does it make now”?

    (2) Per capita Emissions: More guilt…. of course. However, having lived and worked in 3rd world countries, I can simply tell you that a day doesn’t go by that I’m not thankful I live in a 1st world country. And again, In what way does stigmatizing and penalizing people who live well help those who don’t?

  25. Roger Sowell says:

    CalTech’s Professor Rutledge gives an excellent overview of world coal reserves in his 2011 paper. (“Estimating long-term world coal production with logit and probit transforms,” International Journal of Coal Geology, 85 (2011) 23-33 ). He paints a grim picture. Roughly, there are 500 billion tonnes of mine-able coal left in the world, and the existing consumption rate is 7.8 billion tonnes per year. This provides approximately 60 to 70 years of coal remaining. However, a slight positive note is that Rutledge did not include coal deposits near the Arctic, in Alaska North Slope, and Siberia’s Lena and Tungus fields. Whether those fields in the harsh, cold far north can be produced economically is an open question.

    As I have stated elsewhere, nuclear fission is not a candidate for future power due to resource limitations, outrageous cost, and serious safety concerns. The world is in great need, then, dire need actually, of a replacement energy source for coal and nuclear. Together, that is nearly 55 percent of today’s energy production.

    Knowing this, it makes sense to turn to the renewables: wind, solar, and ocean current. It may also be possible to make the ocean-temperature-difference technology (OTEC) work. If the technologies still need a subsidy to advance so they can stand alone and provide electricity at reasonable rates, then prudence dictates the subsidies be made.

    See full article at http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/forecasting-future-hubris-or-honesty.html

  26. Pamela Gray says:

    You would think with all that energy use, China could make us some pencils with lead actually centered in the barrel, will sharpen, and that don’t fricken break all the time!!!! That’s all I want. Pencils that are like they used to be. And I don’t care which country makes them. Use all the coal you want. Fry the land and boil the oceans. Just make a #%$#ing GOOD PENCIL!

  27. M Simon says:

    Alan Robertson says:
    June 12, 2014 at 5:31 am

    “I’ve been to one world’s fair, a picnic and a rodeo and that’s the stupidest thing I ever heard…”
    -Slim Pickens, as: Maj. T.J. (King) Kong- “Dr. Strangelove”

    Thank you. That was exactly the effect I was trying for.

  28. M Simon says:

    Roger Sowell says:
    June 12, 2014 at 7:00 am

    And not only that. If we turn to renewables now prices will go way up reducing demand. And we will still need to burn fuels to keep the grid powered. But hey. Maybe an intermittent grid is another positive feature.

    I’m sure Obama would be VERY receptive to such a scheme.

  29. Alan Robertson says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    June 12, 2014 at 7:08 am

    You would think with all that energy use, China could make us some pencils with lead actually centered in the barrel, will sharpen, and that don’t fricken break all the time!!!! That’s all I want. Pencils that are like they used to be. And I don’t care which country makes them. Use all the coal you want. Fry the land and boil the oceans. Just make a #%$#ing GOOD PENCIL!
    _________________________
    China doesn’t make pencils. They make non- working facsimiles of pencils, just like so many of their other products that aren’t what they pretend to be. I bought a cheap Chinese hammer about 20 years ago. The hammer head shattered on first impact with a nail. It was made of cast iron. It was only a facsimile of a hammer.

  30. Alan Robertson says:

    M Simon says:
    June 12, 2014 at 7:37 am

    Alan Robertson says:
    June 12, 2014 at 5:31 am

    “I’ve been to one world’s fair, a picnic and a rodeo and that’s the stupidest thing I ever heard…”
    -Slim Pickens, as: Maj. T.J. (King) Kong- “Dr. Strangelove”

    Thank you. That was exactly the effect I was trying for.
    _____________________________
    If that site has a fair bit of traffic, then you may have had some number of true believers who agreed with you.

  31. M Simon says:

    Ed Reid says:
    June 12, 2014 at 6:21 am

    You have to look at who gets the money. With development the money goes to developers. With transfer payment it goes to….

  32. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Thankfully China is becoming a modern responsible nation that knows how to safely dispose of all that fly ash from the coal.

    Hey, did they ever tell us why those plastics from China, from Christmas tree lights to kids toys, had those high mercury concentrations?

    Have they figured out yet why the pets were sickened and killed from Chinese-made animal food and treats?

    Huh, I have an old can of cat food here, “ASH (MAX.) 2,7%”. Is that supposed to “bone ash”, added for the minerals?

  33. M Simon says:

    If the technologies still need a subsidy to advance so they can stand alone and provide electricity at reasonable rates, then prudence dictates the subsidies be made.

    A little economics lesson for you Roger, if the subsidies are big enough they are a drag on the economy. If they are really big they can crash the economy.

    So what level do you propose?

    R&D – minor
    Major roll out – a big drag
    Total replacement – crash

  34. M Simon says:

    And BTW Roger – resource estimates are based on current prices and current technology.

    Remember in 2000 when the US was running out of oil and natural gas? Today we produce more oil than the Saudis. Given the resource estimates from 2000 how is that possible?

  35. Col Mosby says:

    After posting my info about China’s considerable nuclear prowess I was informed of a landmark
    event – China First Heavy Industries has, on June 8th, successfully tested the first locally produced Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor pressure vessel, the most critical component of a nuclear power plant, just one month after having successfully tested the first locally produced steam power generator, the second most important component of a nuclear plant. This was all done under supervision of Westinghouse and are milestones in China’s program that
    purchased nuclear technology from Westinghouse, and aims to produce not only Westinghouse
    AP1000 power plants, but their own designed variants, designated as CAP1000 and CAP1400
    (Chinese AP1000s, etc) both Gen 3+ designs, the most advanced in the world.

  36. Steve P says:

    Leo Geiger says:
    June 12, 2014 at 5:07 am

    The second essay in as many days on this subject, and once again not a single mention of the key concept surrounding emissions reductions: total cumulative emissions. The United States and its 300 million people have put 1.5 to 2 times more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than the 1.3 billion Chinese have up to now.

    I keep wondering about this because that pesky, CO2-sniffing Ibuki satellite launched by JAXA back in early 2009 seems to show that the northern industrialized countries of N. America & Eurasia (excluding China) are net sinks of CO2 during the summer months, i.e. absorption of CO2 in these regions exceeds emissions.

    On the public release of carbon dioxide flux estimates based on the observational data by the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite “IBUKI” (GOSAT)
    http://www.nies.go.jp/whatsnew/2012/20121205-2/20121205-2e.html

    I assume the downtake is due to intensive agriculture in these regions, but also because the people of wealthy nations like to surround themselves with greenery. Beyond that, the generally fertile soils of the continental mid-high latitudes are in well-drained areas blessed with regular precipitation for the most part, and lush summer vegetation is the rule.

    Lush summer vegetation wants all the CO2 it can get.

    Cheefio: The 3rd World Owes…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/

    Yes, and as an aside in looking at various graphics/maps from Ibuki, none I’ve found show CO2 as “well-mixed” in any way.

    http://www.gosat.nies.go.jp/eng/gallery/FTS_L2_SWIR_CO2_gallery.htm

    In the final analysis, we shouldn’t expect that numbers would add up because the Great Global Warming Swindle has been a scam from the get-go. Now the poor nations have legal leverage to penalize their wealthy counterparts for cumulative damage due to climate change, but the Ibuki data seem to contradict the very core of their argument.

    No, poor people don’t suffer from lack of plumbing, heat and light – they suffer from climate change.

    We know it’s a crock; now we’ve got clear, graphic proof of that in the Ibuki data, which you many notice are not being widely publicized. See for example Wiki, which describes the satellite, but omits any mention of its results.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibuki_%28satellite%29

    The Great Global Warming Swindle:

  37. CD (@CD153) says:

    Roger Sowell says:
    June 12, 2014 7:00 am

    “As I have stated elsewhere, nuclear fission is not a candidate for future power due to resource limitations, outrageous cost, and serious safety concerns.”
    ******

    Roger, you obviously haven’t spent any time looking at or studying 4th generation nuclear power technology such as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) or the IFR/PRISM reactor. If you bothered to do so, you would understand that these technologies largely succeed at addressing the concerns we have regarding today’s nuclear technology. The only reason we do not see them in commercial use today is because the federal government stupidly pulled the plug on the development of these technologies decades ago for political reasons having nothing to do with flaws in the technologies themselves.

    You remind me of someone who drives around in an old clunker of an automobile that is always breaking down on him because it is so old and in such poor shape. He doesn’t bother looking at and considering all the new and better cars on the market because he has already concluded that the automobile is a lousy way of getting around based on his experience with the car he currently owns. Very ignorant and narrow-minded.

    LFTR and PRISM are both capable of burning up the plutonium by-products of today’s reactors as nuclear fuel. LFTR is powered by thorium which is far more plentiful on Earth than uranium and is said to be the most energy dense substance on Earth. There is reported to be enough of it to provide our energy needs in a LFTR for perhaps a millennium or more. And, if you bothered studying it, you would find that LFTR is safe and significantly less costly to build due to its basic design. It is never to late to pick up where we left off with the development of it decades ago. And, speaking of China, they are doing just that themselves with LFTR.

    I could ramble on here by explaining how wrong you are about wind and solar, but others here will probably do that for me. Suffice it to say that wind and solar are extremely inefficient sources to tap into for electrical energy because they require such massive amounts of resources, not the least of which is land.

    I for one grow increasingly tired of rebutting people like you with your green propagandizing. Please stay away from WUWT and go elsewhere with your bunk.

  38. M Simon says:

    http://www.masterresource.org/2012/05/bootleggers-baptists-utility-mact/

    from the comments:

    The costs of renewables bring dysfunctional to society. What to me is intriguing is that the confraternity of renewables Baptists and bootleggers is engaged in the classic definition of bunco: a swindle in which unsuspecting people are cheated, with the perpetrators promising much, delivering nothing–and making off with the unsuspecting people’s loot.

    The situation is almost the perfect piracy.

  39. Leo Geiger says:

    David in Michigan says:“In what way does punishing people of today for past events in any area help anything going forward?”

    You are confusing “guilt” with the concepts of fairness, responsibility, and leadership. Food for thought:

    http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2014/06/climate
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2259.html

    Or in simpler language:
    http://tombowman.com/posts/the-fairness-question/

  40. M Simon says:

    On behalf of our groups and organizations, together representing millions of Americans, we write to express our strong opposition to renewing expired wind tax incentives.

    “Over the past 20 years, American taxpayers have seen little return from the forced investment in wind energy. This handout consistently fails to deliver on its promise of long-term job creation, economic activity, and affordability. It promotes government favoritism in the energy marketplace, threatens the reliability of the electric grid, and a 1 year extension costs $12 billion over 10 years. Recent reports and studies have also shown that subsidizing wind energy results in higher electricity costs for American families.

    “American taxpayers deserve a portfolio of energy solutions that are economically viable, not those that have to be propped up by carve outs in the tax code.”

    http://www.masterresource.org/2014/06/winds-ptc-the-opposition-mounts-117-groups-and-counting/

  41. M Simon says:

    Leo Geiger says:
    June 12, 2014 at 8:21 am

    It is not anyone’s fault but the Chinese that they handicapped themselves with a dysfunctional economic system. If they want fairness let them correct their errors and revive the 10s of millions Mao offed. Well that last part is going to be difficult. Correcting the errors of central planning should be easier. If they can give up the habit.

  42. M Simon says:

    But tell you what Leo. Make the responsible pay. The Communists.

  43. M Simon says:

    Had the post WW2 Chinese aligned themselves with the West as the South Koreans and Taiwanese Chinese did, their economy would be operating at a similar level today.

  44. M Simon says:

    Roger,

    The wind PTC was initially passed in 1992 as a temporary incentive to help a then fledgling industry – with the expectation that wind energy would be environmentally benign and would become commercially viable. However, after nearly 40 years of subsidies for wind energy R&D and 20 years of lucrative wind energy tax breaks — together totaling over $100 billion:

    · Electricity from wind remains high in true cost and low in real value [3] – with the wind industry providing no evidence that electricity from wind will ever become commercially viable (i.e., without large tax breaks and subsidies).

    · Producing electricity from wind has proven to have numerous adverse environmental, economic, electric system reliability, scenic, and property value impacts not originally foreseen and still not admitted by wind industry advocates…

    http://www.masterresource.org/2014/04/republicans-for-obama-ptc/

  45. rogerknights says:

    Leo Geiger says:
    June 12, 2014 at 5:07 am

    The second essay in as many days on this subject, and once again not a single mention of the key concept surrounding emissions reductions: total cumulative emissions.

    That’s not so. Yesterday I followed your post, quoted in part below, . . .

    Leo Geiger says:
June 11, 2014 at 5:42 am

    The number that is relevant for emissions reduction policies and climate change is the total cumulative emissions, not annual emissions. . . . .
    The position of developing nations is simple: developed nations have led the way with their emissions and put the majority of the excess greenhouse gas into the atmosphere up until now, so they can lead the way with reductions.

    . . . with my response, at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/11/china-and-co2/#comment-1660253

    But that depends on the residence time of emitted CO2. If much or most of the CO2 that developed nations have emitted no longer resides in the atmosphere, that portion can be deducted from the West’s “debt.” (The estimates of the residence-time figure vary widely and wildly.)

    In addition, granting AGW theory for the sake of argument, the small amount of warming from the CO2 the West has and is emitting is beneficial. It’s only the the additional CO2 from developing countries, and its accelerating pace, that poses a threat.

  46. Alan Robertson says:

    CD (@CD153) says:
    June 12, 2014 at 8:16 am

    “…you obviously haven’t spent any time looking at or studying 4th generation nuclear power technology such as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) or the IFR/PRISM reactor. ..”
    ____________________
    I think we should just skip all this and go with warp engines. So far, they’ve produced as much commercial power as LFTR.

  47. Steve from Rockwood says:

    @Pamela Gray. In a few years you will be able to buy a 3D printer and make your own pencils with the lead centered or off-centered as much as you wish. Then the Chinese will start supplying 3D printers and the world will slowly fall apart.

  48. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Roger Sowell on June 12, 2014 at 7:00 am:

    As I have stated elsewhere, nuclear fission is not a candidate for future power due to resource limitations, outrageous cost, and serious safety concerns.

    Yes you have, numerous times, with dodgy numbers used by anti-nuke agitators that shrivel when exposed to factual truth. Which basically comes down to them using the worst-sounding estimates based on 1970’s and earlier reactor tech, to condemn modern efficient inherently-safe designs, while getting “risk assessments” from alarmists using the Linear No-Threshold model to predict death and illness down to exposure levels well under normal background amounts, even though The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data.

    While I could again badger you with reality until you drift away flustered and sputtering, I shall currently decline.

    Now if you’re ready to write off your failing investments in windmills and sunbeam catchers and move on, PPL Corporation, an electric utility company that was originally just in PA but now has holdings even in Great Britain where they have 7.8 million customers after acquiring Central Networks, is getting out of electricity generation. The plans are to spin off their generating capacity and merge with that of Riverstone Holdings, forming Talen Energy Corporation.

    This is an important signal of the growing specialization of the market. Electricity providers are increasingly tied to the quixotic whims of government administrations, seemingly overnight a source may be forced out by fiat. With major generating projects planned for a decade, this severely discourages investment.

    But PPL excels as a distributing company. So the fiscally vulnerable generating parts are cleaved off. PPL will then buy off the open market whatever electricity there is, generated by whatever source, for whatever is the going price, then tack on their profitable charges and send the customers the bill. Sensible business model for this regulatory climate.

    They’re PPL on the NYSE, also a S&P 500 component. Currently trending down on the news, about $33.35. Motley Fool has up 3 Reasons PPL’s Spinoff Is Dynamite for Your Dividend.

    Buy now, hold long.

  49. Paul says:

    which (industrial complex) has the record for the max single point emission of CO2 in the last twenty years?

    fwiw – they pay a grand dividend. and property prices in the ‘town’ far outstrips the rest of the country…

    their next factory may well be in your area…

  50. CD (@CD153) says:

    Alan Robertson says:
    June 12, 2014 at 8:59 am

    CD (@CD153) says:
    June 12, 2014 at 8:16 am

    “…you obviously haven’t spent any time looking at or studying 4th generation nuclear power technology such as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) or the IFR/PRISM reactor. ..”
    ____________________
    I think we should just skip all this and go with warp engines. So far, they’ve produced as much commercial power as LFTR.

    *************
    Alan, you are obviously one of those daft persons to whom I have to unfortunately repeat myself before something finally (and hopefully) sinks in, if it ever does.

    The only reason LFTR is likely not in commercial use today is because the federal government failed to follow through and complete the development of the technology. Alvin Weinberg was one of our top nuclear people at the time and was in charge of the project at ORNL. He had high hopes for it back in the 1970s as a safe alternative, but politics got in the way and it was terminated for POLITICAL reasons.

    China is developing LFTR today because they see the same potential for it as Weinberg and his people did back in the day. It is very upsetting to see China one upping us and doing something today that we should have completed decades ago. Some of us in this country see that, and it is sad that more of us don’t.

  51. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Steve from Rockwood said on June 12, 2014 at 9:11 am:

    @Pamela Gray. In a few years you will be able to buy a 3D printer and make your own pencils with the lead centered or off-centered as much as you wish. Then the Chinese will start supplying 3D printers and the world will slowly fall apart.

    But a REAL pencil has that scratchy graphite, that chips and crushes to a powder and be shaped to a tiny sharp point. Those 3D printers extrude plastic. I have used “pencils” where the “wood” is plastic, and the lead is plastic that feels like and slides over the paper like soapstone. 3D printers cannot make the same thing.

    Also we are already to where they could make a tabletop printer for $100 that’s big enough for a custom cell phone case, if people wouldn’t mind paying $100 for a cartridge holding 2.75oz of material, for each color they want. Almost as much fun as inkjet printers.

  52. Roger Sowell says:

    For CD and the other nuclear apologists,

    If you knew the truth about nuclear power, you would change your stance.

    http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-one.html

  53. Sun Spot says:

    Advanced civilizations are predicated on abundant cheap energy, without this abundant cheap energy you are or will be a back water inconsequential nation. China and India will set the standard as to what it means to be civilized if North America doesn’t get it head out of its AGW derrière..

    p.s. The future is nuclear energy, and lots of it.

  54. richardscourtney says:

    [Leo Geiger:]

    You have again ignored my refutation of your assertions which you first posted yesterday on another thread and repeated on this thread at June 12, 2014 at 5:07 am.

    My refutation in this thread is at June 12, 2014 at 5:29 am here.

    I have repeatedly told you

    “Cumulative emissions” are NOT the “key concept surrounding emissions reductions”.

    This is because any AGW from now would results from emissions made now and in the future (the so-called ‘pause’ in global warming demonstrates there is no discernible ‘committed warming’). Hence, the “key concept surrounding emissions reductions” is the assertion that it is possible to reduce future emission.

    Having no answer to that reality, at June 12, 2014 at 8:21 am you here switch your assertion to

    the concepts of fairness, responsibility, and leadership

    .
    But that is blatant nonsense because the increases to atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution have been purely beneficial (it is future increases which it is claimed will have ill effects in future). These benefits include higher crop yields.

    You are asserting that
    (a) The industrialised countries have responsibility for the increase to atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution
    and
    (b) compensation for effects of that increase should be awarded
    then
    (c) in fairness the developing world should PAY the compensation for the benefits they have obtained
    and
    (d) the industrialised countries would display leadership by demanding they obtain the compensation at very least for having provided higher crop yields.

    Personally, I think the entire concept of ‘compensation for climate change’ is daft.

    Richard

  55. richardscourtney says:

    Ouch!

    My post was intended to be addressed to Leo Geiger and not myself. [Sorry.]

    Richard

  56. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    2011 February 16
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/feb/16/china-nuclear-thorium

    China enters race to develop nuclear energy from thorium

    Two years ago, as part of the Manchester Report, a panel of experts assembled by the Guardian selected nuclear power based on thorium rather the uranium as one of the 10 most promising solutions to climate change.

    Comment: The experts the Grauniad trusts think thorium is better for solving the devastating climate change problem. What a sterling endorsement.

    2012 October 30
    http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2012/10/30/completion-date-slips-for-chinas-thorium-molten-salt-reactor/

    Completion date slips for China’s thorium molten salt reactor

    SHANGHAI – China has pushed back the intended completion date for its test thorium molten salt reactor, from 2017 to 2020, the head of the project indicated here today.

    In a presentation at the Thorium Energy Conference 2012, Xu Hongjie, director of the TMSR Center at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), showed a slide stating a 2020 completion date for the 2-megawatt reactor.

    That’s three years later than the 2017 set out by CAS’ Dr. Chen Kun last August in his TMSR presentation to a group of academics at the University of California Berkeley.

    According to Dr. Xu’s slide today, CAS has also pushed back the target date for a 2-megawatt molten salt cooled, solid fuel thorium pebble bed reactor, from the original 2015 to 2017 – although Xu seemed to say 2015 in his talk.

    Whether intentional or not, Dr. Xu did not voice any date for the TMSR. The slide accompanying his talk clearly shows 2020.

    2014 March 18
    http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1452011/chinese-scientists-urged-develop-new-thorium-nuclear-reactors-2024

    Chinese scientists urged to develop new thorium nuclear reactors by 2024

    The deadline to develop a new design of nuclear power plant has been brought forward by 15 years as the central government tries to reduce the nation’s reliance on smog-producing coal-fired power stations.

    A team of scientists in Shanghai had originally been given 25 years to try to develop the world’s first nuclear plant using the radioactive element thorium as fuel rather than uranium, but they have now been told they have 10, the researchers said.

    Comment: Got that? In 2012 they pushed the completion dates for test reactors to 2017 and 2020. But in 2014, only about 18 months later, they announce they originally had 25 years to develop, but it’s shortened to 10, they’ll have reactors by 2024, which is 4 and 7 years later than the delayed dates, but is a Great Leap Forward as this is 15 years sooner than their government now says was their previous deadline.

    I do not think China’s progress on developing practical thorium reactors, molten salt or pebble bed, is going as well as thorium’s cheerleaders would have us believe.

  57. Alan Robertson says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    June 12, 2014 at 11:07 am

    I do not think China’s progress on developing practical thorium reactors, molten salt or pebble bed, is going as well as thorium’s cheerleaders would have us believe.
    ______________________________
    Welcome to the “daft” club, (thanks to CD (@CD153) @June 12, 2014 at 9:34 am.)

    As long as we’re hanging our hats on vaporware, why not go all the way?
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/tech/innovation/warp-speed-spaceship/index.html

  58. CD (@CD153) says:

    Roger Sowell says:
    June 12, 2014 at 10:16 am

    For CD and the other nuclear apologists,
    If you knew the truth about nuclear power, you would change your stance.

    http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-one.html
    *******************

    Excuse me Roger, but did I say one thing in defense of TODAY’S nuclear power technology in my first post? Not that I recall. You are making a seriously faulty assumption here….and you know what you do when you assume, don’t you Roger? I will try to explain something to you here even though I doubt that it will do any good.

    Ever wonder why we don’t all still drive around in Model T Fords today Roger? Because when we humans invent something, we don’t rest on our laurels and just leave it as it is. We continually strive to make it better, to improve on it in ever way we can. That applies to all technologies we invent, including nuclear.

    Your mindset with regard to nuclear power assumes (there’s that word again!) that there is nothing out there better than today’s LWR nuclear technology, and that the problems with today’s reactor technology apply across the board to all future human nuclear power endeavors. You seem to be assuming that we humans, in our efforts to improve on the technologies we invent, somehow, in some way are not able to or interested in correcting or at least mitigating the issues we have with today’s nuclear technology.

    Roger, LFTR is NOT light water reactor technology and is a significant departure from it. Do yourself a HUGE favor and read up on it:
    http://flibe-energy.com/.

  59. CD (@CD153) says:

    Alan Robertson & KD Knoebel:

    Do either of you two really expect major new technologies to be developed without delays or bumps in the road along the way? You two are living in a dream world if you think that will never happen. Do you know how many different kinds of material Thomas Edison tried before he found a practical filament for the electric light bulb?

    The materials, equipment and technical knowhow the Chinese have at their disposal may or may not be up to the standards or level of ORNL here in the U.S., and I can’t say what kind of problems, if any, they are having. What I can tell you is that Alvin Weinberg and his colleagues at the Oak Ridge National Labs in Tennessee demonstrated the practicality of the molten salt reactor with the MSR experiment they conducted at ORNL back in the 1960s. Weinberg would not have wanted to continue the project if he didn’t feel it had potential.

    Alan Robertson: There is a big difference between the warp drive dreams that NASA engineers have in their heads and what has been shown to be practical at ORNL. This is not to say that warp drive won’t happen someday. Maybe it will, and maybe it won’t. Ever hear the old saying about not putting all of your eggs in one basket? That is why LFTR should not be abandoned.

    One sure path to failure is having a skeptical or pessimistic mindset like that of the two of you.

  60. Alan Robertson says:

    CD (@CD153) says:
    June 12, 2014 at 12:45 pm

    “You two are living in a dream world if you think that…”
    ______________________
    As long as you keep making statements like that and “daft”, I’m gonna keep pokin you in the eye with a stick.
    VAPORWARE

  61. CD (@CD153) says:

    Alan Robertson says:
    June 12, 2014 at 12:56 pm

    Okay Alan. I apologize for calling you daft and for the dream world statement. They were uncalled for. However, I’m believe I’m justified in saying that is impractical to abandon and give up on a major, new developing technology simply because it may be experiencing bumps in the road along the way (as LFTR may or may not be in China). I see nothing wrong with that.

  62. Rob says:

    Exactly, the U.S. is increasingly irrelevant. China is the big dog now!

  63. Roger Sowell says:

    To CD and any other thorium enthusiasts:

    If you knew the truth about thorium molten salt reactors, you would not be at all hopeful at their prospects.

    I will write an article on thorium quite soon now in TANP series. It will be article 28 in the series. 20 articles are published at this time.

  64. alleagra says:

    Grammar:
    Not
    ‘China’s energy consumption is climbing so rapidly that it’s energy use …’
    but
    ‘China’s energy consumption is climbing so rapidly that its energy use …’

  65. Leo Geiger says:

    richardscourtney says: Repetition does not convert untrue assertions into reality.

    That’s the only thing we are going to agree on. I won’t waste my time or yours on anything else.

  66. M Simon says:

    CD (@CD153) says:
    June 12, 2014 at 12:45 pm

    The LFTR experiments you mention were shut down and never restarted because of corrosion problems. Now maybe we can fix that. Maybe we can’t but they are a HUGE stumbling block.

    M. Simon – Naval Nuke in another life.
    ======================================
    I’m not a real big fan of nukes (except for Naval Military uses). But I’m not as pessimistic as RS. But there is no need to rush. We have at least 500 years of coal left. Probably 100 yrs of nat gas. There is time.
    ========================================
    AE has two problems
    1. Capacity factor
    2. Storage

    Based on #1 grid parity is on the order of 1/3 to 1/6th the $/watt of a coal plant. Based on #1 and #2 the total cost for AE + batteries has to come in at around 1/2 to 1/4 the $/watt of a coal burner. We are no where near that. Not even close.

  67. richardscourtney says:

    Leo Geiger:

    Your post at June 12, 2014 at 3:27 pm says in total

    richardscourtney says: Repetition does not convert untrue assertions into reality.

    That’s the only thing we are going to agree on. I won’t waste my time or yours on anything else.

    Actually, I would be very interested in an explanation from you and, therefore, it would not waste my time.

    If you agree that “Repetition does not convert untrue assertions into reality” then I would like to know why you repeated your untrue assertions then changed your assertions when your repeated untrue assertions were again refuted.

    In other words, I would welcome an answers from you to my post at June 12, 2014 at 5:29 am which is here and especially to my post at June 12, 2014 at 11:02 am which is here.

    Thanking you in anticipation

    Richard

  68. Adam says:

    What is the solution?

    Simple. Stop exporting coal to China and use it at home to manufacture output and heat our homes for next to nothing. If China want our coal then they should pay a lot more for it and if they want to sell us their output then we should be getting a better price.

    For as long as there is a single young man in our nation who wants work but is unemployed we should not be exporting energy and importing goods. Instead we should train him to use the energy to create goods for export and domestic use.

    The status quo makes no sense apart from to those who currently profit from the status quo. They have found themselves in a position to make great profit by creating a “Fire Sale” of our resources.

  69. John F. Hultquist says:

    CD (@CD153) says:
    June 12, 2014 at 12:45 pm
    “Do you know how many different kinds of material Thomas Edison tried …

    A rhetorical question but a useful takeoff point:

    Not only is a major new technology not likely to arrive like in the plot device Deus ex machina but such would have to be built in quantity requiring land and resources, workers, financing, lawyers, and NIMBY court cases.

    Edison’s team and others (Batchelor of G.B.) tested many hundreds to thousands and Thomas is credited with saying they learned something from every one. An important issue is that it was not just the filament that was invented but an entire system of parts, such as switches, meters, wiring. The “quick break” switch (J. H. Holmes) is an important innovation. Any new energy system will have a long invention, development, and build-out period. Those past current retirement age are not going to live long enough to witness significant changes in the world-wide supply mix.

  70. Alan says:

    Little frustrating to read comments about Australian and US exports to China and not allowing it or counting the CO2 emmissions against the source country etc.
    Please please check out the numbers – World Coal Assoc. or IEA
    For 2012 China produced 3549 Mt, USA 935 Mt and Aus 421 Mt
    Coal exports- Indonesia 383 Mt (mainly thermal), Aus 301 Mt(50:50 thermal:coking) and USA 114 Mt (50:50 thermal:coking)
    Coal Imports- China 289 Mt, Japan 184 Mt , India 160 Mt even Germany and the UK import around 45 Mt each
    China imports < 10% of what it produces so it is not reliant on imports. They have huge resources/reserves and currently import as it is cheaper to do so

  71. David in Michigan says:
    June 12, 2014 at 6:22 am
    =============================
    Me three. Agree 100% with your comments. I have woken up in an african hut with brown sludge on my cheek cause it was up against the wall – made of sticks and manure. Coming home, I had to wash everything twice to get the smell of charcoal out of my clothes as it permeates everything. Life span is 55 years or less, income in those days was less than $2 a day in the city and for those in the country side, subsistence living.
    On another thread:
    ========================
    Oatley says:
    June 13, 2014 at 6:08 pm
    Every quarter I am asked to be a guest lecturer in an economics class. I work in the electric utility field. I show a slide of a young African woman cooking dinner over a dung fire in a hut. I ask the ladies what they believe her life expectancy is. They are shocked when I tell them 45 vs. their 79. Then I ask if they think for an instant that she doesn’t want affordable electricity so she can have the chance to live as long as you?

    They usually respond with silence…
    ========================

    Couldn’t agree more. This discussion on CO2 is getting to be more of a straw man every day. What is really important?

  72. Roger Sowell says:
    June 12, 2014 at 7:00 am
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Your reference to a 2011 coal reserve of about 500 billion ton tons and a 60 year supply is out by at least half. There are over 950 billion short tons available with today’s technology and prices so if we allow for new recovery and increased prices there is probably at least a couple hundred years of coal – depending on consumption rate and other energy technologies that come into play.

    50% of the world coal consumption is in China, US regulations are meaningless from a global perspective.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves
    http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-is-coal-found/

    According to BGR there are 1038 billion tonnes of coal reserves left, equivalent to 132 years of global coal output in 2012. ”
    http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/

Comments are closed.