From the NYT
1,600 new coal-fired power plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries.
When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to “bring back coal” in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change.
But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.
These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.
Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Electricity generated from fossil fuels like coal is the biggest single contributor globally to the rise in carbon emissions, which scientists agree is causing the Earth’s temperatures to rise.
“Even today, new countries are being brought into the cycle of coal dependency,” said Heffa Schücking, the director of Urgewald.
The United States may also be back in the game. On Thursday, Mr. Trump said he wanted to lift Obama-era restrictions on American financing for overseas coal projects as part of an energy policy focused on exports.
“We have nearly 100 years’ worth of natural gas and more than 250 years’ worth of clean, beautiful coal,” he said. “We will be dominant. We will export American energy all over the world, all around the globe.”
hat tip\The Global Warming Policy Foundation
And Trump’s the bad guy…
So China halts 100 plants amidst 1,100 to be build and the story in our media is “China pulls back on coal”? Talk about ‘fake news’ …
Negotiations. You want 1000 so you ask for 2000.
This is the same tactic they use for the budget in Congress. The budget get automatically increased by a set percentage. When someone proposes a reduction in the spending, those opposed cry foul about budget “cuts,” even thought the overall amount still increases. Smoke and mirrors.
In our political science classes covering budgeting (in the late 1960’s
and early 1970’s) the practice and process was called “satisficing”.
Negotiations. You want 1000 so you ask for 2000.
Negotiations: If they don’t agree, repeat your demands.
Greens are bitongual.
It looks as if King Coal only temporarily lost a few provinces, and still reigns supreme over an expanding domain.
So just maybe China was being ever so slightly disingenuous there. Why it’s almost as though they were making stuff up to encourage the dummies in the West to keep going with their economy-wrecking fantasy while continuing to buy Chinese green hardware ‘solutions’.
Well Said!
China plays us like a drum, beating US.
I really don’t care how many coal plants are built by China, India and anyone else. Anyone with common sense should have long realized that the CO2 control knob driving global warming with imagined heavy feedback amplification was just a stupid theory requiring connections between far too many concepts not supported by untwisted data.
The real issue should be whether these coal plant will employ modern scrubbers.
Only the American built ones, most likely…
Sadly, that’s probably true. In their endless obsession over CO2, the enviros have helped increase pollution several times over. They got China to waste money on wind turbines and solar panels rather than scrubbers, convinced as many people as possible CO2 was a killer and should be sequestered, while building the componenets to the turbines and panels in countries that have no environmental regs because it’s cheaper and the owners of the wind and solar plants make way more money that way, and ignoring real pollution whereever it happened. Talk about a deadly slight of hand there—destroy whatever and whomever you need to get as rich as possible. Yeah, enviros care about one thing—money. Oh, and keeping themselves as far away from the disasters they create as possible.
Joe You nailed it!
Wow… someone can’t even ADD up the numbers on that exclude-USA infographic! Seriously![blockquote]1,171 – China
446 – India
27 – [i]European Union[/i]
93 = Turkey
24 – S.Africa
60 – Philippines
25 – S.Korea
45 – Japan
_______
1,891 = Just that total[/blockquote]Not to mention that there are another 150 countries out there planning … stuff … and the not-to-be-ignored United States of America, Canada, México, Brazil, Australia, Russia, Indonesia, Poland, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Colombia, Czech Republic, … etc.
I’d bet (given that I just spent an hour at the [i]Worldbank[/i] data mining resource center), that its more like 2500+ new coal plants being planned. This would be [i]just[/i] from taking the above infographic numbers and proportionating them by the missing countries present index.
Yes, there will be new coal plants.
And a lot of them will be “new-new” (not just replacements for existing plants being decomissioned).
And the world’s coal fields will be mined.
Just saying.
[b]Goat[/b]Guy
just to let you know… in html code is enclosed in < and > if you place it in square brackets it just treats it as ordinary text to display.
thanks
Yet India is closing 37 coal mines over the next year because they’re no longer economically viable. The Indian government has also said it will build no more coal-fired power plants after 2022 and cancelled plans for ~14GW of proposed coal-fired plants.
And in 2022 they will simply change their minds, just like China !!
Maybe that cancelation was counting on being compensated for it from the Green Climate Fund (???), before Trump pulled out.
China buys coal from Australia. It’s cheaper to transport coal by ship than by railroad.
Joel,
Not only cheaper to transport, also cheaper to extract: Chinese coalmines often are deep mines below 1,000 meter, while Australia has a lot of open pit mines where one scraper can delve tons per minute…
If you look carefully, you will notice that different information sources are cited in the text and in the accompanying info graphic. That may account for the discrepancy.
SO this article was generated by Sourcewatch, Endcoal, and Coalswarm, and more but I didn’t go further after I located these three sources in the article in less than 30 seconds. Talk About Liberal Marxist Propaganda!
This story deserves to be shared as widely as possible. This is what social media can do very well. Perhaps once everyone is aware of the fact that one third of the countries that signed onto Paris are moving forward with coal plant construction, the agreement will be shown up as the farce it is. I’m putting this link on my Facebook wall.
Isn’t South Africa’s progress woeful?
It is almost as woeful as Australia’s lack of progress.
Remember when Australia used to be the “Lucky Country”.
It has taken only 10 years to trash Australia – coutesy of abysmal governments.
And a pathological hatred of humankind by the greens.
Unless certain SA Mp’s are on holiday…AU$3500 taxpayer funded “trip” is “just doin me job”…
Now it’s the Lackey Country.
+ dozens
Auto – appreciating!
Houses in Australia are generally poorly insulated. With winter in the south most do not heat properly because of very high electrical prices thus suffer. Come summer, expensive to run air conditioning more suffering along with the pending blackouts. With the shutting down of coal power and industry leaving Australia is turning into a third world country with shortage of electricity but will export coal and gas. China must shake their heads utter disbelief while laughing all the was to the bank.
It’s OK, the property market is here to save us. AU$1.14mil for a one bedroom apartment in Surrey Hills, Sydney.
Oil, gas and coal are organic. Organic is good!
Organic has two different meanings—hopefully no one else knows that.
Didn’t GreenPeace state that chlorine isn’t organic?
Organic is Latin for “Grown in Pig Sh*t”
So is CCl4. I use it to extract all of my organics
“Wow… someone can’t even ADD up the numbers on that exclude-USA infographic! Seriously”
Journalists typically aren’t the brightest bulbs in the pack.
I got 1892….on less than one cup of coffee
They have the korean count wrong.
The 9 new stations being built in korea are being halted.
The subsidy for coal there is being ended.
The tariff on gas eliminated.
Coals share of the mix will be slashed in half.
I think most here just want government’s fists off the scales — let economics decide . So they have no problem with elimination of tariffs and subsidies . Which reduces the economic decision often to an issue of transportation costs . I expect to see the coal trains rolling down the Front Range from Wyoming for a long time .
Here’s a page with several useful graphs of construction , and dropped plans thru a year ago from the source of NYT’s graph :
http://coalswarm.org/trackers/a-shrinking-coal-plant-pipeline-mide-2016-results-from-the-global-coal-plant-tracker/
South Korea’s target to eliminate coal power plants is 2060. 43 years is a long ways away.
The new stations being halted had heavy private investments behind them. The halting might be temporary.
But yes, they are loading-up on LNG, including several new deals to import it from the US.
Talk about a reality check to the real deniers out there in global warming la la la la land.
Well the graphic is completely out of date: for example South Korea’s new president just moved his nation away from coal:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-southkorea-election-energy-idUKKBN17E1CN
India has cancelled 14GW of coal plant and said no more will be approved till 2022… China banned new coal in 29 regions…
There is no sign of Japan’s new coal plant actually materialising…
The plans for Africa include 130 between Ethiopia and the Congo… not very likely!
for most of the world, solar is much cheaper than a new coal plant (it is already in India).
This is coal ‘vapourware’
“for most of the world, solar is much cheaper than a new coal plant”
A motorcycle is cheaper than a car, but it’s not very useful to carry loads, or when it rains. On average, solar’s worthless at least half of each day.
Griff,
The new president of South Korea also banned any new nuclear plant. Seems that he is as stupid as our European politicians in supporting their industry…
Germany had decided to shut down all nuclear power stations. Later the new goverment decided to carry on. A few days later the sea rose in Japan; Merkel then felt obliged to asked her ethics committee to turn the thumbs down again. When she was told that nuclear power was necessary, she answered: “Yes, I know, but the voters …”.
Ethiopia is damming The Nile, dwarfing Aswan.
And yet the idiots keep declaring that China is now a “climate leader”, see for example this at the Guardian.
Here in the UK we’ve decided to be ‘world leaders’ at ‘tackling climate change’ so have mandated to close all our coal power plants by around 2025. We’ll make a difference, just you watch. It’s because we’re inspirational world leaders you see. Rule Britannia! Everyone will be in awe at our world leadership and – once they’ve picked themselves up off their knees after being awe-struck in the presence of world leaders an’ all, will immediately see the error of their fossil-fuelled energy ways and will follow our world-leading example. Just look at how China and India are both going hell for leather for renewables and are ditching coal even as we speak.
I feel your pain but there is little to be gained in parodying British government stupidity. All logic, reason, sarcasm, pleading, ridicule simply bounces off their depleted uranium-dense skulls. With only Dellingpole and Booker offering any insights into the CAGW h0ax there is minimal chance of the public demanding a halt to this particular brand of lunacy. And in Britain if some lunacy is worth annihilating yourself over it is worth annihilating yourself better than anyone else. We even have a term for it – “gold-plating”. Keep a straight bat and stiff upper lip donchakno. If the Eurocrats invented a h0ax to the effect that repeatedly smashing yourself in the face with a camping mallet was good for you the British government would mandate weekly practice for all on Sundays on the village green.
This seems to be the result of a nanny government mentality. Countries where the government takes care of you are prone to such abuses. Royals/leaders are demi-gods who can do no wrong. Voting is just a formality (admittedly, it seems that way in the US right now, too). People have depended on the government forever and just let themselves be driven off a cliff. Realistically speaking, this seems to have been the state of humanity since humans banded together. Rulers and serfs, whether they were called that or not. Rarely did the rulers have much concern for the serfs and rarely did the serfs challenge their rulers.
I can’t really see the UK’s targets being met. For example, UK Primary Energy Consumption % by Fossil Fuels (Coal, Oil, Gas)*
1996: 89.41%
2016: 82.17%
So it has taken us 20 years to reduce it by that much. Project out the same pace of “progress” and it’ll be this:
2036: 75%
2076: 63%
2136: 49%
Only 120 years to wait til its less than half!
*This is being generous and ignoring the Fossil Fuels used to make bio fuel, wind, solar etc. It also assumes current nuclear % stays the same, which would require new plants to replace old ones
According to Griff, the mere fact that the politicians are setting a target is proof that the target can be met.
The cancellations have more to do with a coal overcapacity crisis (links) and the fact China’s growth has gone from 14% (2007) growth to just 7% at present.
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/01/16/china-coal-power-overcapacity-crackdown/
http://cocoliu.com/china-with-too-much-power-keeps-approving-coal-plants/#.WVowTYjytPY
“China’s growth has gone from 14% (2007) growth to just 7% at present.”
‘Just 7%’ – intake of breath!!
Here in the UK we envy that.
Mrs Maybeshewill-Maybeshewon’t would give her entire Cabinet away for 7%!
I’m not sure she would get more than chump change, even if she tried to sell them off . . .
Even the thought of Vladimir Ilych Mao Tse Corbyn hasn’t sharpened our PM’s drive for the market, small government, low – but compulsory – taxes, and an Ian Duncan-Smith-caring side to Government.
Just saying – and half of what growth we have is on borrowed money, which our Millenials will have to pay back when they are still working well into their seventies.
Auto – more than mildly miffed at May’s monumental miscalculation.
Someone just posted the other day that coal was dead…..
That would be little Griffy !!! LOL
Griff wants to BELIEVE.
And he does it well.
Look, coal is dead…
Look at the plants proposed for the EU and UK and which countries have given notice of shutting all their coal plant…
Take note that the coal tracker app referred to includes pre-permit plants which have no chance whatever of being built and 1 German plant in construction which may never open.
Its a tiny number.
The plants proposed for Korea are dead. so are the Indian ones, so are any Chinese ones which haven’t started. The Japanese ones are vapourware.
There are 1600 coal plants somebody has proposed – and a fraction of those are going to become reality.
…we have a winner
This for Griff, who says … [7:29 am]
“Look at the plants proposed for the EU and UK and which countries have given notice of shutting all their coal plant…”
The EU and UK are ‘so last century.’
Also, please stop burning the forests of the USA and claiming to be green.
Most of us are proud to be able to say to the next generations
“We’ll keep the lights on for you.”
Hold on.
Griff is – technically – correct: he wrote –
“Look, coal is dead…” [Griff July 3, 2017 at 7:29 am ]
Well, coal once, many years ago, was living plant matter.
Now, as Griff writes, it is dead.
It has been dead for millions of years.
The less charitably inclined might suggest that our beloved Troll-let is insisting that ‘electricity generation by coal is dead’ – and his later words may be taken that way . . . . – but then he would be wrong [imagine that said with Feynmann’s accent!].
And it’s not cool to state your troll-let is wrong, when there might, perhaps, squinting through your armpit, be another, possibly viable, reading where Griff is – very narrowly – right.
Auto
Griff “the coal is dead” in South Korea set date is 2060. Yawn.
Look, Griff, reality does not bend under your will. I know you will never believe that, but it’s true.
In this regard the sustainable energy cult is like the evangelical word of faith movement: speak about things that aren’t as if they are.
Yes, coal is dead. Has been for several hundred million years….
No, it wasn’t the idiot Griff, it was the idiot Mosher
Hard to tell, but I think mosh is even less intelligent than griff.
Mosh is probably paid from climate/socialist slush funds though.
The cancellations have more to do with China’s coal overcapacity crisis (links) and their growth has gone from 14% (2007) to 7% at present.
http://news.ihsmarkit.com/press-release/china-power/chinas-power-sector-overcapacity-last-through-2020-and-beyond-ihs-markit-s
https://qz.com/982437/china-is-suspending-permits-for-new-coal-power-plants-in-29-out-of-32-provinces/
No -its to do with pollution, their Paris commitment and a move to renewables.
You might be right about the pollution, that is the particulates, the sulfur dioxide and the NOx, the smog-producers. But since their “Paris commitment” doesn’t kick in until 2030, I doubt that has any effect. And “move to renewables?” Only when it suits them to sell us their solar panels and to power areas where they do not yet have the transmission resources. Intermittent power is better than no power at all.
Pollution eh? Let’s have a look at solar pollution too…..
http://www.environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis
A move to dirty renewables with massive waste disposal costs and high fire risk.
Yes, because China just now realized they have air pollution issues, lol.
People were questioning why China was building so many coal plants in 2016 because of existing over-capacity. The 2016 numbers made it more obvious.
They aren’t substituting wind and solar to compensate for the cancelled coal plant capacities. They’re not moving those coal plant plans to renewables.
As usual for the warmist press,the NYTimes focuses on one set of (implausible) data and ignores everything else related to carbom emissions. And the claim that “which scientists agree is causing the Earth’s temperatures to rise,” ignores the fact that 1) the temps aren’t rising, and 2) just claiming an effect on temps is not even remotely specific enough to cause concern. They also claim a level of emission increases that assumes a lot of unlikely emission events during the next 85 years : continued gas powered vehicles instead of electric vehicles , ignores the certainty that molten salt nuclear reactors will be cheaper than coal and every other energy source and will dominate within a decade. The NY Times is not very intelligent when it comes to energy and future events.
The NYT is not very bright on any subject other than the Kardashians and I’m not sure on that one.
I even double check their sports scores.
There was a time when I double checked the Kardashians, but that grew old quickly.
“The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.”
No, it is easy to meet the goals of Paris climate accord. According to MODTRAN,
(http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/)
even at a level of 1800 ppm CO2 the difference of global temperature from that of preindustrial level remains under 2 degrees Celsius (= 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) provided CO2 level is the only variable parameter.
But MODTRAN is just a model to play with, Mother Nature will do what she will.
Inside 10 years Australia will build 5 new coal power stations. Just waiting for silent majority to vote out the special interest dominated gov.
No chance, unless the govt pays for them up front, private money won’t go there due to the risk of Green Zombie Apocalypse, and certain political parties having Green Zombies as their core vote.
“Inside 10 years Australia will build 5 new coal power stations. Just waiting for silent majority to vote out the special interest dominated gov.”
Huh? The current government is extremely pro business. They’ve just done a poor job of planning.
not going to happen.
The costs don’t stack up…
http://reneweconomy.com.au/minerals-councils-fantasy-world-of-coal-and-renewable-costs-79547/
Meanwhile, Stephen Hawking is saying that Trump could turn Earth into Venus:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3935615/stephen-hawking-fears-trump-could-push-earth-over-the-brink-and-start-chain-reaction-which-wipes-out-humanity/
Considering there is NO evidence whatsoever that can happen and the Venus “runaway greenhouse effect” is SCIENCE FICTION, I do believe someone needs to tell Hawking to lay off his version of tweets. He’s making science look stupid and unknowledgeable. (Besides, Hansen covered that with the boiling oceans fiction he spouts. Hawking is now competing for dumbest among the dumb?)
Like so many gifted mathematicians, Hawking is pretty dim at most everything else unfortunately.
I don’t know. Elon Musk wants to put One Million people on Mars with giant, 100 person, spacecrafts. But Musk is a fan of Hawking’s, so…
If Musk sends 1,000,000 liberals to Mars – genius.
Stephen Hawkins knows how we will generate energy in the future: By harnessing the kinetic energy of footsteps.
The technology – which creates on average three joules per step – is backed by Stephen Hawking, who said:
“This technology has the potential to radically change the way we source power in the future.”
Source:
http://www.wharf.co.uk/news/local-news/video-pavegen-canary-wharf-trial-9330545
Please explain anything that Hawking has done , other than thought experiments. Unprovable against reality.
It is impossible to know what he actually said because it was simply a recording of a computer video with a computer voice, not an “in person” interview..(originally from BBC)…
A good example of an educated fool, if ever there was one.
When I came to Cambridge many years ago there was this little joke going around.
The physicist needs a laboratory, a computer, a desk and a wastepaper basket. The mathematician needs a computer, a desk and a wastepaper basket. The philosopher needs a desk and wastepaper basket. And finally, the cosmologist only needs the wastepaper basket.
Venus is the way it is, because it never cooled enough for water vapor to condense out of it’s atmosphere in the first place.
When I started to ‘read’ physics one of the first things I was taught is that even the greatest genius is only partially gifted.
Have any of these numbskulls figured out that the CO2 emissions in the US are dropping without any intervention by that Paris crap?
No.
That’s embarrassing .
In Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” episode “Between Fire and Ice” [I may have mis-remembered the title, but it examined Venus and Mars], Carl first suggested that a runaway greenhouse event could bring Earth’s climate to that of Venus. As a return to another glaciation of the Earth had not yet been ruled out, for the short term, the episode also compared a glacial period to the climate of Mars to drive home the point that we truly live between fire and ice.
When the series first aired, the scenario of the Earth turning into Venus seemed plausible to me, but now I know that Venus intercepts twice as much solar radiation as the Earth and that Venus has a relative concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere of 90,000,000 ppm (Venus has roughly 90 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as the Earth has atmosphere).
Levels of ignorance shown about climatology by both Sagan and Hawking prove that we must be careful when renowned geniuses say things about subjects outside their fields.
90,000,000 ppm is impossible. Highest you can go is 1,000,000 ppm (100%)
I am sure this meant 900,000 ppm…though various web sources quote 960,000 ppm and an atmospheric density 55.6x greater than Earth at the surface.
Combine those and I believe the Earth-equivalent would be like having 200% carbon dioxide…math validity aside (someone with a few seconds more can probably correct my really poor rough numbers), the point is that Venus’s atmosphere has an incomparable amount of CO2.
With slow atmospheric leakage into space and possible catastrophic meteoric collisions causing other atmospheric losses, Earth stands a better chance of looking like Mars than Venus in the next million years…
If people are at a certain standard of living, they are willing to continue that way. If they achieve a better standard, they will riot in the streets before they will give it up.
Electrification is a one way street.
They get addicted to modern conveniences, like clean water.
Next thing you know, they’ll get “addicted to oil”. Oh, the humanity!
which is why the Indian Rural electrification board just raised a green bond to finance rolling out renewable electricity to India’s rural and unconnected poor…
http://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/renewable/rural-electrification-corporation-of-india-launches-first-green-bond-in-london/59395411
“globally to the rise in carbon emissions, which scientists agree is causing the Earth’s temperatures to rise.” Simply not true. There are eminent scientists who debunk the ‘Global Warming’ theory completely, including the famous Prof. Freeman Dyson (MIT), Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics, Dr. Don Easterbrook, Prof. Emeritus of Geology, and more if you care to research it. GW is a scam being used by the United Nations to move industry from the US and Western Europe to the poorer countries in the Far East in their efforts to implement Global Socialism – see ‘UN Plan for 2030’ for details.
Scientists do agree there are “radiatively active gases”, including some naturally in Earth’s atmosphere, and some from human activities.
Beyond that, there seems to be little agreement, and a lot of unknowns.
And what was the EPA Clean Power Plan supposed to accomplish? A 32% reduction in CO2 output from US power generation (not just coal). The US is responsible for about 16% of the world’s CO2 output. Power generation represents about 31% of US CO2 production. Therefore – 16% * 31% * 32% = 1.6%. CPP will reduce the global CO2 output by 1.6%.
China and India will cancel that out with their next dozen coal fired power plants.
Screw up the entire power industry, increase the price of electricity and not remotely solve the imaginary climate change problem. Nothing but political posturing! Wasting resources on a pointless exercise is truly harmful to the environment.
BTW since the utilities have been retiring older inefficient coal fired generators ( about 8.5 % of the existing capacity) with more efficient NG combined cycle designs power generation’s share of CO2 is now less than that of the transportation sector.
As Carl Sagan observed, we have been bamboozled, hustled, conned by those wishing to steal and waste our money and rob us of our liberties. Hardly a new agenda.
This needs to be translated into other metrics for the public to understand, like the equivalent of 100 billion “feel good” PR statements about going green, or 500 million solar rooftop homes, or 600 million windmills, or 8 trillion hollow Paris Agreement pledges by mayors and city councils.
I live close to the tracks in BC. Every day I see hundreds of cars filled with coal heading for export to China and those power plants.
We have a large CO2 tax here and it’s getting larger now that the Greens control our legislature.
It seems so hypocritical!
As I have proven in my on-line post “Climate Change Deciphered”, the control knob for Earth’s climate is the amount of dimming sulfur dioxide aerosols emissions in the atmosphere.
The burgeoning construction of new coal fired power plants will result in increased global SO2 emissions, so that we can now look forward to cooler temperatures, even though harmless CO2 emissions continue to rise.
The concern about increasing CO2 emissions is much ado about nothing!
Burl Henry July 3, 2017 at 7:06 am
“…the control knob for Earth’s climate is the amount of dimming sulfur dioxide aerosols emissions in the atmosphere.”
Well, you’re wrong. It’s Q = U A dT
Collected over 2,600!! views on my WriterBeat papers which were also sent to the ME departments of several prestigious universities (As a BSME & PE felt some affinity.) and a long list of pro/con CAGW personalities and organizations.
NOBODY has responded explaining why my methods, calculations and conclusions in these papers are incorrect. BTW that is called SCIENCE!!
SOMEBODY needs to step up and ‘splain my errors ‘cause if I’m correct (Q=UAdT runs the atmospheric heat engine) – that’s a BIGLY problem for RGHE.
Step right up! Bring science.
http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
Nickolas Schroeder:
Apparently you did not bother to read my on-line post.
In it, i identify more than 3 dozen instances since 1850 where reduced global SO2 emissions resulted in temporary increases in average global temperatures, due to increased insolation.
Each instance was due to a business recession, or to “Clean Air” reductions in SO2 emissions.
A simple empirical model, but it perfectly explains and matches what has been happening to our climate, and completely eliminates the possibility of any additional warming due to greenhouse gasses..
If aerosols were the control knob, the areas closest to the aerosol producers would show the greatest changes.
This is not happening.
MarkW:
“If aerosols were the control knob, the areas closest to the aerosol producers would show the greatest changes. This is not happening”
On the contrary, it IS happening. The GISS global temperature maps show that the industrialized northern hemisphere is showing the greatest temperature changes. This is most obvious from their accompanying graphical representations of the temperatures of the two hemispheres..
Don’t lose sight of the fact there is 100% correlation with temporary increases in average global temperatures whenever global SO2 emissions are reduced.
“Electricity generated from fossil fuels like coal is the biggest single contributor globally to the rise in carbon emissions, which scientists agree is causing the Earth’s temperatures to rise.”
Should read:
Electricity generated from fossil fuels like coal is the biggest single contributor globally to the rise in carbon dioxide emissions, which a few “scientists” claim is causing the Earth’s temperatures to rise.
CO2 is causing the temperature to rise. The argument is over how much. A few tenths of a degree or a degree or two.
China is the leader in population boom and purloined human organ sales.
This is where China “leads”.
The Main Stream Media has always admired despots.
Leftys love Leftys.
I remember hearing on the US news in the 70’s just how wonderful was the USSR. With their 100% employment and their happy children and their superior military.
Leftys love Leftys.
Our Prime minister in Canada, Trudeau 2.0 emphasis on 0, has stated he admires the Chinese government and how they get things done. He deplores democracy just like his old man.
“Even today, new countries are being brought into the cycle of coal dependency,” said Heffa Schücking, the director of Urgewald.
That’s just awful Heffa, awfull. Coal dependency, wow, sounds like some sort of addiction. What words would you use to describe life predicated on darkness at night, cooking with dung spewing smoke into your immediate surroundings, raw sewage in your immediate area, no clean water or running water, no refrigeration or freezers to preserve food until it is needed, no heat when it is cold, no cooling when it is hot?
I’ll tell you the words Heffa. A short brutal life.
It’s dung dependency.
I don’t like using “planned” activities as a gauge. Governments and corporations love to plan and send out press releases for virtue signaling. Rarely do their actions follow their plans.
It appears reality will eventually conquer fake science, fake engineering & fake news (at least for poor undeveloped countries and for China as China does whatever makes sense for China).
Why would there be more than 1600 planned coal plants?
1. Country in question needs reliable 24/7 access to cheap electricity.
2. Country in question is undeveloped (dirt poor) and hence does not have access to local cheap natural gas.
3. Coal can be easily transported via water and rail.
4. LNG has been historically and is predicted in the future, to be roughly 2 to 2 ½ times the cost of coal, for regions that do not have access to cheap local natural gas
5. China has four times more reserves of coal than the US.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electricity-gap-developing-countries-energy-wood-charcoal/
“Forget Paris”!! I say forget the very notion of “Agreement”. Agreements are weapons today, used by some to get immediate “Virtue” points (“look at me, I’m such a good and noble person”) and by others to finesse and handicap the serious players (people that will do what they say) because they themselves have no intention of doing a damn thing (“catch me if you can”). Just think of Charlie Brown as the US and Lucy(rest of the world) and the football. Now envision Charlie is Trump. He advances to kick the ball. Lucy is chuckling to her self and thinks “these Americans are so clue-less” and BAMM, Charlie administers a pefect kick to Lucy’s backside, picks up the ball and says: “Good Grief! I told her ‘America First’ ”
If we’re going to keep playing the virtue game and make agreements then we should make sure they are measureable and implmented immediately. No one can make a comitment to do something in a year or more because no one will remember what they promised. 3-5 years out are a joke. Information and data is growing exponentially. In 3 years 2020 the total information in the world will be 44 trillion gigabytes. (4.4 trillion in 2003. according to >> http://www.infodocket.com/2014/04/16/how-large-is-the-digital-universe-how-fast-is-it-growing-2014-emc-digital-universe-study-now-available/<<😉 It will double every 2 years. Unless you print the Paris agreement and keep a copy you probably won't be able to find it in 2020, even with Google. Remember Kyoto? Google "Kyoto + global" you get 31.7 million hits. Ask the man on the street and he'll probably think it is a car.
Ask the same person about Paris today or 2020 and the best you can hope for is "in the spring" or Casablanca's "we'll always have Paris".
..Go Charlie Brown, errr, I mean Trump !! ( I always hated Lucy as a child) LOL
ETF stocks to buy: KOL (global coal), URA (global uranium), UNG (US nat. gas, coal plants can burn nat. gas) and DLNG (LNG shipper, high dividend).
The article fails to mention that a lot of old coal plants will be retired. That will make the 1600 number a lot smaller in reality.
In reality, 1600 new coal plants is 1600 new coal plants, no matter how many old ones are retired. If I said there were a million babies born in a given time period would it make sense to point out that some people died during the same time period? This would change the number of babies being born by zero. The point is not the net number of coal fired power plants. The point is that many of the signatories to various climate pacts are building coal plants instead of “alternative energy sources”. Two reasons. One, when they signed those climate pacts they had no intention of paying anything but lip service to the pact, and two, they are unable to find viable cost effective “alternative power sources” because if they could, they would build those instead.
Thank you for acknowledging that there will not be 1600 NET new coal plants in operation. The point is that the NET number of plants is relevant to CO2 emissions, not the number of new plants. Of course it assumes that the new plants are the same size as the retired ones, correct?
Luis read Daves reply to you again but this time slowly.
nc, let me make it simple, so that even you can grasp the concept. The “1600” number is bogus without context. As an example, suppose they retire 10 500MW plants, and build 20 100 MW plants. The headline would read “Forget Paris, 10 new coal power plants built around the world.” The reality would be the 20 smaller plants burn less coal than the 10 big ones. Without context, the “1600” number has no meaning.
…Ummm, 1,600 new builds equals 100 not being built ?? Only with liberal math !! D’OH !
The claim is that coal is dead.
1600 new plants disproves the claim.
The evidence is in, despite the claims by the activists that renewables are the future, people are still fully committed to coal fueled power plants.
Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
Embedded above there is a link to the Global Coal Tracker http://endcoal.org/tracker/. Look up China. Lots of multicolored circles. As displayed, it is difficult to read, at best.
Go to the checkboxes and click them all off.
Then click Retired.
Leaving retired on, click on Announced.
Then Pre-permit development
Then Permitted
Then construction
Then Shelved
Then Cancelled
Then Operating.
How can a coal plant be operating, retired, cancelled, shelved yet be under construction, permitted. Pre-permitted, and announced.
Lets make it simple. Operating, retired, and under construction, at the same time? How can that be? Which is it?
Because most sites on the chart mostly contain all categories, how can one use this map to explain anything that may or may not going on. With the proper clicks one can paint any picture, good or bad, in what’s going on vis a vis coal plants in China.
Quite worthless.
If you click on the small circles, they expand…
Try it with Australia.
Reports of the death of Coal are grossly exaggerated:
http://www.mining.com/top-3-coal-countries-produced-6-coal-january-may/
The radiant greenhouse effect upon which the AGW conjecture is based has not been observed on Earth or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is hence fiction as must be the AGW conjecture. If CO2 really affected climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero so increasing or decreaseing the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will have no effect on climate. So in terms of climate it will not matter now many more coal fired power plants are fired up and brought on line.
China the leader in Climate Change. A Limerick.
Is China’s “clean energy” coal?
Use half of the world’s is their goal.
It pollutes with its soot
but they don’t give a hoot.
Their aim is for world-wide control.
https://lenbilen.com/2017/07/03/china-the-leader-in-climate-change-a-limerick/
“China buys coal from Australia. It’s cheaper to transport coal by ship than by railroad.”
And what did China learn? It needed to build a lot of nukes.
This is 1600 coal plants which ‘might’ get built… a lot of them are in the announced or pre-permit stage – and just won’t make it to construction.
There’s one shown in Scotland, for heavens sake… not going to happen. Three more in Germany – same.
The ‘planned’ plant in the US won’t get built…
And so on.
So China is making the world a better place by providing more energy and wealth. Means less hunger, poverty and war, etc.
And so is India, by installing an additional 160GW of wind and solar power by 2022
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-solar-power-price-slump-shadow.html
“…the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change…”
Only dolts like the NYT bought this. And they stood behind it while we told them otherwise.