Guest post by Thomas Fuller
Like mountain fruits enjoyed out of season and shipped long distance, there are climate pleasures I need to avoid, such as piling on with criticism of 10:10, Michael Mann, Joe Romm and my beloved late, great state of California.
It’s too easy and doesn’t get the job done. Summer is the silly season and we’re having a lovely fall in San Francisco.
It’s been a lovely fall in many parts of the world, and a less than lovely spring in many parts down South. But overall, be prepared for claims of the hottest month leading to the hottest year on record.
Let’s assume for the moment that it turns out that way (I think a sharp drop starting this month means we’ll miss that dubious distinction narrowly). What really should we think if this year is the warmest on record? And if, as I strongly suspect, next year is dramatically cooler due to the confluence of La Nina and a shift in the PDO, what should we make of that?
I don’t know.
I assume this world will continue to warm slightly. I assume that we will not agree to cut our energy usage drastically. I assume we will not make a whole-scale conversion to wind, solar and biofuels.
I assume, then, that the voracious appetite for energy in the developing world will mostly be satisfied with coal, and that in 40 years we will be consuming more than three times as much energy as we do today–mostly generated by coal.
I personally consider that a grave problem for the world, no matter what it portends for global temperatures.
But if you consider what we have not done, perhaps we have no right to complain. And I’m not talking about Kyoto, Cap and Trade, blah-blah-blah.
What we have not done is enable nuclear power to be used as much as it should, due to fears of nuclear waste. What we have not done is push combined heat and power, due to their lack of lobbying strength. What we have not done is finance Waste to Energy plants, due to the pressing need for cash for, I don’t know, financing Facebook and American Idol. What we have not done is push for uprating our hydroelectric facilities, clear the way for pumped storage for a not-so-rainy day, or invest in other utility-level storage technologies.
The Green Consortium that has been yelling at us about climate change and energy has ignored all of the technologies that could make a difference. And skeptics have been too busy noting all of their errors, personal quirks and logical absurdities to notice that yes, people, we have an energy problem coming down the road.
As I’ve written here before, I believe forecasts of energy consumption by the DOE and the UN are far too low. If I’m right, and the world’s energy needs triple before 2050, the amount of coal we will burn to satisfy those needs will make skies the world over as grey as the skies over most of China’s cities today. Whatever it does to temperatures (and I do believe it will do something, warming regional temperatures and causing further misery in the developing world), the normal pollution and black carbon will amount to a problem for the world.
I’ll repeat the simple math: We used 500 quads last year. A quad is equivalent to 36 million tons of coal being burned. A straight line continuation of consumption trends puts us at 2,000 quads around the year 2030, and maybe 3,000 quads by 2075. That’s a lot of coal.
There are days when I am optimistic about our ability to prevent such a firestorm. This is not one of those days. I read the news today and saw the foolishness of the green movement, the correctness of the skeptical criticism, and sat down to write this feeling like we’re all missing the point.
Richard Lindzen and Anthony Watts, John Christy and Steve McIntyre, all bright, sincere and honest people, are correctly noting the defects of the warmist arguments. And the warmists can’t seem to string two sentences together without making a huge mistake. They haven’t done anything right in a year.
But we’re still going to be burning a heckuva lot of coal in 2030. It’s really not a good thing to look forward to. I intend to be here in 2030, a lot greyer and more irascible, I’m sure. But I don’t want the skies to be as grey as my hair.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
===========================================
Click to visit the Facebook page for:
– Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The warmist should try truth …
You don’t have to be smart to be a Warmista, you just have to be passionate.
“What we have not done is enable nuclear power to be used as much as it should, due to fears of nuclear waste. What we have not done is push combined heat and power, due to their lack of lobbying strength. What we have not done is finance Waste to Energy plants, due to the pressing need for cash for, I don’t know, financing Facebook and American Idol. What we have not done is push for uprating our hydroelectric facilities, clear the way for pumped storage for a not-so-rainy day, or invest in other utility-level storage technologies.”
Thomas-Agreed 100%. This is within our reach- and reprocessing Nuke waste is a
start-real recycling. Pursuit of new nuke tech is all ways a worthwhile goal-as in the
Toshiba 4s reactor… There is much that can be done-but won’t be out of fear and
ignorance- and the exploitation of such..
“Split atoms,not birds.”
For so long the warmists have been criticizing the Wegman report as being rubbish.
Eventually the George Mason University started an investigation (for plagiarism? content?) which should clear up the scene.
“If I’m right, and the world’s energy needs triple before 2050, the amount of coal we will burn to satisfy those needs will make skies the world over as grey as the skies over most of China’s cities today.”
Wrong. The advance of technology never stops and today’s ‘developed world’ coal fired power stations are much much cleaner than those being used in China. There is plenty of fossil fuel (solid, liquid, gas) to meet our needs, with the next generation of ‘cleaner’ nuclear reactors ready for deployment.
The changes you mention will happen over time as the dwindling supplies of fossil fuel become ever more expensive and the new sources start to be more competitive.
Worrying about a predicted future based on today’s technology is always a waste of angst. Expect extraordinary advances on the energy production front over the next 10 years.
“But overall, be prepared for claims of the hottest month leading to the hottest year on record”
As soon as I saw the hoards of third world countries — none of them exactly untarnished with corruption — lining up to receive handouts on the basis of “global warming”, I realised that barring a miracle, the only way for global temperatures was up!
Of course the real problem now, is that they have claimed “unprecedented” this and that so often that most people just think they are crying wolf … but whose fault will it be if one day they did just report a real crisis and no one listened!
Thank you, Mr. Fuller. While I agree with your general premise that everyone is missing the point, part of the problem is that when the “cooler heads” try to address the point, the warmists, socialists, whatever-ists, are always pushing their agenda, regardless of logic, reason, true conservation, and especially common-sense.
You’re absolutely right about nuclear power. There have been developments recently in nuclear reactor technology that can reduce the likelihood of dangerous, weapon-able, fissionable waste. One of the developments has been toward much smaller, community based reactors. Why is it that the Greens continually pooh-pooh this technology? It’s cleaner, uses less acreage and is much more reliable than any of their pet technologies. And it can be implemented now, not in some amorphous future where solar panels are 1000% efficient and wind turbines are driven by unicorn farts. Please pardon my acerbity and coarseness, I’m tired of these “blue-sky” predictions.
Let’s DO something that is useful. And by “doing” I don’t mean pad AlGore, et al.’s pockets. The fundamental problem is one of control. Particularly in the case of the greenies, it all comes down to who will control the money and results. We have the technology, we have the desire, but do we have the strength of character to try to make an actual solution work? Can we set aside all the BS and discuss the issue like adults without throwing in unrelated hyperbole about ice and polar bears?
My hat is off to Anthony Watts for hosting this, one of the few relatively reasonable conversations, about the subject. Also, thanks to all you who contribute! In spite of what many “big-name” climate people have to say about this site, it is where much reasonableness on both sides of this issue can be found. Again, Mr. Fuller, thank you for this article that has prompted me to comment.
Best wishes to all.
The coal age will not end for a lack of coal… just as the stone age did not end for a lack of stones.
The engineers have the answers, just as we have always had. All we need is for the economics to be favorable. Increased coal consumption will drive up the price of coal, and the alternative energy systems will be implemented. Thus it has always been, thus it will always be. By alternative energy systems, I do not mean wind or solar power.
Rest easy, Mr. Fuller. We, the engineers, got this one.
too pessimistic by far. I have always had great faith in humans to provide the technolgy which will ameliorate the problems you highlight, after all, as you have said we already have the technology to make a huge difference to our future energy needs. However, you are wrong about the focii of Anthony, SteveM et al. Anthony has mentioned on many occasion the problem you highlight of having to fight the fire of AGW while proposing alternative sources and technology for the future. They fight the fight because that is the battle that must be won before governments will listen to these other proposals. The UN, along with Gore and friends, having been driving us along a path of total disastre regardless of what CO² actually does to global climate. The decision that we, the blogophere, have had to take is one of priority. Do we push hard for the other solutions or do we fight for the truth and true science? Not easy! AGW is a massive tanker heading the western economies for the rocks, allowing communism and radicalism to take control of our future. We are trying to wrestle the wheel from these people in order to change the course of this tanker to one of calm seas and a safe port.
Tom,
Good points as usual, but be careful about painting all whom you refer to as skeptics as unconcerned with pollution and the environment.
As a wee youngster, my family moved from Oregon to Los Angeles; a long time ago – must have been something like 1960. It was very smoggy and polluted back then, and since then I noticed steady improvements in air quality. I lived overseas in the ’70s then back to LA and left for good in 1995, but by my memory, the air quality got better and better despite the huge growth in population and automobiles. Just as a reality check, here is an interesting link:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/history.htm
One beef I have with the current crop of environmentalists is the emphasis on CO2 rather than neurotoxins like lead, mercury, and poisons like sulfates in the atmosphere. Lots of lessons have been learned how to clean up air pollution. Why aren’t there efforts to transmit these lessons to the developing world? Big meeting scheduled in Cancun…I wonder if anti-pollution technology for developing countries will be discussed or whether they will focus on polar bears and man-made CO2?
After you answer that question for yourself, perhaps the narrow focus of the skeptics won’t seem so narrow by comparison.
“What we have not done is finance Waste to Energy plants, due to the pressing need for cash for, I don’t know, financing Facebook and American Idol. ”
This sentence screams RAISE TAXES.
Mr. Fuller as far as I am concerned any energy problems we may have in the future are caused by the government and the greenies.
The government puts off limits enormous amounts of energy via placing land or land under water off limits to mining and drilling. It makes the permit process so cumbersome that companies enlarge what the have rather than make new.
The greenies don’t want dams, nuclear, oil or coal. We are tearing down dams rather that building them. (Hydro doesn’t count as renewable in many places.) We are a banana republic. Build absolutely nothing anywhere nor anytime.
The CO2 claim is ultimately about wanting to control people not worry about warming. If you were honestly worried about warming you would target water as it has a Cp of 2.8 vs. CO2 of .87. Water can retain heat until phase change. (Notice how it feels hotter when its humid. ie heat index) But who would ever agree to limit water.
Mr. Fuller you seem like a nice person who cares, but freedom matters and I care lots about it. Remember, if I can control how much energy you have, how much you pay for it, and when you can use it then I control you.
Don’t worry about burning coal. Coal is plentiful and cheap. Utilities have ways to ensure that the CO2 is pretty clean. The CO2 helps vegetation grow. Vegetation makes the world greener, giving the people more houses, food, and clothing.
Time keeps on slippin’ into the future…
Feed the babies
Who don’t have enough to eat
Shoe the children
With no shoes on their feet
House the people
Livin’ in the street
Oh, oh, there’s a solution.
— Steve Miller
The skies do not need to be grey from coal burning. In the west we clean up the flue gases. It is the poor developing countries, that use the technology we used 60 years ago, that pollute the skies like we did 60 years ago. Eliminating dirty flue gas is what the UN should concentrating on, not eliminating CO2.
I am pretty sure all of this reasoning wrong.
You see, water (vapor) is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.
Nuclear power generates a lot of heat, which has be led off by cooling with water, usually from the oceans.
When all of that water vapor (from the process) condenses, the heat is released in the atmosphere. I assume 50% goes to space and the other 50% is directed back to earth.
So nuclear energy does not solve the warming problem. In fact it makes it worse.
This is what really causes global warming: the condensing of water from water vapor that was evaporated from nuclear energy, burning (including fossil & rocket fuel), boiling, cooking, bathing, etc. But most of all: the erection of shallow waters for irrigation and consumption of water and the extra evaporation of water as a direct consequence…
Amen Anthony! While we’re all busy arguing about GCD and CO2 we are taking our eyes off a real problem: energy availability and security and what the default strategy will do to our planet. Meanwhile we are studiously ignoring all of the economically practical solutions that we should have been working on for decades by now.
You write ” clear the way for pumped storage for a not-so-rainy day, ” Two sorts of energy related topics I have been interested are pumped storage and cellulosic ethanol. With respect to pumped storage, here in Ontario, Canada, we should be in an ideal place to use it, but we are not. I suspect the reason is that large electric motors cannot be run directly from such sources as wind and solar, because of the varying power these sources produce. I have not been able to confirm this. As to cellulosic ethanol, this was supposed to be the year it was to be produced in large quantities; e.g. by Range Fuels and Iogen. It has not happened, and I cannot find out why. Anyone have any ideas?
“I assume, then, that the voracious appetite for energy in the developing world will mostly be satisfied with coal, and that in 40 years we will be consuming more than three times as much energy as we do today–mostly generated by coal.
I personally consider that a grave problem for the world, no matter what it portends for global temperatures”.
And what exactly is your problem with that?
New coal power plants can’t be compared with the old ones.
Coal did a fine job during the past 200 years and it will do so in the future.
I personally think shale gas will be the energy source of the next generations simply because it is cheaper than coal.
This will provide us with sufficient time to find real commercial alternatives instead of government subsidized BS solutions.
Predicting we’ll be burning however much coal then is like the ‘prediction’ in the 1880s that by 1920 London would be 6 ft deep in horse manure.
They can’t stand the truth, even if we were in the midst of another little ice age. We point out inconsistencies and they wriggle and talk about the future, despite the ‘hottest’ year on the record. Despite the hottest decade. Despite the inconsistencies of their forecasts.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/global-tropical-cyclone-activity-is-at-33-year-lows/
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
That is the real problem.
(Sarc On) Not to worry! People are ingenious little things and when you least expect it can suprise the heck out of even themselves. When the going gets tough the tough get real stupid and start doing things that tend to descimate the general population down to nothing at all, and –sometimes– good old Mother Nature does it for us. (Sarc Off)
Do we have problems, big problems, ahead? Sure.
Are we likely to solve or resolve them? One way or another.
There’s is no nuclear waste only left over energy that vastly surpasses the energy that has been used. Put another way nuclear waste is just energy going to waste or nuclear waste is all them 97% we didn’t use?
Do you know why god damn greenie hippies don’t want to recycle nuclear waste? I know, because they fear accepting nuclear waste recycling for more energy production would demote wind, wave and solar power to the rock from whence they sprung. That’s also pretty much why they don’t want to renew and add to or enhance proper hydro energy production, that’s why they scream so much about local environment when energy companies suggest enlarging or building a new dam for generating more of the clean hydro generated electricity but not for thousands of silly pseudo-windmills.
That’s also why the idiots love coal power still dominating rather then nuclear and hydro, they need its tangible concrete stuff to puke their hate at to convince the “civilians”.
Many would agree with you, particularly regarding nuclear fission and maybe in yet another 50 years fusion. The eco- fascist movement has a lot to answer for.
Conflating future energy requirements, pollution and environmental destruction with the ludicrous AGW hypothesis helps no-one and in fact weakens the environmental position.
Few are as green as our host, Anthony, but that will not prevent him and many others from exposing the greatest misuse of science in history.
I find myself agreeing with you today.
We have not pushed Nuclear as much as we should and we will pay the price for that.
As far as I know , modern coal fired plants emit very little pollution – most pollutants are scrubbed out and smokestack emissions consist largely of co2 and steam . This applies to the US and , I assume , Europe as well . If all new coal fired plants , steel mills etc. were to use scrubbers , I doubt the world’s skies would be as gray as China’s in the future .