From the University of Manchester
US CO2 emissions from domestic energy have declined by 8.6% since a peak in 2005, the equivalent of 1.4% per year.
However, the researchers warn that more than half of the recent emissions reductions in the power sector may be displaced overseas by the trade in coal.
Dr John Broderick, lead author on the report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, comments: “Research papers and newspaper column inches have focussed on the relative emissions from coal and gas.
“However, it is the total quantity of CO2 from the energy system that matters to the climate. Despite lower-carbon rhetoric, shale gas is still a carbon intensive energy source. We must seriously consider whether a so-called “golden age” would be little more than a gilded cage, locking us into a high-carbon future.”
Professor Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre notes: “Since 2008 when the shale gas supply became significant, there has been a large increase in US coal exports. This increases global emissions as the UK, Europe and Asia are burning the coal instead. Earlier Tyndall analysis suggests that the role for gas in a low carbon transition is extremely limited, with shale gas potentially diverting substantial funds away from genuinely low and zero carbon alternatives”
This Co-operative commissioned report “Has US Shale Gas Reduced CO2 Emissions?” is the third on shale gas from the Tyndall Centre – and builds on several years of research and submissions to the UK and European Parliaments as well as the International Energy Agency.
Chris Shearlock, Sustainable Development Manager at The Co-operative, said: “The proponents of shale gas have always claimed that it is a lower carbon alternative to coal. However, this is only true if the coal it displaces remains in the ground and isn’t just burnt elsewhere. Without a cap on global carbon emissions, shale gas is burnt in addition to other fossil fuels, increasing total emissions.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The watermelons’ goal is POWER over people. They want “everyone else” to freeze to death in the dark, while their elite party.
“Bright idea: keep the #$%^ energy here. I am willing to pay for quality longer lasting goods set at a price that allows able people to get in on ground floor manufacturing wages. I am so done with “Walmart” goods.”
Pamela,
I understand your frustration; however, since our power companies are steadily retiring their coal powered plants, coal companies are searching for new markets overseas. Not all of the sales go to China.
“Earlier Tyndall analysis suggests that the role for gas in a low carbon transition is extremely limited, with shale gas potentially diverting substantial funds away from genuinely low and zero carbon alternatives” ”
Tyndale sounds no different than a lobbyist for sustainable energy (ie Gubmint subisdized Energy).
@Reality Check: You nailed it. Between the climate dictators and the unions there is only the new serf class of peasants and part time slaves.
Don’t worry. They are cutting down whole forests to ship to Europe to burn in power plants that used to burn coal.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/save-the-coal-kill-and-burn-trees-instead/
And Putin is mocking them:
“The German public does not like the nuclear power industry for some reason,” Putin said, adding that he would not comment on it. “But I cannot understand what fuel you will take for heating,” he said anyway.
“You do not want gas, you do not develop the nuclear power industry, so you will heat with firewood?” Putin asked, as reported by Itar-Tass. “Then you will have to go to Siberia to buy the firewood there,” he said, adding that Europeans “do not even have firewood.”
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/putin-invites-europeans-to-siberia-for-firewood/
Anything that is a threat to their behind the scenes investments in solar, wind, of any sort of subsidized “renewable” power crap will be demonized.
Shale gas increases CO2 emissions because it is burnt along with the exported coal?
Whatever coal is being exported is either displacing other coal or simply reflecting the overall increase in demand for energy not producible by eco-green means. The only issue is the natural gas being used in the US that replaces other fossil fuels (none replaces green energy).
The Tyndall Centre sounds like another British anti-American smack (hey, I’m a ex-Brit, so I know the rhetoric well): the logic goes no further than the lips of the teller.
A major impact of the climate wars on my understanding of the world is the poor and politically determined so-called science that goes on in universities and advisory institutes in the democratic countries. That and the ability of educated men and women to twist numbers and observations to suit their purposes without facial tics and Tourette-like outburts.
Doug: “Whatever coal is being exported is either displacing other coal …”
They are building new coal power plants in Germany because the greens made them shut down the nukes. If greens were bright enough they would consider it an own goal.
The same thing would be true about increased coal exports if we were using a lot of wind-powered and solar-powered electricity instead. We must stop those wind turbines and solar panels!
What the anti-carbon crowd does not seem to get is that during our lifetimes wind and solar power will never be sufficient to meet our energy needs. Fossil fuels are available in sufficient quantities to power our lives for at least the next 100 years.
The carbon reductions from the shift from coal to natural gas have exceeded the carbon reductions from all wind and solar efforts. Worldwide. And that will be true for the next decade as well.
Coal Bed Methane .Instead of burning the Coal as a solid and wasting energy breaking it down to create combustion.Burn it as a .Gas its most Combustible form.
De Carbonize Coal simple
Can’t resist….No s**t, Shearlock!
Everything else I thought of has already been posted.
China and India combined [as I read on the blog] will built 900 nw coal fired power
plants within the next 5 years, because people over there want a steady electricity
supply and not only when the wind blows…Also the people of Africa…..They will be
supplied with US coal exports, a bonanza for the American King Coal . King Coal is
the one and only global winner ! CO2 is on the UP and does not care of in which
country it is being generated…..Let your pension be eaten away by high electricity
costs: Quote: Some time before I was afraid of darkness…. now,…. after having seen
the electricity bill, I am afraid of lightness…..JS
J. Seifert, “900 nw” — nanoWatts? 🙂 That would be a tiny power plant, indeed! Nice idea — power plants on a chip. A new triumph of micro-lithography.
If I was a coal miner in the U.S. instead of a coal geologist in Canada I would say to this “Ain’t that a shame…and your the one to blame” It seems to me if the Europeans were not importing so much from these places they would not need the coal to fuel their economies. Just saying you know.
Apparently these folks are having a tough time when it comes to logical arguments. The coal that’s going overseas didn’t magically produce coal power plants – they already exist and would have burnt coal regardless of where it came from. The fact that cheap gas in this country has driven down the price of coal and made it ,more attractive to foreigners has no bearing on the carbon emissions due to coal. As for those heavy coal burning countries like China, it should be pointed out that China is building out nuclear in a big way and has a lot of hydro to boot. I might add that solar panels produce three times the carbon emissions of nuclear power.and more than half that of natural gas.
To Pat Franks : …spelling mistakes creep in: “nw” = new.. nothing about watts,, try your imagination,,JS
From the Manchester article:
“US CO2 emissions from domestic energy have declined by 8.6% since a peak in 2005, the equivalent of 1.4% per year.”
EPA or EIA shows a considerably higher decline. EIA has the all time US annual emissions peak in *2007*, at 6.0 billion tons, and 2012 at 5.3 billion tons (12 months ending July), or a 12% decline over the six year period.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_3.pdf
Tyndall just “opened its mouth and removed all doubt.” It is fully staffed by idiots.
The UK has seen its proportion of electric generated from coal this year shoot up. The reason given is high gas prices.
The problem is that under EU emission rules all coal (and nuclear) plants must shut after their allowance of hours generating is used up, even though technically they are still working fine. Therefore the more they are used now, the sooner they will be forced to shut.
Then the proverbial hits the fan.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/uk-electricity-statisticsquarter-2/
Gee, what’s happened about 2008….
Gas got very cheap in the U.S.A. due to a new approach to production (horizontal drilling and fracking – technically, not new, just applied in new places and novel ways).
The economy tanks due to a whole lot of ‘other stupid’ (like the CRA signed by Clinton that both de-regged the banks AND mandated making bad loans “anti-redlining” and “liar loans” A-OK) while at the same time encouraging massive job movement to China…
So China, being no fools, have built a massive manufacturing economy (powered by lots of coal) and are loaning us tons of money to buy their cra… products… assuring our endenture to them for generations to come.
Our economy halts on massive debt, large imports of cheap goods undercutting our industry, and massive over regulation that drives industry to relocate to places like China. Demand for coal way down (as industry flees and we can’t pay the power bill, along with cheap gas undercutting on price); so China steps in and buys loads of it (sorry Europe, you may buy some too, but China loadings via Burlinton Northern Rail to the Pacific are way up and have been for a while. They got here first and larger.)
Net Net: Energy supply and jobs / wealth move to China. Increase in CO2 and other pollutant production as they are less regulated. US Poverty and Debt head through the roof. But at least there are a few jobs digging up our natural resources and shipping them to China. Like all good Third World Banana Republics.
All gas did was undercut prices and substitute for a load of coal. China would have grown and consumed that coal anyway, just from some other source. Yes, we could stop selling them coal. Think we have much else to sell them for “foreigh exchange” to buy their “goods”?… Think if we don’t sell them coal they won’t just buy it from {Australia | Canada | Russia | all over} or just mine their own? Anyone who thinks China will go along with a Global Coal Tzar telling them to return to poverty has never had negotions with Chinese. (Lucky for me, I was on the team WITH the Chinese guys… token White Guy and all…)
Oh, and one must ask, are these Tyndal folks PUBLISHED and PEER REVIEWED in the field of BUSINESS? I.e. they need to pony up the Ph.D Business Admin and publication record to support their claims AND show it is the concensus of such folks. They are making claims about Economics and Business, not climate, here. By their own rules, that means they are not qualified and “outside the conscensus body”…
Well then leave it in the ground and inject bacteria that turn coal into natural gas and then export the natural gas! Several companies already are using it on existing coal bed methane fields that were running out. Not no more! Once they start in on the coal that is too deep to be mined the whole world will be awash in natural gas even more than with fracking.
Of course every time technology does and end run around these people they will find some excuse to try and ban that technology. I can hear it now “the bacteria will get into the water supply”.
lucatechnologies.com & next-fuel.com for a few examples.
EM – we still manufacture more than China – and more complicated stuff. But yes, fracking has discovered more ways to extract energy than ever before to the point as most here know we have the largest retrievable oil and NG reserves in the world.
This Tyndale center might as well call themselves the society of luddites. They are about that aware of their environment and the world around it. Pathetic. When do the 60s children die out anyway? Very destructive bunch as a whole.
Clearly, we need export tariffs on that cheap coal that we’re not allowed to burn in the US.
The lack of understanding of basic economics is just astounding.
Is coal good or bad? Hmm, a simple argument, Mitt’s new ad for… PA!