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/
Alan Robertson says:
June 12, 2014 at 8:59 am
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.
*************
Alan, you are obviously one of those daft persons to whom I have to unfortunately repeat myself before something finally (and hopefully) sinks in, if it ever does.
The only reason LFTR is likely not in commercial use today is because the federal government failed to follow through and complete the development of the technology. Alvin Weinberg was one of our top nuclear people at the time and was in charge of the project at ORNL. He had high hopes for it back in the 1970s as a safe alternative, but politics got in the way and it was terminated for POLITICAL reasons.
China is developing LFTR today because they see the same potential for it as Weinberg and his people did back in the day. It is very upsetting to see China one upping us and doing something today that we should have completed decades ago. Some of us in this country see that, and it is sad that more of us don’t.
and it is not Norilsk – https://www.google.co.za/maps/place/Norilsk/@69.3239143,88.1784583,1233m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x44ac5c403d18ab93:0x4024234d8fd6e107
which is the 2nd biggest complex I ever saw…
Steve from Rockwood said on June 12, 2014 at 9:11 am:
But a REAL pencil has that scratchy graphite, that chips and crushes to a powder and be shaped to a tiny sharp point. Those 3D printers extrude plastic. I have used “pencils” where the “wood” is plastic, and the lead is plastic that feels like and slides over the paper like soapstone. 3D printers cannot make the same thing.
Also we are already to where they could make a tabletop printer for $100 that’s big enough for a custom cell phone case, if people wouldn’t mind paying $100 for a cartridge holding 2.75oz of material, for each color they want. Almost as much fun as inkjet printers.
For CD and the other nuclear apologists,
If you knew the truth about nuclear power, you would change your stance.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-one.html
Advanced civilizations are predicated on abundant cheap energy, without this abundant cheap energy you are or will be a back water inconsequential nation. China and India will set the standard as to what it means to be civilized if North America doesn’t get it head out of its AGW derrière..
p.s. The future is nuclear energy, and lots of it.
[Leo Geiger:]
You have again ignored my refutation of your assertions which you first posted yesterday on another thread and repeated on this thread at June 12, 2014 at 5:07 am.
My refutation in this thread is at June 12, 2014 at 5:29 am here.
I have repeatedly told you
This is because any AGW from now would results from emissions made now and in the future (the so-called ‘pause’ in global warming demonstrates there is no discernible ‘committed warming’). Hence, the “key concept surrounding emissions reductions” is the assertion that it is possible to reduce future emission.
Having no answer to that reality, at June 12, 2014 at 8:21 am you here switch your assertion to
.
But that is blatant nonsense because the increases to atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution have been purely beneficial (it is future increases which it is claimed will have ill effects in future). These benefits include higher crop yields.
You are asserting that
(a) The industrialised countries have responsibility for the increase to atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution
and
(b) compensation for effects of that increase should be awarded
then
(c) in fairness the developing world should PAY the compensation for the benefits they have obtained
and
(d) the industrialised countries would display leadership by demanding they obtain the compensation at very least for having provided higher crop yields.
Personally, I think the entire concept of ‘compensation for climate change’ is daft.
Richard
Ouch!
My post was intended to be addressed to Leo Geiger and not myself. [Sorry.]
Richard
2011 February 16
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/feb/16/china-nuclear-thorium
Comment: The experts the Grauniad trusts think thorium is better for solving the devastating climate change problem. What a sterling endorsement.
2012 October 30
http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2012/10/30/completion-date-slips-for-chinas-thorium-molten-salt-reactor/
2014 March 18
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1452011/chinese-scientists-urged-develop-new-thorium-nuclear-reactors-2024
Comment: Got that? In 2012 they pushed the completion dates for test reactors to 2017 and 2020. But in 2014, only about 18 months later, they announce they originally had 25 years to develop, but it’s shortened to 10, they’ll have reactors by 2024, which is 4 and 7 years later than the delayed dates, but is a Great Leap Forward as this is 15 years sooner than their government now says was their previous deadline.
I do not think China’s progress on developing practical thorium reactors, molten salt or pebble bed, is going as well as thorium’s cheerleaders would have us believe.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 12, 2014 at 11:07 am
I do not think China’s progress on developing practical thorium reactors, molten salt or pebble bed, is going as well as thorium’s cheerleaders would have us believe.
______________________________
Welcome to the “daft” club, (thanks to CD (@CD153) @June 12, 2014 at 9:34 am.)
As long as we’re hanging our hats on vaporware, why not go all the way?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/tech/innovation/warp-speed-spaceship/index.html
Roger Sowell says:
June 12, 2014 at 10:16 am
For CD and the other nuclear apologists,
If you knew the truth about nuclear power, you would change your stance.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-one.html
*******************
Excuse me Roger, but did I say one thing in defense of TODAY’S nuclear power technology in my first post? Not that I recall. You are making a seriously faulty assumption here….and you know what you do when you assume, don’t you Roger? I will try to explain something to you here even though I doubt that it will do any good.
Ever wonder why we don’t all still drive around in Model T Fords today Roger? Because when we humans invent something, we don’t rest on our laurels and just leave it as it is. We continually strive to make it better, to improve on it in ever way we can. That applies to all technologies we invent, including nuclear.
Your mindset with regard to nuclear power assumes (there’s that word again!) that there is nothing out there better than today’s LWR nuclear technology, and that the problems with today’s reactor technology apply across the board to all future human nuclear power endeavors. You seem to be assuming that we humans, in our efforts to improve on the technologies we invent, somehow, in some way are not able to or interested in correcting or at least mitigating the issues we have with today’s nuclear technology.
Roger, LFTR is NOT light water reactor technology and is a significant departure from it. Do yourself a HUGE favor and read up on it:
http://flibe-energy.com/.
Alan Robertson & KD Knoebel:
Do either of you two really expect major new technologies to be developed without delays or bumps in the road along the way? You two are living in a dream world if you think that will never happen. Do you know how many different kinds of material Thomas Edison tried before he found a practical filament for the electric light bulb?
The materials, equipment and technical knowhow the Chinese have at their disposal may or may not be up to the standards or level of ORNL here in the U.S., and I can’t say what kind of problems, if any, they are having. What I can tell you is that Alvin Weinberg and his colleagues at the Oak Ridge National Labs in Tennessee demonstrated the practicality of the molten salt reactor with the MSR experiment they conducted at ORNL back in the 1960s. Weinberg would not have wanted to continue the project if he didn’t feel it had potential.
Alan Robertson: There is a big difference between the warp drive dreams that NASA engineers have in their heads and what has been shown to be practical at ORNL. This is not to say that warp drive won’t happen someday. Maybe it will, and maybe it won’t. Ever hear the old saying about not putting all of your eggs in one basket? That is why LFTR should not be abandoned.
One sure path to failure is having a skeptical or pessimistic mindset like that of the two of you.
CD (@CD153) says:
June 12, 2014 at 12:45 pm
“You two are living in a dream world if you think that…”
______________________
As long as you keep making statements like that and “daft”, I’m gonna keep pokin you in the eye with a stick.
VAPORWARE
Alan Robertson says:
June 12, 2014 at 12:56 pm
Okay Alan. I apologize for calling you daft and for the dream world statement. They were uncalled for. However, I’m believe I’m justified in saying that is impractical to abandon and give up on a major, new developing technology simply because it may be experiencing bumps in the road along the way (as LFTR may or may not be in China). I see nothing wrong with that.
Exactly, the U.S. is increasingly irrelevant. China is the big dog now!
To CD and any other thorium enthusiasts:
If you knew the truth about thorium molten salt reactors, you would not be at all hopeful at their prospects.
I will write an article on thorium quite soon now in TANP series. It will be article 28 in the series. 20 articles are published at this time.
Grammar:
Not
‘China’s energy consumption is climbing so rapidly that it’s energy use …’
but
‘China’s energy consumption is climbing so rapidly that its energy use …’
richardscourtney says: Repetition does not convert untrue assertions into reality.
That’s the only thing we are going to agree on. I won’t waste my time or yours on anything else.
CD (@CD153) says:
June 12, 2014 at 12:45 pm
The LFTR experiments you mention were shut down and never restarted because of corrosion problems. Now maybe we can fix that. Maybe we can’t but they are a HUGE stumbling block.
M. Simon – Naval Nuke in another life.
======================================
I’m not a real big fan of nukes (except for Naval Military uses). But I’m not as pessimistic as RS. But there is no need to rush. We have at least 500 years of coal left. Probably 100 yrs of nat gas. There is time.
========================================
AE has two problems
1. Capacity factor
2. Storage
Based on #1 grid parity is on the order of 1/3 to 1/6th the $/watt of a coal plant. Based on #1 and #2 the total cost for AE + batteries has to come in at around 1/2 to 1/4 the $/watt of a coal burner. We are no where near that. Not even close.
Leo Geiger:
Your post at June 12, 2014 at 3:27 pm says in total
Actually, I would be very interested in an explanation from you and, therefore, it would not waste my time.
If you agree that “Repetition does not convert untrue assertions into reality” then I would like to know why you repeated your untrue assertions then changed your assertions when your repeated untrue assertions were again refuted.
In other words, I would welcome an answers from you to my post at June 12, 2014 at 5:29 am which is here and especially to my post at June 12, 2014 at 11:02 am which is here.
Thanking you in anticipation
Richard
What is the solution?
Simple. Stop exporting coal to China and use it at home to manufacture output and heat our homes for next to nothing. If China want our coal then they should pay a lot more for it and if they want to sell us their output then we should be getting a better price.
For as long as there is a single young man in our nation who wants work but is unemployed we should not be exporting energy and importing goods. Instead we should train him to use the energy to create goods for export and domestic use.
The status quo makes no sense apart from to those who currently profit from the status quo. They have found themselves in a position to make great profit by creating a “Fire Sale” of our resources.
CD (@CD153) says:
June 12, 2014 at 12:45 pm
“Do you know how many different kinds of material Thomas Edison tried …”
A rhetorical question but a useful takeoff point:
Not only is a major new technology not likely to arrive like in the plot device Deus ex machina but such would have to be built in quantity requiring land and resources, workers, financing, lawyers, and NIMBY court cases.
Edison’s team and others (Batchelor of G.B.) tested many hundreds to thousands and Thomas is credited with saying they learned something from every one. An important issue is that it was not just the filament that was invented but an entire system of parts, such as switches, meters, wiring. The “quick break” switch (J. H. Holmes) is an important innovation. Any new energy system will have a long invention, development, and build-out period. Those past current retirement age are not going to live long enough to witness significant changes in the world-wide supply mix.
Little frustrating to read comments about Australian and US exports to China and not allowing it or counting the CO2 emmissions against the source country etc.
Please please check out the numbers – World Coal Assoc. or IEA
For 2012 China produced 3549 Mt, USA 935 Mt and Aus 421 Mt
Coal exports- Indonesia 383 Mt (mainly thermal), Aus 301 Mt(50:50 thermal:coking) and USA 114 Mt (50:50 thermal:coking)
Coal Imports- China 289 Mt, Japan 184 Mt , India 160 Mt even Germany and the UK import around 45 Mt each
China imports < 10% of what it produces so it is not reliant on imports. They have huge resources/reserves and currently import as it is cheaper to do so
David in Michigan says:
June 12, 2014 at 6:22 am
=============================
Me three. Agree 100% with your comments. I have woken up in an african hut with brown sludge on my cheek cause it was up against the wall – made of sticks and manure. Coming home, I had to wash everything twice to get the smell of charcoal out of my clothes as it permeates everything. Life span is 55 years or less, income in those days was less than $2 a day in the city and for those in the country side, subsistence living.
On another thread:
========================
Oatley says:
June 13, 2014 at 6:08 pm
Every quarter I am asked to be a guest lecturer in an economics class. I work in the electric utility field. I show a slide of a young African woman cooking dinner over a dung fire in a hut. I ask the ladies what they believe her life expectancy is. They are shocked when I tell them 45 vs. their 79. Then I ask if they think for an instant that she doesn’t want affordable electricity so she can have the chance to live as long as you?
They usually respond with silence…
========================
Couldn’t agree more. This discussion on CO2 is getting to be more of a straw man every day. What is really important?
Roger Sowell says:
June 12, 2014 at 7:00 am
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your reference to a 2011 coal reserve of about 500 billion ton tons and a 60 year supply is out by at least half. There are over 950 billion short tons available with today’s technology and prices so if we allow for new recovery and increased prices there is probably at least a couple hundred years of coal – depending on consumption rate and other energy technologies that come into play.
50% of the world coal consumption is in China, US regulations are meaningless from a global perspective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves
http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-is-coal-found/
”
According to BGR there are 1038 billion tonnes of coal reserves left, equivalent to 132 years of global coal output in 2012. ”
http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/