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

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

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

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

clip_image005

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

clip_image007

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

clip_image009

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

clip_image011

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

clip_image013

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

clip_image015

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

clip_image017

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

clip_image019

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

clip_image021

clip_image003[9]

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

clip_image023

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

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

The monumental climate impact futility of Obama’s EPA proposal is demonstrated by estimates of so called global temperature reductions which would be achieved by complying with the EPA demands even using flawed climate model projections which grossly overestimate global temperature impacts based on atmospheric CO2 emissions.

Estimates of the global temperature “benefit” from Obama’s schemes vary between less than a hundredth of a degree by 2050 and less than 2 hundredths of a degree by 2100. (10), (11) With the reality of global CO2 emissions growing hugely between the present and 2030, despite Obama’s EPA dumb CO2 reduction schemes, as demonstrated by the material discussed above even the trivial, miniscule, pathetic and grossly overestimated global temperature “benefits” suggested are completely wiped out.

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

Meantime the great global temperature “pause” continues with the RSS satellite global temperature measurements showing no increases in global temperatures occurring in 17 years and 9 months.(13)

(1) http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_07252013.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Charles Nelson

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

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

Burn baby burn!!

pat

MSM still desperate to prove China is serious about CAGW. like the last rubbish about China capping emissions, this one has not been confirmed by the Chinese Govt.
what next – capital punishment?
11 June: Reuters: China’s Shenzhen to punish firms if carbon targets not
met-media
by Kathy Chen and Stian Reklev
China’s Shenzhen will impose sanctions on companies that fail to comply with
targets under the city’s carbon trading scheme, an official said according
to a local media outlet, despite criticism about the rules.
The Shenzhen government, hosting the oldest of China’s six pilot carbon
trading markets, last week arranged a special CO2 permit auction to help
local emitters meet their targets for 2013 by the June 30 deadline.
But only around a third of the permits on offer were picked up, with some of
the 635 scheme participants saying they didn’t participate because they were
unhappy about scheme rules and planned to appeal to the government about how
their emission targets had been set.
Guangdong province faces a similar situation in its market, casting doubt
over China’s ability to enforce targets in its carbon markets…
“Non-compliers will be asked to pay a fine of three times the market value
(of each permit they fail to hand over to the government),” Zhou Quanhong,
head of the Shenzhen government carbon trading office, told a ***conference on
Tuesday, according to news service provider Crystal Carbon.
He said those who failed to pay a fine would be dealt with by the court, and
that violators would have their lending credibility downgraded and lose any
subsidies or preferential fiscal treatment they might receive.
***The government did not immediately respond to questions regarding Zhou’s
comments, but they were confirmed by several sources who participated at the
conference…
Zhou’s message was seen by market players as sending a strong message that
the government intends to ensure the scheme is properly implemented and
reassure traders that market regulations would be upheld…
But finding sellers could be a challenge for buyers, who only have 19 days
to get their books in order.
Liquidity in the scheme is poor with only a handful of thousand permits
trading each day. Some 12,000 permits changed hands on Wednesday…
The China Emissions Exchange, which hosts trading of permits in the Shenzhen
market, on Wednesday began offering trading of 2014 permits.
(LOL) Bids and offers opened far apart, with the first trade going through in the afternoon at 60
yuan, but only for a single permit.
The government has issued 33 million permits for 2014, according to the
exchange.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/11/idUSL4N0OS0XS20140611
***this is obviously the conference referred to above:
WALCC (World Alliance for Low Carbon Cities): Sixth Low Carbon City
Development World Forum; June 10-11, 2014, in Shenzhen, China
The event will host over 1,000 leaders from government, industry, investors,
academia, international organizations, business associations, and media from
over 40 countries…
Confirmed Participants include:
Graham Meadows, Special Advisor, European Commission
Mariana Fay, Chief Economist, Sustainable Development Network, World Bank
Travis Bradford, Director, Energy and Environment Concentration, School of
International and Public Affairs, Columbia University
Jonathan Woetzel, Senior Director, McKinsey & Company
http://walcc.org/index.php/material-bank/events/101-sixth-low-carbon-city-development-world-forum-june-10-11-2014-shenzhen-china

euanmearns

I was pretty surprised to hear that the USA aims to reduce CO2 emissions from existing power stations by 30%. What does that mean? Close down 30% of existing stations? Run stations at 70% of nameplate capacity? Or carbon capture and storage? CCS converts power production plants into power consumption plants. For coal about 25% more energy is required for the capture, compression, and sequestration of CO2. But at least in the USA you will probably use the CO2 in enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Capital cost of a CCS station is about double the normal. It increases the demand for coal.
Germany is building 12 new coal fired power stations and is in process of abandoning Energiewende. In the UK we took the wrecking ball to about 12 coal fired power stations this past 24 months for loss of about 12 GW generating capacity, preferring to be dependent upon Qatari and Russian gas.
Carbon Capture and Storage and 1984
Why does the concept of CCS exist?

The only reason that the concept of CCS exists is to assist the UK and other nations to meet CO2 emissions reduction targets imposed by the EU and UK 2008 Climate Change Act [3].
Meeting these targets will have close to zero impact on the natural world. The only guarantee is that electricity prices will rise significantly and energy poverty will spread. The logical way to deal with these legally binding targets is to abolish them.

euanmearns

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

lee

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

David Archibald

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

michael hart

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

luvthefacts

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

Wayne Butler

The logical conclusion, for the sake of Mother Gaia, is that saturation bombing of China should commence immediately.
After all, it’s a crisis and isn’t doing something better than doing nothing?

cedarhill

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

A comment I left at a warmist site:
What we need to do is get CO2 below 250 ppm. We don’t want to go below that or else plants will have a big problem. Which could lead to extinction. So the Ideal number for CO2 is between 250 and 275ppm. Has anyone notified the Chinese?
What we may need to do is take US CO2 production to zero to make up for what China is doing. Or maybe we could go to war with them to make them stop destroying the planet.
A World War would be totally worth it to stop planetary destruction don’t you think?

Having read current federal officials at the US Department of ED stating that China is in the ascension and the US in decline like it was no big deal, I do not think harming of the US via policy troubles our public class in the least. Plus CO2 moderation is the excuse for Regional Equity which takes the prosperity where it exists still and transfers funds to the Blue States and inner cities.
Called Metropolitanism now, the Low Carbon push is actually a means of fostering racial justice in the US as former federal officials like Van Jones have openly stated. It ensures “that people of color have equal access to jobs, schools, and housing throughout metropolitan regions.” The Obama Administration calls these areas Promise Zones and it is a major and increasing priority.
So when these CO2 policies seem to make no sense in light of costs and a Middle East in turmoil and the lack of factual support for the models, there is always the cui bono analysis to keep in mind. Especially since the policymakers have so openly proclaimed this as their rationale. I have sat in the audience and gasped at times at the forthrightness.

LT

With all that growth in global CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2 levels do show any growth change associated with China’s output, it does not matter what rate our emissions are, atmospheric CO2 levels keep growing based on other factors.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1980/derivative/normalise/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1980/mean:3/normalise

Leo Geiger

The second essay in as many days on this subject, and once again not a single mention of the key concept surrounding emissions reductions: total cumulative emissions. The United States and its 300 million people have put 1.5 to 2 times more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than the 1.3 billion Chinese have up to now. Even with increasing Chinese emissions and flat to declining U.S. emissions, the Chinese won’t match the U.S. in total cumulative emissions until about 2030 on a nation-to-nation level, and likely never will on a per capita level.
That is why the developing world asks that developed nations which are responsible for the majority of excess greenhouse gas currently in the atmosphere (a situation that will remain for some time yet) need to take the lead right now in emissions reductions.
Looking only at annual emissions numbers ignores all this.

richardscourtney

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

The second essay in as many days on this subject, and once again not a single mention of the key concept surrounding emissions reductions: total cumulative emissions. The United States and its 300 million people have put 1.5 to 2 times more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than the 1.3 billion Chinese have up to now. Even with increasing Chinese emissions and flat to declining U.S. emissions, the Chinese won’t match the U.S. in total cumulative emissions until about 2030 on a nation-to-nation level, and likely never will on a per capita level.
That is why the developing world asks that developed nations which are responsible for the majority of excess greenhouse gas currently in the atmosphere (a situation that will remain for some time yet) need to take the lead right now in emissions reductions.
Looking only at annual emissions numbers ignores all this.

Your post rightly says this is “The second essay in as many days on this subject” but every other thing in your post is wrong.
“Cumulative emissions” are NOT the “key concept surrounding emissions reductions”. You made that assertion on WUWT yesterday hereand I refuted it here saying

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

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

Our estimates differ.
I suggest it will probably take until about 2025 for the Chinese to catch up and after that to out-do the GHG emissions of “developed nations”.
Of course, none of this is “relevant for emissions reduction policies and climate change”.
If the improbable assertions of AGW are correct then what matters for policies to constrain AGW is increase to total atmospheric CO2 and the contributions of individual nations to that increase.
And if the policy objective is totalitarian control then the Chinese government already has it while constraint of GHG emissions is the policy tool other governments want to use to obtain it.

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

Alan Robertson

M Simon says:
June 12, 2014 at 4:13 am
“A comment I left at a warmist site:
What we need to do is get CO2 below 250 ppm. We don’t want to go below that or else plants will have a big problem. Which could lead to extinction. So the Ideal number for CO2 is between 250 and 275ppm. Has anyone notified the Chinese?
What we may need to do is take US CO2 production to zero to make up for what China is doing. Or maybe we could go to war with them to make them stop destroying the planet.
A World War would be totally worth it to stop planetary destruction don’t you think?

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

gnomish

ok, why wait any longer- i’ll just dive right into pre-traumatic stress syndrome- beat the rush, right?
because everything we do leads to disaster – in time
if it’s whirling down the vortex ever faster, then fiiiiiiine
i finally got it- it’s worse than we thought
it’s the biggest crisis of all time!
so fine, let it blow cuz it’s time to get it over!
i’m tired of it preying on my mind.
when the end of the world just won’t stop being nigh!
ya know, i think i’ll just go do whatever i usuallly do and wait for it…
hmm – what if the apocalypse came and went – and i never knew it?
i mean – what if armageddon happened… and i just sorta slept thru it?
hey- so wake me when oblivion is over- okay?
it’s hard to whip a fervor to a froth every day.
i’m not in any hurry, see- so please don’t try to worry me-
i suffer from catastrophe fatigue in a very big way.
so wake me when it’s over and done.
when it’s time for doing something new and fun.
a second coming’s nothing but another rerun
i’d like to give a fuck but i don’t have a free one-
so wake me when it’s over and the parasites are gone!
wake me when it’s over and done!

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

Lucky for us man-made CO2 has not changed the relationship between temperature and the AMO by any discernible amount.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1909/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1909/to/plot/esrl-amo/from:1909/to:1944/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1909/to:1944/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1977/to:2010/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:1977/to:2010/trend
The bad news is that negative AMO is very, very close.

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

Ed Reid

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

Ed Reid

ferdberple @ June 12, 2014 at 5:57 am,
I can hardly wait to review the official definition of an “extreme climate event” and the criteria for establishing that such “extreme climate event” was caused by AGW. The poor countries are demanding compensation now for “loss and damage” which exist only in the “modeled” future. They have no apparent interest the “gain and enhancement” which has resulted from the past actions of the developed nations. Interesting worldview.

David in Michigan

@Leo Geiger: So, (1) “total CUMULATIVE emissions and (2) “per capita” emissions are your important points. Sigh, so many things to say about that but I’ll make it short. First, let me sum up your message:
(1) Cumulative Emissions: Guilt should govern our future actions. We must pay for past “sins”. A very common theme in current politics. Also known as LIBERAL GUILT. In what way does punishing people of today for past events in any area help anything going forward? How did Hillary put it? Something like “what difference does it make now”?
(2) Per capita Emissions: More guilt…. of course. However, having lived and worked in 3rd world countries, I can simply tell you that a day doesn’t go by that I’m not thankful I live in a 1st world country. And again, In what way does stigmatizing and penalizing people who live well help those who don’t?

CalTech’s Professor Rutledge gives an excellent overview of world coal reserves in his 2011 paper. (“Estimating long-term world coal production with logit and probit transforms,” International Journal of Coal Geology, 85 (2011) 23-33 ). He paints a grim picture. Roughly, there are 500 billion tonnes of mine-able coal left in the world, and the existing consumption rate is 7.8 billion tonnes per year. This provides approximately 60 to 70 years of coal remaining. However, a slight positive note is that Rutledge did not include coal deposits near the Arctic, in Alaska North Slope, and Siberia’s Lena and Tungus fields. Whether those fields in the harsh, cold far north can be produced economically is an open question.
As I have stated elsewhere, nuclear fission is not a candidate for future power due to resource limitations, outrageous cost, and serious safety concerns. The world is in great need, then, dire need actually, of a replacement energy source for coal and nuclear. Together, that is nearly 55 percent of today’s energy production.
Knowing this, it makes sense to turn to the renewables: wind, solar, and ocean current. It may also be possible to make the ocean-temperature-difference technology (OTEC) work. If the technologies still need a subsidy to advance so they can stand alone and provide electricity at reasonable rates, then prudence dictates the subsidies be made.
See full article at http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/forecasting-future-hubris-or-honesty.html

Pamela Gray

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

Alan Robertson says:
June 12, 2014 at 5:31 am
“I’ve been to one world’s fair, a picnic and a rodeo and that’s the stupidest thing I ever heard…”
-Slim Pickens, as: Maj. T.J. (King) Kong- “Dr. Strangelove”

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

Roger Sowell says:
June 12, 2014 at 7:00 am
And not only that. If we turn to renewables now prices will go way up reducing demand. And we will still need to burn fuels to keep the grid powered. But hey. Maybe an intermittent grid is another positive feature.
I’m sure Obama would be VERY receptive to such a scheme.

Alan Robertson

Pamela Gray says:
June 12, 2014 at 7:08 am
You would think with all that energy use, China could make us some pencils with lead actually centered in the barrel, will sharpen, and that don’t fricken break all the time!!!! That’s all I want. Pencils that are like they used to be. And I don’t care which country makes them. Use all the coal you want. Fry the land and boil the oceans. Just make a #%$#ing GOOD PENCIL!
_________________________
China doesn’t make pencils. They make non- working facsimiles of pencils, just like so many of their other products that aren’t what they pretend to be. I bought a cheap Chinese hammer about 20 years ago. The hammer head shattered on first impact with a nail. It was made of cast iron. It was only a facsimile of a hammer.

Alan Robertson

M Simon says:
June 12, 2014 at 7:37 am
Alan Robertson says:
June 12, 2014 at 5:31 am
“I’ve been to one world’s fair, a picnic and a rodeo and that’s the stupidest thing I ever heard…”
-Slim Pickens, as: Maj. T.J. (King) Kong- “Dr. Strangelove”
Thank you. That was exactly the effect I was trying for.
_____________________________
If that site has a fair bit of traffic, then you may have had some number of true believers who agreed with you.

Ed Reid says:
June 12, 2014 at 6:21 am
You have to look at who gets the money. With development the money goes to developers. With transfer payment it goes to….

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

Thankfully China is becoming a modern responsible nation that knows how to safely dispose of all that fly ash from the coal.
Hey, did they ever tell us why those plastics from China, from Christmas tree lights to kids toys, had those high mercury concentrations?
Have they figured out yet why the pets were sickened and killed from Chinese-made animal food and treats?
Huh, I have an old can of cat food here, “ASH (MAX.) 2,7%”. Is that supposed to “bone ash”, added for the minerals?

If the technologies still need a subsidy to advance so they can stand alone and provide electricity at reasonable rates, then prudence dictates the subsidies be made.
A little economics lesson for you Roger, if the subsidies are big enough they are a drag on the economy. If they are really big they can crash the economy.
So what level do you propose?
R&D – minor
Major roll out – a big drag
Total replacement – crash

And BTW Roger – resource estimates are based on current prices and current technology.
Remember in 2000 when the US was running out of oil and natural gas? Today we produce more oil than the Saudis. Given the resource estimates from 2000 how is that possible?

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

Steve P

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

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

I keep wondering about this because that pesky, CO2-sniffing Ibuki satellite launched by JAXA back in early 2009 seems to show that the northern industrialized countries of N. America & Eurasia (excluding China) are net sinks of CO2 during the summer months, i.e. absorption of CO2 in these regions exceeds emissions.
On the public release of carbon dioxide flux estimates based on the observational data by the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite “IBUKI” (GOSAT)
http://www.nies.go.jp/whatsnew/2012/20121205-2/20121205-2e.html
I assume the downtake is due to intensive agriculture in these regions, but also because the people of wealthy nations like to surround themselves with greenery. Beyond that, the generally fertile soils of the continental mid-high latitudes are in well-drained areas blessed with regular precipitation for the most part, and lush summer vegetation is the rule.
Lush summer vegetation wants all the CO2 it can get.
Cheefio: The 3rd World Owes…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/
Yes, and as an aside in looking at various graphics/maps from Ibuki, none I’ve found show CO2 as “well-mixed” in any way.
http://www.gosat.nies.go.jp/eng/gallery/FTS_L2_SWIR_CO2_gallery.htm
In the final analysis, we shouldn’t expect that numbers would add up because the Great Global Warming Swindle has been a scam from the get-go. Now the poor nations have legal leverage to penalize their wealthy counterparts for cumulative damage due to climate change, but the Ibuki data seem to contradict the very core of their argument.
No, poor people don’t suffer from lack of plumbing, heat and light – they suffer from climate change.
We know it’s a crock; now we’ve got clear, graphic proof of that in the Ibuki data, which you many notice are not being widely publicized. See for example Wiki, which describes the satellite, but omits any mention of its results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibuki_%28satellite%29
The Great Global Warming Swindle:

Roger Sowell says:
June 12, 2014 7:00 am
“As I have stated elsewhere, nuclear fission is not a candidate for future power due to resource limitations, outrageous cost, and serious safety concerns.”
******
Roger, you obviously haven’t spent any time looking at or studying 4th generation nuclear power technology such as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) or the IFR/PRISM reactor. If you bothered to do so, you would understand that these technologies largely succeed at addressing the concerns we have regarding today’s nuclear technology. The only reason we do not see them in commercial use today is because the federal government stupidly pulled the plug on the development of these technologies decades ago for political reasons having nothing to do with flaws in the technologies themselves.
You remind me of someone who drives around in an old clunker of an automobile that is always breaking down on him because it is so old and in such poor shape. He doesn’t bother looking at and considering all the new and better cars on the market because he has already concluded that the automobile is a lousy way of getting around based on his experience with the car he currently owns. Very ignorant and narrow-minded.
LFTR and PRISM are both capable of burning up the plutonium by-products of today’s reactors as nuclear fuel. LFTR is powered by thorium which is far more plentiful on Earth than uranium and is said to be the most energy dense substance on Earth. There is reported to be enough of it to provide our energy needs in a LFTR for perhaps a millennium or more. And, if you bothered studying it, you would find that LFTR is safe and significantly less costly to build due to its basic design. It is never to late to pick up where we left off with the development of it decades ago. And, speaking of China, they are doing just that themselves with LFTR.
I could ramble on here by explaining how wrong you are about wind and solar, but others here will probably do that for me. Suffice it to say that wind and solar are extremely inefficient sources to tap into for electrical energy because they require such massive amounts of resources, not the least of which is land.
I for one grow increasingly tired of rebutting people like you with your green propagandizing. Please stay away from WUWT and go elsewhere with your bunk.

http://www.masterresource.org/2012/05/bootleggers-baptists-utility-mact/
from the comments:
The costs of renewables bring dysfunctional to society. What to me is intriguing is that the confraternity of renewables Baptists and bootleggers is engaged in the classic definition of bunco: a swindle in which unsuspecting people are cheated, with the perpetrators promising much, delivering nothing–and making off with the unsuspecting people’s loot.
The situation is almost the perfect piracy.

Leo Geiger

David in Michigan says:“In what way does punishing people of today for past events in any area help anything going forward?”
You are confusing “guilt” with the concepts of fairness, responsibility, and leadership. Food for thought:
http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2014/06/climate
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2259.html
Or in simpler language:
http://tombowman.com/posts/the-fairness-question/

On behalf of our groups and organizations, together representing millions of Americans, we write to express our strong opposition to renewing expired wind tax incentives.
“Over the past 20 years, American taxpayers have seen little return from the forced investment in wind energy. This handout consistently fails to deliver on its promise of long-term job creation, economic activity, and affordability. It promotes government favoritism in the energy marketplace, threatens the reliability of the electric grid, and a 1 year extension costs $12 billion over 10 years. Recent reports and studies have also shown that subsidizing wind energy results in higher electricity costs for American families.
“American taxpayers deserve a portfolio of energy solutions that are economically viable, not those that have to be propped up by carve outs in the tax code.”
http://www.masterresource.org/2014/06/winds-ptc-the-opposition-mounts-117-groups-and-counting/

Leo Geiger says:
June 12, 2014 at 8:21 am
It is not anyone’s fault but the Chinese that they handicapped themselves with a dysfunctional economic system. If they want fairness let them correct their errors and revive the 10s of millions Mao offed. Well that last part is going to be difficult. Correcting the errors of central planning should be easier. If they can give up the habit.

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

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

Roger,
The wind PTC was initially passed in 1992 as a temporary incentive to help a then fledgling industry – with the expectation that wind energy would be environmentally benign and would become commercially viable. However, after nearly 40 years of subsidies for wind energy R&D and 20 years of lucrative wind energy tax breaks — together totaling over $100 billion:
· Electricity from wind remains high in true cost and low in real value [3] – with the wind industry providing no evidence that electricity from wind will ever become commercially viable (i.e., without large tax breaks and subsidies).
· Producing electricity from wind has proven to have numerous adverse environmental, economic, electric system reliability, scenic, and property value impacts not originally foreseen and still not admitted by wind industry advocates…
http://www.masterresource.org/2014/04/republicans-for-obama-ptc/

rogerknights

Leo Geiger says:
June 12, 2014 at 5:07 am
The second essay in as many days on this subject, and once again not a single mention of the key concept surrounding emissions reductions: total cumulative emissions.

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

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

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

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

But that depends on the residence time of emitted CO2. If much or most of the CO2 that developed nations have emitted no longer resides in the atmosphere, that portion can be deducted from the West’s “debt.” (The estimates of the residence-time figure vary widely and wildly.)
In addition, granting AGW theory for the sake of argument, the small amount of warming from the CO2 the West has and is emitting is beneficial. It’s only the the additional CO2 from developing countries, and its accelerating pace, that poses a threat.

Alan Robertson

CD (@CD153) says:
June 12, 2014 at 8:16 am
“…you obviously haven’t spent any time looking at or studying 4th generation nuclear power technology such as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) or the IFR/PRISM reactor. ..”
____________________
I think we should just skip all this and go with warp engines. So far, they’ve produced as much commercial power as LFTR.

Steve from Rockwood

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

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

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

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

Yes you have, numerous times, with dodgy numbers used by anti-nuke agitators that shrivel when exposed to factual truth. Which basically comes down to them using the worst-sounding estimates based on 1970’s and earlier reactor tech, to condemn modern efficient inherently-safe designs, while getting “risk assessments” from alarmists using the Linear No-Threshold model to predict death and illness down to exposure levels well under normal background amounts, even though The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data.
While I could again badger you with reality until you drift away flustered and sputtering, I shall currently decline.
Now if you’re ready to write off your failing investments in windmills and sunbeam catchers and move on, PPL Corporation, an electric utility company that was originally just in PA but now has holdings even in Great Britain where they have 7.8 million customers after acquiring Central Networks, is getting out of electricity generation. The plans are to spin off their generating capacity and merge with that of Riverstone Holdings, forming Talen Energy Corporation.
This is an important signal of the growing specialization of the market. Electricity providers are increasingly tied to the quixotic whims of government administrations, seemingly overnight a source may be forced out by fiat. With major generating projects planned for a decade, this severely discourages investment.
But PPL excels as a distributing company. So the fiscally vulnerable generating parts are cleaved off. PPL will then buy off the open market whatever electricity there is, generated by whatever source, for whatever is the going price, then tack on their profitable charges and send the customers the bill. Sensible business model for this regulatory climate.
They’re PPL on the NYSE, also a S&P 500 component. Currently trending down on the news, about $33.35. Motley Fool has up 3 Reasons PPL’s Spinoff Is Dynamite for Your Dividend.
Buy now, hold long.

Paul

which (industrial complex) has the record for the max single point emission of CO2 in the last twenty years?
fwiw – they pay a grand dividend. and property prices in the ‘town’ far outstrips the rest of the country…
their next factory may well be in your area…