Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
It’s a bad week for poor people around the planet. First, and with great fanfare, our President unleashed his patented climate plan, affectionately known as Obama’s War on Coal™. He hasn’t said yet how much Obama’s War on Coal™ will cost, but we can be sure that it will not be cheap. And as in any war, it is guaranteed that the poor will suffer the most.
Sadly, this was followed by even worse news. The World Bank has decided it wants to keep the developing world from having inexpensive electricity. They will not make any more loans for coal-fired power plants.
You remember “inexpensive electricity”? When I was a kid, the US Government used to be in favor of inexpensive electricity, because it was rightly seen as the savior of the poor farmer and the poor housewife. That’s why the Tennessee Valley Authority came to be. I wash the clothes around our house, and I don’t do it by hand. I have inexpensive energy to do that. Now, however, the government and the environmental NGOs and the climate alarmists are doing every single thing that they can to make energy more expensive. And the World Bank has just officially joined the baying chorus.
The World Bank thinks that inexpensive energy will harm the poor … not now, of course, but in fifty years. And on that basis, the World Bank thinks it is justified to harm the poor now.
This is the madness at the base of the climate alarmists policy—it actively harms the poor now, with the justification that it might help their grandkids avoid harm in 50 years.
The wealthy fat-cats running the World Bank are unwilling for school kids in India to have cheap electricity to study by, on the grounds that it might, not will but might, make those students’ grandkids a bit warmer in a century. I doubt that the poor in India would vote for that plan, but I guess the World Bank is our economic paterfamilias who knows what the poor need, much better than the poor know themselves, and it’s not cheap electricity …
The same thing is going on in the US. Where I live, California, the resident burglars are called the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, known as PGE. They are a monopoly utility, and supposedly they are run for the benefit of the ratepayers.
Now, if you had a monopoly public utility for say water, and your water supplier said they were going to charge twenty times the going price for a glass of water if you were really, really thirsty, would you think that was in the public interest?
That’s exactly what’s happening to Anthony, PGE is gouging him on the price because that’s when he really needs the electricity … what kind of a screwed up world has this become? A public utility is supposed to provide cheap energy, not gouge the customers at the time they really need the electricity.
Now, the East Coast and the Powder River country is going to feel the pain, as coal-fired plants close and their electricity costs start to creep up. So, since war has been declared, let’s see if Obama’s War on Coal™ is worth the billions and billions of dollars it will cost … what are we buying for our money?
Well, fortunately I don’t have to go through all the math to figure it out. There is a strong supporter of the Obama climate plan named Chris Hope, who has done the math for us. His blog says:
Chris is a climate change policy researcher, PAGE model developer, and faculty member at Cambridge Judge Business School, interested in environment and energy.
He has used his whiz-bang model to do the calculations. His assumption is that the US will do the following
1) Lower the CO2 emissions to 83% of the 2008 level over the next seven years, and
2) Maintain that low level of emissions for the succeeding 80 years.
Now, absent a huge technological breakthrough or another depression, there’s little chance of us getting to 83% of 2008 emissions in the next seven years.
But that pales before the improbable idea of the US maintaining that low a level of emissions for the next 80 years.
So to start with, we see that Mr. Hope has made the most hopeful assumptions about the climate plan—first that it will meet its initial goal, and second that it will maintain that goal for over three-quarters of a century.
And with those likely unattainable assumptions, what does Mr. Hope calculate as the effect of Obama’s War on Coal™?
Well … um … well, he says that by the year 2100, nearly a century from now, that the temperatures will be much cooler.
…
How much cooler, you ask?
…
Well … two …
…
Two degrees C?
…
Er … no …
…
Oh … so, it’s two tenths of a degree C, then, not two degrees C?
…
Um … no.
…
I have to confess, in writing this I find that I am very reluctant to reveal the expected outcome of Obama’s War on Coal™ for a simple reason—it is at times like this that I’m embarrassed to be an American.
…
Because the reality is that Chris Hope, an ardent supporter of the War on Coal™, using the most optimistic (and unattainable) assumptions, says that IF we win the War on Coal and we put hundreds of people out of work and increase the cost of electricity for poor and wealthy alike (although obviously, Obama and his rich pals don’t care about the cost increase), here’s our prize. Here’s what Chris Hope says we’ve bought for the all the pain and suffering:
In the year 2100 the world might be 0.02°C cooler.
Two hundredths of a degree in a century. Maybe. That’s the prize. That’s what Chris Hope has proudly announced will be the reward for the job loss and the pain and suffering of the poor.
Two hundredths of a degree of cooling. An amount that is far below our ability to even measure …
Me, I think that that one fact alone should be our emblem and our rallying cry in opposition to this gob-smacking lunacy. So the next time someone says they think the War on Coal™ is a brilliant plan, gently point out to them that they are advocating spending billions and billions of dollars to cool the planet by two hundredths of a degree in the year 2100, and in the process harming the poor … and ask if that strikes them as the most rational of plans …
Or you could just shake them until their teeth rattle and say “You think we should spend billions of dollars to cool the planet two hundredths of a degree a century from now, while hurting the poor today? Have you gone barking mad? Billions for a reward that’s too small to be even measured, while pensioners shiver in fuel poverty? Unhand my wallet, you thieving varlet, and slink back to your hole!”
I swear, this unremitting attempt by Obama and the activists and the environmental NGOs to crush the poor back into their hovels, while they proudly declaim the noblest of motives, turns my stomach and threatens to fair unhinge my reason … how can they do that?
Billions and billions of dollars for two hundredths of a degree … bad news, folks, the Emperor not only has no clothes. He’s lost his mind entirely.
Grrrrr, bad for my blood pressure … in any case, here’s what coal did while Obama was declaring war on it …
w.
Willis,
A really great treatise on the subject. It all makes sense to me based on my years of experience in the energy sector, especially knowing full well the high cost and limited availability of so called “clean” alternative fuels. Also my intuition tells me that this is phase 1 and if successful oil and natural gas are the next targets.
I personally take all the calculations like the 0.02 C with a grain of salt since I am skeptical about the arbitrary assumptions that are used in the calculations. I understand that since this is an anti coal person that made the calcs. they likely lean on the high side.
Based on EPA calculations re the impact of Ethanol, I tend to accept that these are likely in the ballpark.
To enhance the credibility of your post, which I accept, do you have any independent calculations or studies to bring to the party which I can cite to those I forward your excellent post? Surely the EPA must have something besides the nonsense that the President stated when announcing his attack on coal. Otherwise I assume the coal produces would have a legitimate challenge in court? I could not find any in my search.
Again thanks for your tireless efforts.
Chuck Nolan says:
July 1, 2013 at 5:23 am
I’m not one to ponder conspiracies so, I’ll just question why?
I don’t believe those in this administration are stupid but then again, I don’t believe they’re interested in saving the world. (I’ve seen what they’ve done to Chicago)
Therefore, I have to try and formulate a reason for them doing what they do when CO2 doesn’t go down, temperature doesn’t go down and people’s way of life isn’t improved, huh?
*****************************************************************************************************
The reasoning goes like this. The people in charge of the Western World are all Marxists. The world they want to create is modeled on North Korea where there is the Elite Elites and Poor Poor. However there is one thing they have left out of the equation and that is ,”What guarantee do your children and grandchildren have of being one of the Elite in the future? Obama can guarantee the future of his children? The poor sucker lives in cuckoo land if he thinks that and the same with the 10’s of 1000’s of the other so called Elites living around the world. Od course they don’t even think about the consequences of the poor rising up against them.
Alex says:
July 1, 2013 at 5:22 pm
The validity of this website’s commenters is taken into question by the wild ad hominem attacks against Obama. He may not be a very good president, but I doubt that he is part of some insane conspiracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Obama has said he will cut the carbon footprint of the USA by 83% in the next seven years. This will dump the USA into a third world life style without the infrastructure or survival skills of a third world peasant.
My neighbors and I will survive… maybe… because we are farmers with horse drawn equipment and more important we can isolate the area by destroying two bridges.
Think of the L.A Riots and picture that in every city in the USA as government buildings and factories remain lit while homes go dark, permanently. Think of the disease problems if there is no refrigeration, no water and no sewage treatment. (There is a darn good reason the Department of Homeland Security is stockpiling Ammo and city police are stocking up on surplus military equipment.)
The US government was expecting to transition to a smart grid but like everything else when dealing with the government you are looking at a real SNAFU.
The EPA and Department of Energy drastically underestimated the effects of the new EPA rulings. Many more plants are closing than anticipated. This means electricity prices will sky rocket and the electric grid could become very unstable 6/7/12: New Regulations to Take 34 GW of Electricity Generation Offline and the Plant Closing Announcements Keep Coming… According to EPA, …. these regulations will only shutter 9.5 GW of electricity generation capacity. That is 10% of our generating capacity GONE – OOPS, I guess the government miscalculated.
So what about the “Green Energy” companies funded with tax payer dollars that are supposed to replace these coal fired plants? They are going bankrupt at an alarming rate So far, [thats] 34 companies OOPS, I guess the government miscalculated.
A power systems engineer commented on WUWT:
“Letting non-professionals get involved in the power grid is like giving the keys to the family car and a bottle of whiskey to a 14 year old boy and his pals. If the renewables were viable, we’d adopt them by the train-load and build them so fast your head would spin.”
So ERCOT in Texas is already having problems. I talked to my local electric coop and they are very worried. They were even looking at a a self-contained nuclear reactor like the STARR.
As problems with an unstable grid due to Solar/wind becomes worst expect Smart Meters to become mandatory:
Add onto that the cost of energy in the USA sky rocketing (when and if you can get it.)
Ohio is the state with the most coal plants closing (19) in or near the state so rolling blackouts and major sticker-shock can be expected in the near future for the people in that state. Most of the closings are in the mid-Atlantic area and will effect major US cities from Chicago to Washington DC to Philadelphia to Raleigh NC.
Then there is public opinion. 41% Willing to Pay More to Fight Global Warming, 47% Are Not and 58% Favor Building the Keystone XL Oil Pipeline on top of that 56% View Feds As Threat to Individual Rights so shutting down our electricity and trashing our economy is not going to go over well especially with the inner city types.
The politicians in DC darn well know this so they passed an “Anti-Occupy” law [that] ends American’s right to protest The actual law link
So yes, I consider Obama and his mad scheme worse that an enemy invasion. At least with an invasion we would know who the enemy is and how to fight it. Now we are fighting a tar baby.
(Oh and I disliked Bush too esp. his bank bailout and patriot act)
It may be possible for the US to reduce residential consumption, though I doubt they can get down to European levels. The average US household uses 2 to 4 times the amount of energy that the average European household uses.
On the whole more US houses are larger than European houses and so will always cost more to heat / cool. A far higher number of US homes use air conditioning than European homes, though to some extent European homes have has higher insulation requirements for many years and have need less energy for heating cooling.
US vehicles on average do less mpg than the European equivalent, but Europe is a more compact place and more densely populated and so average mileage is lower as well.
I think that the US could gradually reduce it’s energy consumption to some extent by improving insulation levels in houses and divorcing US citizens from their love affair with pickup trucks and moving more of them into European / Japanese style vehicles, which nowadays can get 80 miles per UK gallon, that’s 67 miles per US gallon.
I am sure there is room for improvement in energy efficiency in the US, but it can only be a slow process. But at the end of the day US energy consumption will always be higher than UK energy consumption.
J Martin says:
July 2, 2013 at 12:44 am
It may be possible for the US to reduce residential consumption, though I doubt they can get down to European levels….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First The UK and Germany have much milder climates than the USA has. For New England, the temperature swings are -15F (-26C) to 95F (35C) and I have seen up to 100F (38C) and below -30F (-34C) while living in that area.
Second pickups, if diesel can get 23 mpg if they are not hauling ( 28 to 30 mpg for Canadian model) and my small pickup got over 50 mpg. The mileage seen in the USA has a lot to do with the anti-pollution junk put on the engines. My 1976 full size Oldsmobile with a carburetor and 8 cylinders got 27 mpg but our 4 cylinder 1991 Ford Taurus only got about 22 mpg after EPA.
You see the small cars a lot in the cities where people rent apartments or own townhouses (attached) In the rural area you are going to see a lot of pickups. They are used to haul the stuff needed to fix the house and yard or haul the boat or horse trailer or camper or for farmers and other small business people who need to haul stuff.
The much maligned SUV fills the same niche the old (outlawed) station wagon filled. It is used for hauling the kids and their friends and their junk (sports equipment) around. The USA has more kids per couple than the EU.
Last, the USA is just so darn BIG (~ 3,450 miles from Key West Fl to Seattle WA and 2800 miles from Washington DC to San Francisco, CA.) We do not have the mass transit system the EU has and therefore we travel a lot more in personal vehicles.
These are the reasons that are given by the pushers of Sustainability (UN Agenda 21) for moving Americans into transit cities.
Thanks, Willis. Very good!
Chris Hope should look carefully at his own results, what they mean.
For the people, it is a good thing 2014 will be here before 2016. 2014 will be decisive.
Is the USA on a path to tyranny?
Nuclear, coal and natural gas have the power to keep us developing the next step in energy; Thorium?
This isn’t about a War On Coal.
This is about about a narcissistic, Progressive”s plan to cut the legs out from underneath the rich, evil, Capitalist United States, leveling the playing field for the rest of the planet’s third-world countries.
This is Socialism’s goal and Obama’s goal: distributed misery and mediocrity.
@Willis –
It’s pretty obvious that there will be no benefit received for sacrifices today. Never was there a promise more mendacious than this. So we “save the planet,” and reduce the standard of living for everyone except the super-rich leftist elite? The “benefit” will be dirt poverty and unlimited suffering and needless death. for billions of people Remember der Fuehrer preaching to those poor people in Ghana who burn shit to cook their food, that they must rely on “bountiful resources of biomass”? Well, I’ve been to Ghana, and no one in their right mind would want to live in a world like the one most Ghanaians – apart from the socialist-kleptocratic elite – have to live – and yet that’s what der Fuehrer has in mid for us, after he’s taxed all our wealth away and handed it over to those socialist-kleptocrat elites. Interesting case study in wealth redistribution – I .e., from poor to rich.
Except coal is becoming uneconomical regardless of its impact on climate change. Solar is getting cheaper now at a fast rate, enough that it could be cost competitive with new coal plants even disregarding environmental benefits and ignoring subsidies:http://www.businessinsider.com/citi-the-solar-age-is-dawning-2013-5 . Coal is not only terrible for the health of citizens (especially with unregulated power plants), it is becoming a bad investment regardless.
Justin says:
July 2, 2013 at 11:11 pm
Yeah, that’s why we have so many coal fired power plants that make money for their owners all over the freakin’ world … because they are so uneconomical …
That citation is pathetic, it’s a puff piece designed to fool the rubes, and a successful one it seems. Here are the real economics. It turns out that if the solar panels were free, it still would be very expensive. These days it’s the cost of the land and the interconnect equipment and the transmission that is the problem, see the citation for details.
As my daughter is fond of saying … “In your dreams, Dad!”. Many more folks die in the US from mining coal than from its use in power plants. That was true before they regulated them, but now? You’re just recycling thirty year old information.
w.
A little outdated in your projections. As I said, solar is rapidly getting cheaper: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf . And I didn’t say that coal couldn’t make money, just that it’s not economical compared to other energy sources (mostly natural gas, also wind and hydro when appropriate). In the US, there is absolutely no reason to build a coal power plant over natural gas. In developing countries, I seriously doubt that coal power plants are well-regulated.
Justin says:
July 3, 2013 at 10:29 am
Oh, please. Your citation shows that solar PV is about 50% more expensive than coal.
Solar has been both more expensive than coal and “rapidly getting cheaper” for three decades or so, ever since Jimmy Carter’s big solar push, and you think that’s supposed to impress me?
Give me a call when solar is actually competitive with coal … but I won’t hold my breath.
Historical revisionism. You said:
“Uneconomical” means it doesn’t make money, so yes, you did say that coal couldn’t make money. But it’s not because of its “impact on climate change”. I think what you were trying to say was “coal is becoming uneconomical because of pointless expensive regulations pushed by well-meaning cretins” …
Yes, and outside of a dog, a cat is man’s best friend, but inside of a dog, it’s dark … I fear your statement is equally logical. What do developing countries have to do with anything?
As to whether there is “no reason to build a coal power plant over natural gas”, sure there are reasons. Some areas have coal but no natural gas. Other areas don’t have gas pipelines.
More to the point, the World Bank has just stopped funding all coal power plants … which definitely indicates that someone has reasons to build them.
As to whether plants in developing countries are “well regulated”, usually nothing in developing countries is “well regulated” … but what does that have to do with coal over natural gas?
w.
A 35% decrease in projected cost over the last two years is “unimpressive”? Yes, solar is still nearly 50% more expensive than coal, for now, not taking to account its potential benefits in providing more high-demand electricity or its still-significant environmental and health benefits.
uneconomical – inefficient in use of time and effort and materials; “a clumsy and wasteful process”; “wasteful duplication of effort”; “uneconomical ebb and flow of power”
I stand by my statement that coal is becoming uneconomical. Solar is too in most circumstances, but unlike coal, it is improving rapidly and has a lot more potential to provide clean electricity. I’m not too familiar with natural gas supplies across the United States, but I seriously doubt that it is that hard to find. Also, you dismiss solar because it’s 50% more expensive than coal but you think coal is so great when it’s 50% more expensive than gas?
As far as developing countries are concerned, considering that natural gas is cleaner-burning than “clean” coal, it is much, much cleaner than conventional, unscrubbed coal power plants. And yes, people don’t die immediately from coal burning unless there is an accident, but just like with smoking, its health impacts are real and lasting.
Justin says:
July 3, 2013 at 4:48 pm
A 35% decrease is unbelievable, and only possible because in the last couple of years there has been a glut of solar cells on the market because of the solar mania.
As to 50% more than coal … yeah, that’s totally unimpressive. Call me when it’s below coal.
Uneconomical means it loses you money. Coal does nothing of the sort. Currently, it is providing 37% of the power in the US, and the states where the most coal is used have the cheapest power … uneconomical, my aunt Fanny.
Perhaps you’re not as old as I am, but I’ve been hearing about the “potential” of solar and that it’s “improving rapidly” for thirty years or so now … so you’ll forgive me if I ignore your nonsense.
I think coal is great because it is cheap. Not as cheap as natgas, to be sure, but there’s lots of places that are not on pipelines.
The part you seem to be ignoring is that Obama’s war on coal will cause the closing of a lot of existing coal plants. Since the capital costs are already paid on those plants, the cost of the power from the plants Obama wants to close is about 3¢ PER KILOWATT HOUR … and you are claiming plants producing power for 3¢ per kWh are uneconomical? Don’t make me laugh. Closing those plants will screw the poor, but you and Obama don’t seem to care …
You really need to take a trip to some developing countries. It’s easy to mine coal. It’s technically very complex to frack natural gas. Guess which fuel is more common in the developing world? You’re as foolish as the World Bank, claiming that non-existent natural gas is better than available coal …
Pollution from modern coal-fired power plants is pretty much a non-issue unless you are the EPA, which is the same as saying unless you have your head up your fundament. The claim that they are “dirty” is a claim about CO2 these days. Modern pollution controls on coal plants mean that their effect on health is trivially small. You’re talking about the 1920s or something, I don’t know what.
If you wish to claim that people are dying from coal burning, you’ll need something more than your firmly held belief to convince anyone on this site. Bring out the studies or the corpses, or go home.
w.
PS—Note that the American Lung Association is part of the “sue-and-settle” network of the double-dealing secret-email EPA scum, so don’t bother citing their bullxxxx about pollution … they’re on the take.
The world bank is talking like it runs the show look to 2014 for the launch of the BRICS international bank that will compete with World Bank/IMF