Obama’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)
Furthermore the astounding growth in China’s energy consumption is dominated by coal fuel energy resources.(2)
Coal fuel use provided more two thirds of China’s 2012 total energy consumption requirements.(2)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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_image003[9]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/clip_image0039.png?quality=75 "clip_image003[9]"){kind=small}
Compare China’s growth in CO2 emissions above against the U.S CO2 emissions future profile from EIA data shown below.(5)
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
(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/
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
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 #%$#ing GOOD PENCIL!
Alan Robertson says:
June 12, 2014 at 5:31 am
“I’ve been to one world’s fair, a picnic and a rodeo and that’s the stupidest thing I ever heard…”
-Slim Pickens, as: Maj. T.J. (King) Kong- “Dr. Strangelove”
Thank you. That was exactly the effect I was trying for.
Roger Sowell says:
June 12, 2014 at 7:00 am
And not only that. If we turn to renewables now prices will go way up reducing demand. And we will still need to burn fuels to keep the grid powered. But hey. Maybe an intermittent grid is another positive feature.
I’m sure Obama would be VERY receptive to such a scheme.
Pamela Gray says:
June 12, 2014 at 7:08 am
You would think with all that energy use, China could make us some pencils with lead actually centered in the barrel, will sharpen, and that don’t fricken break all the time!!!! That’s all I want. Pencils that are like they used to be. And I don’t care which country makes them. Use all the coal you want. Fry the land and boil the oceans. Just make a #%$#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.
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….
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.
Leo Geiger says:
June 12, 2014 at 5:07 am
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.
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/
That’s not so. Yesterday I followed your post, quoted in part below, . . .
. . . with my response, at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/11/china-and-co2/#comment-1660253
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.
@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.
From Roger Sowell on June 12, 2014 at 7:00 am:
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.
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…