Japan: Building coal plants is "climate finance"


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Minerals Council of Australia has pushed back at coal divestment campaigns, by pointing out that Japan has joined the Asian infrastructure rush, by offering “climate finance” loans to aid the construction of up to 1000 new high tech coal power plants throughout Asia.

According to The Australian;

More than 1000 “high-efficiency” coal-fired electricity generation plants are planned or under construction in key Asian nations, according to new research that provides a fillip for Australia’s thermal coal exporters hit by the fossil fuel divestment push.

The research, produced by the UK’s IEA Clean Coal Centre and obtained by The Australian, is significant as the hi-tech plants typically emit 20 to 25 per cent less carbon dioxide than existing power stations.

Commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia, it finds that an extra 1066 “high-efficiency, low-emission” coal plants are planned or under construction in 10 Asian nations to provide 672 gigawatts of capacity — more than 24 times that of Australia’s coal-fired fleet.

Despite a wave of bans on coal by multilateral lenders, Japan has designated loans for coal plants in India, Indonesia and Bangladesh as climate finance.

Read more: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/hi-tech-coal-plants-good-news-for-locals-amid-global-warming-debate/story-e6frg9df-1227525360556

Earlier this year, WUWT revealed how Asian countries, frustrated at the Obama’s attempt to push climate orthodoxy on global banking institutions, were turning to China to finance their energy infrastructure.

Now that Japan has joined the Asian coal power rush, I think it is fair to say President Obama has completely lost control of the global energy development narrative. All he has succeeded in doing, is to lock American interests out of a gigantic business opportunity. Obama has given America’s economic rivals a free pass to make money, while far too many of his fellow Americans worry about where their next paycheque is coming from.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 13, 2015 10:39 pm

Eric what makes you think it’s “fair to say that President Obama has completely lost control of the global energy narrative.”? As far as I am aware, companies like GE and Caterpillar are free to sell their equipment every where but Iran. We are not going to build the structures to hold the turbines, they never do, but they will supply them, or at least try to. Just like Shell Oil is allowed to drill in Alaskan waters. Stop the Obama bashing it’s not becoming.

Reply to  bobthebear
September 13, 2015 10:54 pm

“World Bank to stop financing coal projects
1 July 2013
The World Bank plans to stop providing financial support to new coal projects, unless the developments take place in poor countries where alternatives like renewable energy would be too expensive. [] The US, the bank’s largest shareholder, proposed similar plans this week. As part of President Barak Obama’s Climate Action Plan, he pledged to end US financing of overseas coal projects from the US Export-Import Bank. []”
So yes, it is completely fair to say that President Obama has completely lost control of the global energy narrative.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 13, 2015 11:30 pm

Thank you for the comment. You must be aware that these giant international corporations will get the deal done one way or another. BTW aren’t the Republicans trying to get rid of the Export-Import Bank? I don’t think that Obama is a Republican.
“Because Congress Failed to Act, the Export-Import Bank’s Authorization Lapses at Midnight for the First Time in History, Hurting Businesses and Workers in Every State”.(White House Paper 12 August 2015). The White House asked the Republican Congress to reauthorize the EXIM Bank prior to 30 June 2015. They refused. Get the facts! Please.
So no, it is not completely fair to say that President Obama ……narrative.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 14, 2015 3:22 am

When countries want coal power plants, they will get coal fired power plants. Looking away from Asia we have Africa and South America and the rest of the world. The USA is not the world, the World Bank is not the only bank etc.

International Chinese coal projects (33 countries)
August 12, 2014
Over 60% of Africans without Power – Will Build Coal Power Plants
…… As Tanzanian Minister of Power Sospeter Muhongo said, “We in Africa, we should not be in the discussion of whether we should use coal or not. In my country of Tanzania, we are going to use our natural resources because we have reserves which go beyond 5 billion tons.”[i] His country currently uses so little coal that at present rates, its supplies would last 50,000 years.
Global Coal Use
According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, coal use grew 3 percent in 2013 and was the world’s fastest growing fossil fuel.[iii] Coal’s share of global primary energy consumption reached 30.1 percent, the highest since 1970
Africa has 35 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves and at the current rate of consumption, it would last 122 years……
=====comment image

Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 14, 2015 5:24 am

Yes, the World Bank is seemingly opposed to cheap and effective energy production, full stop.
Whether that energy is sourced from fossil fuels or large scale effective and cheap renewable sources.
Since they are also now opposed to the construction of renewable hydropower projects, it seems.
The world bank attempted to stop the Three Gorges Project by starving it of funding.
And here is a more recent example of the same anti-renewable activities.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 14, 2015 6:59 am

September 13, 2015 at 11:30 pm
…..Hurting Businesses and Workers in Every State”.(White House Paper 12 August 2015)….

So, Obama’s White House says Republican legislators’ actions will harm businesses and workers – without any supporting evidence. Where have I read that playbook before? That you can regurgitate such self-referential garbage is amazing.

1. easily persuaded to believe something; credulous “an attempt to persuade a gullible public to spend their money”
synonyms: credulous, naive, overtrusting, overtrustful, easily deceived, …

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 14, 2015 8:28 am

So in which countries are renewables not ‘too expensive’? They are too expensive for Canada, UK and Spain.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 14, 2015 10:47 am

Africa has a heck of a lot more than 35 billion tons of coal. That is probably South Africa’s lode. Mongolia has almost a trillion tons. How much is there under the Congo basin? It is gonna have coal, oil and natural gas up the wazzu.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 13, 2015 11:43 pm

Now it’s the American government. But you blamed Obama.

Bill Treuren
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 14, 2015 2:02 am

Its mandated as per aid projects. The projects will be specified and designed by the funds supplying country.
Thats why they supply the funding.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 14, 2015 4:27 am

Viewed from outside of today’s USA.
Obama is America’s black Nero.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 14, 2015 6:37 am

ROM – I agree that Obama is “America’s Nero”, but unfortunately the rest of the world still sees him as the prodigal son. Why? Because against all their true interests, America’s “allies” see a weak POTUS as a safe haven to hide in the cave from having to face the responsibilities of maintaining order and Western Civilization on the Planet. Freedom isn’t free and Europe’s hope is that America will pay for it.
They are of course wrong…..but with Social Democracy’s aka: Progressive Democraciy’s….
That’s the way they see it. They are self hating societies that feel they are the ones who have caused all evil in the world. The opposite of course is true, but in this Orwellian world – Western Civilization is committing the suicide of other great civilizations. Our Iranian and Islamists actors will also be only too happy to help.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 14, 2015 7:56 am

>>Viewed from outside of today’s USA.
>>Obama is America’s black Nero.
Not sure I follow that.
Do you mean he is good with the violin, or from Africa??

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 14, 2015 8:29 am

Best information so far is we are all from Africa.

Reply to  bobthebear
September 14, 2015 4:17 am

Bobthebear says:”…First Time in History, …”.
Bob the Import-Export bank has only been around for about 80 years so using the word history is overly exaggerated. And since, it is a loan guarantee program using tax payer money it should end. We lose enough on failure of bad clean energy loans. Besides Obama has been clear on his objection to funding coal fired power plants.

Reply to  mkelly
September 14, 2015 5:48 pm

If you’ll notice, the word “history” is part of a paragraph in quotes. Those were the White House’s comments that I quoted. The loans were mostly made to Boeing. The people get the interest and I think that Boeing is a good risk. They pay more interest than the Treasury. What say you?

Reply to  bobthebear
September 14, 2015 5:12 am

Some facts regarding ExIm:
In 2012, Boeing alone received 83 percent of all loan guarantees, and in 2013, just five corporations received 93 percent of all Ex-Im loan guarantees.
The ExIm has strayed far from it’s original mission and should stay dead. There is no need to take taxpayer money to finance Boeing.

Reply to  bobthebear
September 14, 2015 9:15 am

Exactly and explicitly which sentence bashed Obama?
Stating the obvious and rather common knowledge is simply restating the truth.
Bringing Iran, GE and Caterpillar into the discussion are rather idiotic diversion attempts to disrupt the thread.
Obama claims everything he does is a success, while behind the scenes he castigates people who opposed or failed him. The last poll capturing citizen numbers accepting POTUS claims had only 37% believing what the POTUS spouts.
Anyone watching neutral news sources gets treated to POTUS gaffe and error statistics very quickly after POTUS news grandstanding. POTUS Pinocchio standing for most of his claims is downright phallic.
e.g. Barack Obama – Three Pinocchio’s – Glenn Kessler in the very left leaning Washington Post.
Fantasies should strictly be solo activities, applying personal egomania control fantasies to a nation is disastrous and plain silly.

Reply to  bobthebear
September 14, 2015 8:01 pm

bobthebear September 13, 2015 at 10:39 pm says:
“…Stop the Obama bashing it’s not becoming.”
Actually, Eric hadn’t really even started on Obama bashing. richard verney does it better than Eric on September 14, 2015 at 1:32 am when he deems Obama’s energy policy a “triple whammy” against the Unites States. He explains it thusly:
“…we are hastening the day when the East becomes the economic power house of the world, which will lead in the fullness of time, to further loss of wealth, lowering GDP, and yet further unemployment (and resulting loss of tax revenues and welfare implications). It is pure madness. No sentient being could make this up if they tried.”
Fact is that despite being a smart man Obama has allowed himself to become a hostage to the irrational policy goals of activist pseudo-scientists he himself appointed to control his energy sector. His first and foremost error is his belief that the existence of global warming is caused by the greenhouse effect. It is a total fantasy. Abundant evidence that it is false exists but he stubbornly refuses to take account of it and sides with the alarmist pseudo-science intent on destroying our economy. Simply the existence of the ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ proves that greenhouse effect does not exist in the real world. . It is not a secret that thanks to the hiatus atmospheric carbon dioxide is constantly increasing while at the same time there is no parallel increase of warming. But parallel increase of warming is required by the greenhouse theory of Arrhenius, the one IPCC uses to predict an Armageddon ahead. Now it happens to be a fact that any scientific theory that makes wrong predictions belongs in the waste basket of history. The Arrhenius theory, having made 18 wrong predictions in a row, is amply qualified to retire and take up its seat in that waste basket of history. The correct greenhouse theory that makes accurate predictions about the real world is MGT, the Miskolczi greenhouse theory. It came out in 2007 but was summarily dismissed by IPCC because they did not like its predictions, particularly those about water vapor. According to MGT carbon dioxide and water vapor create an optimal joint absorption window in the infrared whose optical thickness is 1.87 This value was determined from analysis of radiosonde measurements. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb in the IR just as the Arrhenius theory predicts. But as soon as this happens water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. Miskolczi has shown that this constancy of atmospheric optical thickness can be maintained by as long as 61 years. In the specific case of NOAA records he observed the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by more than 20 percent during the observation period while the optical thickness remained constant. The added carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing IR but the reduction of water vapor counteracts this and will block the warming predicted by Arrhenius. What is observed then in fact is that the added carbon dioxide does not cause any observable warming, and that is exactly what our climate is doing now. You cannot tell me that Obama’s advisers do not know this fact, they do know it and have decided to suppress it from the public. Unfortunately they are succeeding because years of indoctrination have made the public receptive to the greenhouse fantasy. The activist group around IPCC has gotten away with other equally large falsifications in the past. The most outrageous of these is complete suppression of a warming hiatus in the eighties and nineties. I became aware of this in 2008 while doing research for my book “What Warming?” I analyzed global temperature using satellite data and discovered that there had been a complete cessation of warming from 1979 to 1997, an 18 year stretch. But looking at the official temperature curve, said to be based in ground-based data, there is no sign of this hiatus. What hey do show instead is a warming called “late twentieth century warming.” that does not exist. They have substituted this fake warming to cover up the hiatus that existed there. If you restored the true temperature to the graph that belongs there you would create an eighteen year side-wise step into the smooth warming shown in the eighties and nineties. That is colossal falsification of scientific information with an intent to give a false impression of climate history.It is a complete fantasy that over-writes the hiatus.It is a sientific crime that should be investigated and properly punished. Proof of existence of the hiatus is made easier by the fact that during the hiatus ENSO was active and created a wave chain of five El Ninos, with La Nina valleys in between, in the middle of the hiatus. What you do in a case like this is that you find the mid-point of a line connecting an El Nino peak with its neighboring La Nina valley. That point defines the global mean temperature for that particular ENSO pair. I did that for all possible El Nino/La Nina combinations in the wave train and marked each with a dot. The resulting temperature graph is shown as figure 15 in my book. The dots form a horizontal straight line defining the motion of the mean global temperature over time. A horizontal straight line of 18 years does not come into existence by accident. It means that temperature remained constant for 18 years which defines it as a hiatus. I later discovered that HadCRUT3 had been instrumental in creating the coverup of the hiatus and even put a warning about it into the preface of the book. It was completely ignored when the book came out in 2010. Still later I found out that GISS and NCDC had been their co-conspirators. All three organizations had their temperatures adjusted by the same computer which left its footprints all over their temperature curves. These consist of sharp upward spikes that have been mistaken for noise. Two of them sit right on top of the super El Nino of 1998 in their version of that graph. Find more by comparing with satellite data back to 1979. All these spikes are in identical locations. Now lets consider what the existence of two hiatuses will mean. First, if there are two of them it is pretty hard to argue that they do not exist. Secondly, they prevent any greenhouse warming from a large segment of satellite era from taking place. Haw large? is the question, First, the greenhouse era extends from 1979 to 2015, a period of 36 years. Out of that 36 years 18 has to be subtracted from the eighties and nineties as a no-greenhouse period caused by the first hiatus. The length of no-greenhouse time of the second or current hiatus is 18 years and 8 months according to Lord Monckton. Put them together and you find that all of the satellite era, 36 years of it, has been a no-greenhouse era. To put it differently, any greenhouse warming since 1979 is simply impossible. There is no greebhouse wearming now, there has been none for the last 36 years. And, make note of this: there is no reason to think that any greenhouse warming will return despite the Armageddon predictions of their worthless climate models.

September 13, 2015 10:52 pm

Australia has recently signed trade agreements with China, South Korea and Japan. We are looking forward to supplying all three countries with much ‘Climate Finance’ formerly known as coal. The fact that Obama is dong his best to disrupt the American economy is just a matter of mild amusement.

Reply to  ntesdorf
September 13, 2015 11:14 pm

Countries with real vision for the future will not be put off by UN climate calamity phantasms or a washed-up American President’s arrogant dictums and alleged world leadership, and superior moral judgement-calls.
*attempts to avoid laughing fit … fails*
I’m pretty sure no non-US citizens of USA voted of Obama and the US is itself a deeply divided contradictory 4% of the global voice to begin with. If the Japanese and other Asian States want to make wise choices for their own interests they will anyway. And so they should, they don’t need a paternal Washington’s wondrous but extremely dubious advice.
Especially with so much imaginary sea water lapping at the White House door.

Reply to  Unmentionable
September 14, 2015 8:31 am

Obama is a traitor to the U.S. I certainly didn’t vote for him either time.
Ps. Non U.S. citizens cannot vote here, until of if they become a citizen.

Reply to  Unmentionable
September 14, 2015 11:29 am

I’m pretty sure a huge number of illegal aliens and dead people voted for Obama.

David R. King
September 13, 2015 11:11 pm

Not so amusing to those of up who have to live with his idiotic policies.

Reply to  David R. King
September 13, 2015 11:55 pm

Brought about mostly by American scientists. And I don’t see that many Republicans saying that CO2 or global warming is nonsense. They need to pander to their electorate too, except the ones whose electorate believe the earth was made 6,000 years ago. Until American scientists stop this 97% consensus, let’s lay the blame with them where it rightfully belongs.

Reply to  davidgmills
September 14, 2015 12:54 am

not scientists but comrades

Reply to  davidgmills
September 14, 2015 5:26 am

I assume you know the 97 % is a total lie

Reply to  davidgmills
September 14, 2015 6:13 am

Davidgmills how could anyone say that C02 is nonsense. Even evil Republicans know that physical things cannot be nonsense. However, sir your comment is nonsense.

Reply to  davidgmills
September 14, 2015 7:02 am

Maybe this Republican could “school” you on the facts:
Cruz- “Sir I told you I’m not going cross-examined. Let’s step back for a second and look at this with some historical perspective. Thirty to forty years ago there were a group of political liberal and scientists who said we were facing global cooling. They said we were headed toward a global ice age and the solution to global cooling was increased was massive government control of the economy, the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives. Then the data disproved it. It was not in fact correct that we were seeing global cooling. So that was kind of a problem. Then many of these same political liberals, and many of these same scientists they then latched on to a new theory, it’s called global warming. And the new theory of global warming interestingly enough, the solution was the exact same as the solution had been for global cooling. It was massive government control of the economy, the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives. But then the problem became the data and evidence didn’t back up global warming. In particular if you look at the satellite data. Listen I am the son of two scientists and mathematicians. It is the essence of science to look to the evidence. In the last eighteen years there has been no meaningful recorded warming according to the satellite data. So all of a sudden all these political liberals, the evidence and data didn’t back them up. So then the theory changed to a third version, it’s just been in the last few years when the theory magically transformed into climate change. And climate change from the perspective of a political liberal who wants government power climate change is the perfect pseudo-scientific theory. Why is that? Because it can never be disproven. Whether it’s hotter or colder, whether is wetter or drier the climate is always changing. Now you asked a question, ‘do you believe in climate change?’. Of course! From the dawn of time the climate has been changing. Until the end of time the climate will change. And yet interestingly enough the political liberals, their solution to climate change is exactly the same as it was to global cooling and global warming. Massive government control of the economy, energy sector, and our lives. And when you start to see politicians who propose the exact same solution to every problem regardless of the facts or the data you start to think these are politicians who just want power over our lives. You know what I’m interested in? I’m interested in the single moms who are working here who are struggling to feed their families and are seeing their electric bills skyrocketing because these political liberals are driving up their electric bills, driving up their energy bills, making it harder and harder to provide for their kids. We need to follow the facts and data and not just give power to a bunch of out of touch elites in Washington over our lives.”

Reply to  davidgmills
September 14, 2015 9:47 am

More vacuous thread diversion attempts? Based on your reading comprehension inability or deliberate twisting of the language?

“…that CO2 or global warming…”

Normal reading comprehension is that CO2 and global are descriptive modifiers to the word warming.
You conveniently cherry pick one word and from that you try and make an argument?
Typical warmista logic and tactics

Reply to  davidgmills
September 14, 2015 1:39 pm

ATheoK you have me mistaken for someone else. I am not now nor have I ever been a warminista. If you agree with what David wrote more power to ya. I think it is nonsense.
And as many people like David deny or refuse to admit CO2’s role in life it is reasonable to read his comment the way I did. I have never seen it referred to as CO2 warming.
Have a good day.

September 13, 2015 11:37 pm

Does Japanese financing favor Japanese manufacturers? I suspect that it does. Will be good for Fuji and Mitsubishi.

Reply to  brianjohn
September 14, 2015 6:10 am

Don’t forget Hitachi, very good at building large coal fired boilers!

Crispin in Waterloo
September 13, 2015 11:53 pm

What I like about this is that Japan and China will compete to supply loans to new power stations. Instead of getting screwed like South Africa did with their new mega power station, they will get good offers of finance at decent rates. A little competition is good for business and buyer.

September 13, 2015 11:54 pm

Off topic, but in Oz, Malcolm Turnbull has just challenged Tony Abbott for the leadership of the Liberal party. As many of you will be aware, Abbott is a sceptic, but Turnbull is not, so a successful challenge could see Oz towing the IPCC line (again!)

Steve from Rockwood
Reply to  xyzzy11
September 14, 2015 5:08 am

I read Tony Abbott was dumped as leader.

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
September 14, 2015 6:01 am

True. With Malcolm Turnbull as PM, regrettably Australia will now succumb to climate alarmism.

G. Karst
Reply to  xyzzy11
September 14, 2015 6:50 am

This is probably the most important news of the day. Hopefully, this will be discussed soon. Australia has fallen back into the frying pan in time for Paris. Let the conspiracy rumors begin. GK

richard verney
September 14, 2015 12:10 am

Loans may often be tied to supply agreements; that is not at all uncommon, after all many suppliers, as part of a package, facilitate finance. It can be the overall package (together with loans, subsidies, tax incentive, maintenance contracts etc) that is attractive to the buyer.
It is extremely likely that loans being offered by Asian financing houses will indirectly assist Asian suppliers/business to the detriment of western industrial nations.
This is obviously one of the unintended (but quite foreseeable) consequence of western developed nations policy on CO2 and renewables.
But irrespective of who supplies the technology/plant what this means is that there will be a growing number of coal fired power stations emitting ever more CO2. The Asians (are quite rightly) not particularly concerned about CO2 emissions, which is a secondary consideration. The production of reliable Energy is the prime mover in their eyes, then aerosol emissions which are the real pollutants emanating from conventionally powered fossil fuel generation.

Reply to  richard verney
September 14, 2015 2:35 am

Climate science and responses to it seem to result in a host of unforeseen consequences.
But I wonder if this “..there will be a growing number of coal fired power stations emitting ever more CO2…” is quite as direct a correlation as we may imagine (between new coal fired power plants and CO2 emissions).
In many cases, centralized energy generation is replacing many and varied inefficient forms of energy, from diesel generators and diesel powered pumps to coal fired boilers (in cooler climes).
It is probably fairer to note that energy demand will in any situation increase in direct correlation to population and development and will be met in some form or other.
In general, replacing older inefficient forms of energy with more efficient centralized systems must be a good thing.
As to future demand? Nuclear?

September 14, 2015 12:41 am

as xyzzy11 just wrote –
“Off topic, but in Oz, Malcolm Turnbull has just challenged Tony Abbott for the leadership of the Liberal party. As many of you will be aware, Abbott is a sceptic, but Turnbull is not, so a successful challenge could see Oz towing the IPCC line (again!)”
the prophet:
19 Feb 2015: The Australian Climate Sceptics: Lord Monckton and the push to get rid of PM Abbott
An extract from Lord Monckton’s presentation:
“David King was asked whether all the nations of the world were now, in principle, ready to sign their people’s rights away in such a treaty. Yes, but there are two standouts. One is Canada. But don’t worry about Canada. They’ve got an election in the Spring of 2015 and we and the UN will make sure the present government is removed. He was quite blunt about it.
“The other hold out is Australia. And Australia we can’t do anything about because Tony Abbott is in office until after the December 2015 conference. So that means you all have to guard Tony Abbott’s back. Because the Turnbull faction, in conjunction with the UN, will be doing their absolute level best to remove your elected Prime Minister from office before the end of his term and , in particular, before the end of 2015, so that they can get 100% wall-to-wall Marxist agreement. They do not want any stand-outs. And the most likely stand-out at the moment is Australia. So look after him.”
Tony Abbott has been attacked mercilessly by the MSM for defending coal as being “good for humanity”,
epecially by the taxpayer-funded ABC and Fairfax, so it was “interesting” to see Fairfax’s AFR publish the following today, particularly as it was already reported that Turnbull would announce his challenge today:
14 Sept: AFR: Greg Evans: Coal remains best solution to energy poverty
Many countries, including China, are now mandating the use of the best available ultrasupercritical technologies in new power plants. And there is fierce competition between the technology providers from Japan, China, France and Germany to win business in the fast growing nations of developing Asia that plan to double their coal generation over the next 25 years…
That’s why, according to the IEA report, coal power plants with a massive 672 gigawatts of capacity are under construction or planned in Asian economies. That’s 2¼ times the entire US coal-fired generation capacity or 24 times Australia’s coal-generation capacity…
It is good news for hundreds of millions of people in Asia who still have limited or no access to power…

Reply to  pat
September 14, 2015 4:36 am

Very much on topic.

September 14, 2015 12:44 am
September 14, 2015 1:04 am

richard verney
September 14, 2015 at 12:10 am
When I worked abroad, my recollection is that Canada was the ONLY country that did not provide “tied” loans. France, the US, China, Russia, Britain, Japan, Finland, Germany, etc, etc. all provided some sort very effective ties in their loans. As sometimes the World Bank, African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank and others do. Bought lots of Japanese sourced vehicles for a time as they were the supplier of choice by the clients.
And often, the recipient country was happy to have the linkages or even asked for them through third parties in the contracts. We worked in Vietnam, Cuba, and Iran as Canadians with access to European and US technologies that simply were not available directly at the time. (Vietnam – water supply, roads, bridges – mainly on bombed out Highway 1) Cuba (mining, roads, bridges) Iran (coal mining and processing that needed British and North American technologies but Brits and North Americans were not welcome. Similar for Cuba and Vietnam at the time and several other places.) Nothing illegal, just political red tape and hard feelings over past real or perceived problems that made Canadian Engineering and supply palatable.
And indeed, some suppliers like Lyonnaise des Eaux supplied complete turnkey projects and financed them as Richard said. The Brits have/had similar full service companies akin to Brown and Root in the US. ABB does the same thing on the power supply side.

September 14, 2015 1:13 am

should have written it had already been reported that Turnbull COULD announce his challenge when Parliament resumed:
SMH: Peter Hartcher: Canning byelection: win can’t save Prime Minister Tony Abbott from leadership challenge
Some of Malcolm Turnbull’s advocates in the party are urging him to challenge Abbott for the leadership this week when Parliament resumes, even though the government is still in the midst of campaigning for Canning.
A principal reason? They worry that Abbott might call an early election to head off any internal challenge…

Reply to  pat
September 14, 2015 1:34 am

This will be a absolute disaster for Aus. He’s not called Turncoat for nothing, he’s very wealthy, so an ETS will be no to him and his mates who are pushing for it.

richard verney
September 14, 2015 1:32 am

In a consumer world, everything depends upon energy, and the cost of energy.
As technology stands, the only non producing CO2 form of energy is nuclear (or geothermal or hydro where such is naturally available(. If the developed countries are truly concerned about CO2 emissions, then nuclear should have been/should be rolled out. The evidence is clear, that because of the inability to effectively store energy, and hence the need for back up produced by fossil fuel generation, renewables do not curb CO2 emissions by any significant extent.
The developed western nation’s energy policy is a triple whammy.
First, for reasons set out above, we are losing direct and immediate business to Asian companies who are not so hand strung, by red tape and unnecessary CO2 prohibiting/restricting dogma. This has an immediate impact on GDP and in particular foreign earnings and trade surplus which is the life blood of any developed economy.
Second, we are increasing the energy costs for our own businesses rendering them uneconomic/unable to fairly compete in the global market place now and in the immediate future creating immediate and near term loss of wealth, lowering of GDP and increasing unemployment (with resultant loss of tax revenue and welfare implications).
Third, in view of the above, over time, we are hastening the day when the East becomes the economic power house of the world, which will lead in the fullness of time, to further loss of wealth, lowering GDP, and yet further unemployment (and resulting loss of tax revenues and welfare implications).
It is pure madness. No sentient being could make this up if they tried. What a crazy, crazy world we live in. .

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  richard verney
September 14, 2015 9:19 am

I have just been informed by a business investment expert that a 2.5 MW solar PV system for an Island in the Far East would require double the capital investment if it were to have enough battery capacity to deliver 24/7 power to the grid. So it would cost as much as 5 MW to have 2.5 MW of nameplate output, factored of course for the 5-6 productive hrs per day, and that cost is already many times the conventional alternatives.
It is unfortunate that ‘renewable’ means ‘solar PV and wind’. Why don’t they pick something renewable that is a heck of a lot more reliable and lower cost?

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
September 14, 2015 5:28 pm

Did the investment expert figure the carrying cost of the alternative? Did he figure in the ROI?

Reply to  richard verney
September 14, 2015 2:07 pm

“As technology stands, the only non producing CO2 form of energy is nuclear (or geothermal or hydro where such is naturally available(. If the developed countries are truly concerned about CO2 emissions, then nuclear should have been/should be rolled out. The evidence is clear, that because of the inability to effectively store energy, and hence the need for back up produced by fossil fuel generation, renewables do not curb CO2 emissions by any significant extent.”
I quote you above and beg to disagree. You leave out solar, wind, tides and thermal. Photo voltaic was come down from $100 to $0.61. I don’t believe that one can build a coal plant anywhere in the world to produce, after all cos,t at $0.61. As regards storage, Elon Musk of Tesla, Space-X and Sun City fame is building a $5 billion battery plant in Nevada. BTW, with mostly private money. His home storage panels will be the biggest thing since sliced rye. the panel can be loaded during the day for use at night. So the evidence is not so clear as you make it out to be. Electricity can be stored cheaply and the future will see it get cheaper yet.
Climate change is just a fossil fuel industry excuse. Their real fight is with the power efficiency industry because that’s where their problem is and they use public opinion to fight and keep themselves relevant as long as possible. As usual the big boys are playing John Q. Public for the fool, using climate change as the bugaboo when in reality they are fighting efficiency. Fossil fuel are going the way of the buggy whip, there will no need for it.
. So Climate Change believer or denier, it makes no difference, more efficient power is coming and bottom line it has nothing to do with greenhouse gasses. The fossil fuel industry knows this. They are fighting to keep their horse and carriage when the automobile is on the street. They can’t win. Capitalism moves toward efficiency and the sun is very efficient

Reply to  richard verney
September 14, 2015 5:32 pm

I whole heartedly agree with your opening sentence. I believe the rest is made up to suit your agenda, but that’s OK. We are both entitled to our opinions as long as we indicate that they are opinions. I also agree with your last sentence. Crazy is right!

Reply to  bobthebear
September 14, 2015 5:55 pm

The above is a response to Richard Verney. Thanks for your comment Richard.

September 14, 2015 2:19 am

I think at the end of the day the divestment of fossil fuels is more about those who wish to push their own alternate vested interests, than about anything rational. Market history usually shows that this backfires, all it does it transfer such wealth and interests to others who don’t have any alternate vested interests, which is what is occurring.

Reply to  thingadonta
September 14, 2015 4:46 pm

That’s what they said about the automobile, the home computer and the Wright brothers airplane. they’re way too expensive. Time will tell.

Reply to  bobthebear
September 14, 2015 4:52 pm

The comment was referring to vested interests. You know, like companies and individuals who get subsidized at our expense.
That didn’t happen with cars, computers or airplanes. If it’s a good idea, it doesn’t need to be subsidized.

Reply to  bobthebear
September 14, 2015 5:24 pm

db, Have you check the oil company subsidies lately? Some where between $40 to $50 billion per year. I don’t think that they have any great ideas that you and I should pay for. And a lot of their drilling is done outside the U.S.A..

Reply to  bobthebear
September 14, 2015 5:52 pm

bob, your examples were things didn’t require a subsidy. They were good enough ideas on their own. Here’s the problem and the solution:
1. Government is force

2. Good ideas do not have to be forced on others

3. Bad ideas should not be forced on others

4. Liberty is necessary for the difference between good ideas and bad ideas to be revealed

Windmills, most alternate energy sources, and vested interests violate #2 and #3.
And if it were up to me I would eliminate all energy subsidies.

Reply to  bobthebear
September 14, 2015 6:15 pm

Answer to #’s 2, 3 and 4. The Wright bros. spent 5 years trying to get their airplane business financed. They demonstrated with flights in Dayton, Ohio their home town and no one believed them. Scientific American said that the Wrights “couldn’t possibly have done what was claimed of them…..otherwise wouldn’t they have been published long ago?” The Brothers finally got financed in France, five years after their accomplishment at Kitty Hawk. Liberty has nothing to do with it. Good ideas can’t be forced either. People don’t even believe in facts. The info on the Wright Brothers comes from the book of the same name by David McCullough, one of our finest historians.

Reply to  bobthebear
September 14, 2015 6:41 pm

You’re confusing yourself.
Now you’re bringing up the Wright brothers. The subject you started with was “airplanes”.
Then you say:
Good ideas can’t be forced either.
That is exactly the opposite of what I wrote.
You also say:
Liberty has nothing to do with it.
That means in addition to being confused, you lack understanding. Liberty has everything to do with it.
Question: do you work for the government? Or maybe a .edu institution? Because I was referring to the real world.

Reply to  dbstealey
September 14, 2015 8:02 pm


Good ideas can’t be forced either.

That is exactly the opposite of what I wrote.
You also say:

Liberty has nothing to do with it.

That means in addition to being confused, you lack understanding. Liberty has everything to do with it.
Question: do you work for the government? Or maybe a .edu institution?

Ah, but dear sire dbstealy, surely you understand that EVERY government-funded, academic authority either tried to fly – and failed; (Despite their credentials, or perhaps because of their credentials.) Or they denied that man would fly at all – again, perhaps because they were blinded by their credentials. The .edu “scientists” of the time were blind to the tectonic plate theory – and would rigorously reject it when it was proposed! They were blind to the passage of light through aether, they were blind to the moon’s craters, they were blind to refining and drilling for oil, they were blind to plastics and electronics and radio and sonar and radar, and they were blind to even power and light production as basic electricity.
needed a little freedom of thought to come up with all of those ideas, didn’t they. Consensus failed, didn’t it?

David, UK
September 14, 2015 3:32 am

“Obama has given America’s economic rivals a free pass to make money, while far too many of his fellow Americans worry about where their next paycheque is coming from.”
Maybe that was his intention.

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  David, UK
September 14, 2015 5:25 am

No “maybe” about it.
It is Obama’s only “pre-election promise” that he is 100% dedicated to keeping or fulfilling, which was and still is, to wit:
To fundamentally change America

David A
Reply to  Samuel C. Cogar
September 14, 2015 6:40 am

..and to ensure that the cost of electricity rises.

September 14, 2015 3:35 am

What a shame these new coal-fired plants will emit less CO2, just when we could do with as much as we can get. The real gain will be the greatly reduced particulate emissions, which are and always have been the true pollutant.

September 14, 2015 4:32 am

At every turn Obama policies hurt America, our allies and much of the world.
Why should “climate” be any different?
Pielke’s Iron Law is proven once again: “The “iron law” simply states that while people are often willing to pay some price for achieving environmental objectives, that willingness has its limits. Such limits may fall at different thresholds for different places at at different times.”

September 14, 2015 4:39 am

It is alarming that while 3rd world countries are banned to use coal for power production, whereas !st world is using it very much.

Albert Brand
September 14, 2015 5:12 am

I keep reading the statement “produce less co2”. When one burns carbon it combines with oxygen to produce co2, no more no less. The efficiency of the plant increases and you get more electricity per unit of coal with less pollution. Why don’t they just say that? But then co2 is not a problem anyway. Did you know February in Buffalo NY was 15 degrees below average in 2015?

Reply to  Albert Brand
September 14, 2015 6:29 am

Albert Brand September 14, 2015 at 5:12 am .
When one burns carbon it combines with oxygen to produce co2, no more no less. The efficiency of the plant increases and you get more electricity per unit of coal with less pollution.

Are you referring to CO2 as a pollutant, which it isn’t?

Reply to  pmhinsc
September 14, 2015 7:06 am

Pay attention at the back! Mr Brand went on to say, “co2 is not a problem anyway”…

Reply to  pmhinsc
September 14, 2015 7:50 am

Questing Vole September 14, 2015 at 7:06 am
Pay attention at the back! Mr Brand went on to say, “co2 is not a problem anyway”…

Thank you for the reply. The impression I was left with is that although CO2 is a “pollutant,” it is not a problem. Terminology is important and if people believe CO2 is a pollutant rather than a benefit, it is easier to convince them that we must take action to get rid of it.

Reply to  pmhinsc
September 14, 2015 12:08 pm

Thanks for the aside, but that still doesn’t answer the question – which is the same question that came to my mind. There doesn’t seem to me any mystical magical way to burn – well, anything – that won’t produce the same amount of combustion by-product no matter how you do it. Is that not the case?

J Martin
Reply to  pmhinsc
September 14, 2015 12:32 pm

@TomB. In the case of coal it doesn’t have to be. Extract the uranium and Thorium in coal and ‘burn’ that instead of the coal, you also get approx 100 times as much energy. Then use the coal as a chemical feedstock instead of burning it.

Steve from Rockwood
September 14, 2015 5:13 am

Just read on CBC news that Tony Abbott was dumped as leader.

September 14, 2015 5:18 am

Malcolm Turnbull from Goldman Sachs just deposed the elected Prime Minister of Australia in yet another coup. That’s what passes for “democracy” in our fascist little convict colony.

September 14, 2015 5:35 am

Khwarizmi – how true.
what a terrible day for “democracy” in Australia.

September 14, 2015 5:48 am

Just imagine the despair of the AGW brigade if a cost-effective low-CO2 coal-burning technology were developed. Far from rejoicing there would be green mayhem, as their control, wealth and influence vanished overnight. That thought reveals the true nature of the beast.

Reply to  climanrecon
September 14, 2015 11:28 am

It wouldn’t matter. As you said, mayhem. There is no place for facts in this era.

Coach Springer
September 14, 2015 5:53 am

“Obama has given America’s economic rivals a free pass to make money, while far too many of his fellow Americans worry about where their next paycheque is coming from.” And doubling (for starters) the electricity bills of those without paychecks. Or as Obama would say, “Sweeter still.”

Alan the Brit
September 14, 2015 5:56 am

The far-left are relentless, but usually wealthy in their own right, or through manipulation of taxpayers money. They can afford to pay the higher energy bills, or better still, if they’re in political positions of power, the taxpayer will do it for them! Ho hum!

September 14, 2015 6:14 am

If foreign money can manipulate U.S. political outcomes, it can flow the other way to Australia too.

September 14, 2015 6:44 am

I often wonder how energy escaped from regulatory interference and price manipulation.
Take the pharmaceutical industry as a guide.
Most people do not realize that most drugs are astonishingly cheap to produce.
In a totally deregulated world most drugs would not cost much more than the cost of pressing the tablets, storage, packing and shipping.
Industrial automation makes tablet production and packaging extremely cheap.
So, how did the world respond to the problem of competition lowering prices of drugs?
Well, obviously what happened was that the drug market became very very highly regulated, such that almost nobody had access to a range of options.
When patents expired, formerly popular drugs are often “proven” to be “bad” drugs and pulled from the marketplace.
As a result, we are effectively brainwashed into believing that there are old “bad” drugs and new “good” drugs. Bad drugs such as opium are often collected up in the country of origin and ceremonially burned.
Even though, diamorphine is commonly administered, especially in hospitals.
Opium, is a bad drug. And Diamorphine is a “good” (licensed) drug that is purchased by official health authorities from an official drug provider.
Anyone given Diamorphine after an injury or and operation will doubtless have been grateful.
Actually, Diamorphine is Heroin. But, that information is usually not disclosed to the patient.
Also Diamorphine/Heroin is actually ridiculously cheap to produce (and it costs the NHS about £10 for 100 10mg tabs) – but this is not disclosed either. Instead the world is only told about ludicrous “street prices” generated on the black market.
So – why am I saying all this crap about drugs on a climate skepticism forum.
Well, consider this:
Formerly, there was only one type of energy. It could be measured in kWh’s, Joules, Calories or Btu’s.
But, essentially, it came in one flavour only and could be purchased from a range of competing sources.
Hence it was cheap and hence the profit margins were disturbingly small considering the volume shipped.
But, imagine if energy could be controlled in a manner akin to the supply of drugs.
Imagine if we could create a system of complex regulatory controls that restricted who could produce and who could sell energy, and what kind of energy they could produce and sell.
Imagine a world where we were being told that there was “good energy” and “bad energy”.
Imagine that anything deemed to be “bad energy” could be banned – nuclear, hydroelectric, oil, gas, coal – all VERY BAD.
And then we could market only the officially acceptable “good energy”.
It would come in tiny quantities, and only from the officially acceptable energy providers.
Imagine a world where “black market” gangs might operator diesel generators to produce impure energy. Such miscreants could then be arrested for selling their dirty energy to “users” who had developed an energy “habit”. The users could be sent for “treatment”.
When we received some, after being deemed to be in need, then we would consider ourselves to be greatly blessed by the benign energy dispensary.
When you see this – it is a mystery that energy escaped from this treatment for the entirety of the 20th century.
If you want to make a big profit from something – then find a cheap thing, and then find a way to make it as expensive as conceivably possible.
Of course, I am only being silly. Such things as I have described could never possibly happen!!
(Part sarc, part satire.)

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
September 16, 2015 10:44 pm

indefatigablefrog – about to become extinctfrog for publishing the UN Playbook – brought a smile to my face. Much appreciated.

Tom Moran
September 14, 2015 6:59 am

It’s actually worse than we thought….not only have we lost the global energy narrative but the United States of America’s domestic energy policy is deeply flawed thanks to President Obama. Oil, coal and natural gas prices continue to drop but cents per kilowatt hour continues to rise making America less competitive and creating fuel poverty… Exactly what President Obama promised to do.

Reply to  Tom Moran
September 14, 2015 5:19 pm

The United States energy policy is much less restrictive than that of say Germany or Denmark. Yet they are thriving. Denmark is almost completely renewable, mostly wind and Germany is about 50% renewable. Actually one day this year all the electric in Germany was renewable. American auto workers average about $28 per hour, while in Germany the auto workers average $87 per hour. If renewable energy is so expensive, how come they can pay their workers so much and still lead the world in auto profits?

Reply to  bobthebear
September 14, 2015 8:10 pm


The United States energy policy is much less restrictive than that of say Germany or Denmark. Yet they are thriving. Denmark is almost completely renewable, mostly wind

Denmark’s wind energy is subsidized for construction and taxes, and is 100% backed BY THE HYDRO POWER in Norway and Sweden. Those lakes can start and stop near-instantly, and Denmark is the ONLY PLACE IN THE WORLD where such a power backup source is available near enough to work.
Elsewhere, as in Germany, the variability of wind turbines is breaking up (cracking through) the forgings and blades and exhausts of the gas turbines that are hurried up through shortened heatup and cooldown cycles as they try to keep up with the governments’ imposed demands for backup power, and forced used of the least economic (wind energy) first, last, and always.

Reply to  bobthebear
September 14, 2015 8:24 pm

Bob, actually Denmark exports most of the ‘renewable’ energy at rock bottom prices to neighbouring countries because it’s produced off peak-demand times. It then buys it back during peak times for peak prices predominantly from Norway (vive la hydro power!) and Germany (75% coal, gas and nuclear. Only about 25% renewable as of 2014). Consequently their domestic energy prices are amongst the highest in the world.
To view Denmark as a sovereign entity that is independently renewable-energy powered is a complete misnomer.
On your other point, the EU-subsidised salaries of many unionised European workers may have a say in higher than US pay rates, or it could be that German unions and employers work hand-in-glove to achieve the best outcomes for all which naturally increases profitability and wages all round, or it could be that the German industry is far more efficiently automated (no pun intended) with a higher proportion of ‘management’ with the consequent effect on ‘average’ salaries?
And the German manufacturers as a whole are more profitable than their US counterparts because they produce a premium product and demand a higher price for it.

Harvey H Homitz.
Reply to  bobthebear
September 15, 2015 10:34 am

“….If renewable energy is so expensive, how come they can pay their workers so much and still lead the world in auto profits?”
Simple: buy cheap French nuclear power (just across the Rhine) or cheap Russian gas (a bit further east).
or repeal the Laws of Thermodynamics..! maybe ‘work’ and ‘energy’ shouldn’t be related after all.

Reply to  Harvey H Homitz.
September 15, 2015 1:35 pm

Thanks for the reply. The point is that Germany still gets half its energy from renewables, and still pays its workers more. Energy is not the determining factor in their costs and neither is labor. The other 50% of their energy has some cost. Industrial electric costs about $0.07/kwh in the US (on average). In Germany, a mix of anthracite coal and P-V comes out to a cost a bit above the US cost. Using Russian natural gas would be slightly more than coal. Using French nuclear would reduce overall costs by about 15%. BTW, labor isn’t that big a factor because of the auto plants automation, which make the energy factor bigger in relation to labor.
Have a great day. It was nice conversing with you.

Reply to  bobthebear
September 15, 2015 1:47 pm

Hi. Denmark exports its excess to the north, which is pure profit, because it normally doesn’t have a need for extra prime time energy. In the north they can use the cheap Danish energy to reverse the water flow and use the power the next day. Pretty neat, eh?
Have a great day.

Reply to  bobthebear
September 15, 2015 7:50 pm

Bob, but the ‘pure profit’ Denmark makes from selling their peak output energy is far outweighed by the cost of purchasing their prime demand energy. Ergo, their domestic prices are very expensive as I wrote.
The Norwegian situation is entirely different because they have the massive natural advantage of abundant hydroelectricity. But that’s a different country….

Reply to  Zenreverend
September 17, 2015 11:44 pm

Zen, I believe I said that they sell their low priced electric at low prices at night for pure profit. That’s when the hydro plants move the water back to be used the next day. The daylight output they sell at cost plus a small profit.

Reply to  bobthebear
September 20, 2015 8:15 pm

Hi Bob,
The only net profit Denmark makes off power is by selling at the highest domestic price in the world to their citizens. Nice if you can afford it but most couldn’t…

September 14, 2015 7:08 am

According to Heritage, the United States ranks 12th economically:
US: “Mostly Free,” 76.2 out of 100.
Property Rights
Freedom From Corruption
Government Spending
Fiscal Freedom
Business Freedom
Labor Freedom
Monetary Freedom
Trade Freedom
Investment Freedom
Financial Freedom
Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, and Switzerland are the only countries listed as economically free.
As a general comment there seems to be nothing to economically distinguish the United States from other countries. “Perception is reality” and if it is perceived that the US is a hostile to “global energy development,” the truth may not much matter.

William Astley
September 14, 2015 7:38 am

CO2 emissions: Natural gas vs Coal, The Natural Gas Transportation Energy Loss Issue
Almost everything connected to the cult of CAGW, connected to the climate wars, has been distorted or is just incorrect.
Facts do not support anything related to the green scams/CAGW which is the reason why facts have been removed from the ‘debate’, is why the time to debate ‘science’ (note no one dares to say the time to debate engineering facts and basic economics facts) is over.
As there are no local large supplies of natural gas in most Asian countries or in Europe and as the Europeans have decided fracking is evil, the natural gas must either be liquefied for transport via LNG ships and the re-gasified (total 30% energy assuming natural gas is used very close to the site of gasification) or must be shipped extraordinary long distances (40% energy loss in the case of Russian gas, normal energy loss for moderately long natural gas transport is 30%).
If the natural gas is not available locally, the energy loss for transporting the natural gas reduces the CO2 benefit to burn natural gas over burning coal, to 5% to 15%.
Comment: The Combined Cycle Natural Gas power plant Vs Single Cycle Natural Gas power plant, 15% Energy Loss Issue
Note also, that the comparison of coal CO2 emissions vs natural gas CO2 emission assumes the natural gas is burned in a combine cycle natural gas power plant. As a combined natural gas plant takes 10 hours to start, it cannot be turned on/off/on/off/on/off, and so on. If green scam energy is used the power plants must be turned on/off/on/off/on/off, therefore single cycle natural gas power plants must be used rather than combined cycle natural gas power plants. Single cycle natural gas power plants are 15% less efficient than combined natural gas power plants.
Therefore in the case of almost all Asian countries and in the case of Europe there is only 5% to 15% net CO2 advantage to burn natural gas over burning coal, not a 45% advantage, if green scams are used on the grid this advantage drops to 0% to -5%. Why then would any idiotic country pay three times more for natural gas to produce power over burning coal?
Has there been an outbreak of madness in the world?
The calculation and total CO2 difference CO2 coal vs natural gas irrationally does not include the energy required to transport the natural gas long distances in pipelines or to liquefy and then to heat up the liquefied natural gas, both of which use 30% of the transport CH4 energy content.
In the case of Europe were the transported distance for Russian supplied natural gas is extraordinary as the Europeans completely oppose fracking, the energy for Russian natural gas transportation is 40%.
The net CO2 benefit of burning natural gas in Europe over coal is 0% (liquid natural gas -from Qatar for example – short distance to transport from site where gasification occurred) to -10% (Russian supplied natural gas).
Due to the above engineering fact that cannot be avoided due to basic physics, the CO2 benefit of burning natural gas rather than coal is only 30% if the natural gas is available locally, 0% if the natural gas must be shipped moderately long distances or must be liquefied and transported short distances after gasification, and -20% if the natural gas must be shipped long distances and liquefied.
A 0%% to 15% benefit in reduced CO2, does not justify paying three times as much for the energy to use natural gas rather than coal, particularly if a country is running a deficit. (i.e. Almost every country.)

For an equivalent amount of heat, burning natural gas produces about 30 per cent less carbon dioxide than burning petroleum and about 45 per cent less than burning coal.

However, on the West Coast of the United States, where up to three new LNG importation terminals were proposed prior to the U.S. fracking boom, environmental groups, such as Pacific Environment, Ratepayers for Affordable Clean Energy (RACE), and Rising Tide had moved to oppose them.[88] They claimed that, while natural gas power plants emit approximately half the carbon dioxide of an equivalent coal power plant, the natural gas combustion required to produce and transport LNG to the plants adds 20 to 40 percent more carbon dioxide than burning natural gas alone.[

On a per kilometre transported basis, emissions from LNG are lower than piped natural gas, which is a particular issue in Europe, where significant amounts of gas are piped several thousand kilometres from Russia. However, emissions from natural gas transported as LNG are higher than for natural gas produced locally to the point of combustion as emissions associated with transport are lower for the latter.

Reply to  William Astley
September 14, 2015 8:12 am

Why would I trust Wiki or the RACE data to be accurate?

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  William Astley
September 14, 2015 9:31 am

William A,
You have several good points in there. The CO2 emitted (as if I was worried about it) by coal burned in a combined cycle plant v.s. natural gas transmitted by pipeline (massive CO2 investment) burned in a single cycle, balancing station mode (highly variably duty cycle) are about the same. The only difference is coal is a real fossil fuel and natural gas is produced naturally deep in the earth’s crust. The former will eventually run out. If and when that happens, we will have long switched to nuclear power of some sort and live in a very electrified world, probably operating on high voltage DC which electronics have rendered viable for the first time.
The last thing a technology vendor wants us to look at is the total effect of a system they are selling. Windmills are a good example of hiding the true emissions and total cost.
When the number of people killed building and operating CANDU reactors equals the number killed building and maintaining the windmills needed to equal its output, we will have something to discuss. Until then, Go Canada. Go CANDU.

J Martin
Reply to  William Astley
September 14, 2015 12:57 pm

“40% energy loss in the case of Russian gas, normal energy loss for moderately long natural gas transport is 30%”.
Sounds like the best case possible for fracking and one that even the Greens could understand.

September 14, 2015 8:04 am

Thanks for keeping us well informed with the facts that the MSM just ignore.
Good article by Eric Worrall getting the facts out

September 14, 2015 1:04 pm

The amount of CO2 a fossil fired Rankine or Brayton cycle power plant produces, i.e. lb CO2/MWh, is a function of the fuel’s chemical composition and the power plant’s heat rate, aka efficiency.
Heat rate is an antiquated version of expressing efficiency. Heat rate is inverse efficiency comparing energy in different units: Btu and kWh. Heat divided into 3,412 Btu/kWh * 100 is % efficiency. For example: heat rate of 10,500 Btu/kWh = 3,412/10,500 * 100 = 32.5% efficiency. This means that 32.5% of the fuel energy that went into the plant was converted to electricity. About 15% is lost up the stack and about 50% is lost in condensing the steam turbine’s exhaust steam.
The ultimate fuel analysis for coal is primarily carbon ranging from 45% in lignite to 75% in bituminous with 5% to 10% hydrogen. The balance is made up of ash, sulfur, free water, oxygen, etc. which reduces the heat content. More trash less energy.
Natural gas is primarily methane, CH4, which is 25% hydrogen. Carbon has a heat content of 14,000 Btu/lb, H2, 60,000 Btu/lb. Natural gas gets much more energy from H2 and less from C which means for a given process NG produces about half the CO2 per MWh as coal. HHV & LHV are a separate topic. Suffice it to say that LHV is a carny shell game.
Fossil fired Rankine stations and simple cycle coal fired stations have efficiencies around 30% to 35% depending on the design particulars. Combined cycle power plants have one or more combustion turbines burning NG with the exhaust gases producing steam to drive a steam turbine. The fuel’s energy is used two places instead of one. CCPP efficiencies are on the order of 55% to 65%.
Typical existing coal fired power plants produce around 2,200 lb CO2/MWh. NG Rankine and simple cycle CT’s about 1,200 lb CO2/MWh, CCPPs about 750 lb CO2/MWh.
The EPA clean power limits for large fossil fired (not just coal!) plants are 1,800 lb CO2/MWh existing/retrofitted/modified fossil fuel Rankine and simple cycle fossil fired (not coal alone!) 1,400 lb CO2/MWh new fossil fired. This limit will be a challenge even for the ultra-super-critical high efficiency coal designs until the material limitations are overcome.
NG Rankine, co-fired NG & coal, and old and new combinations are all possible options. Lots of CCPPs and NG Rankine/SC means fewer coal plants will have to shut down. Always the solution to pollution is dilution. The industry fleet reduces its lb CO2/MWh with CCPPs, NG Rankine retrofits, SC and sacrifices only the older, less efficient, less economical coal units. I see win, win, win.

September 14, 2015 2:29 pm

Manipulating the World Bank for climate fraud purposes opened up all sorts of institutional responses in Asia. Add this to the policy distortion matrix.

September 14, 2015 3:30 pm

No, just a graphic for the public’s perception of where electricity comes from. Like the plumes of water vapor pretending to be CO2.

September 14, 2015 3:42 pm

It also suggests that it’s all about coal. While that’s CAGW’s not so hidden agenda as noted above EPA also includes NG – and then there’s gasoline, diesel fuel, methanol, wood, BBQ charcoal, etc. i.e. any fuel containing carbon. Carbon/CO2 free means back to before fire. Good luck with that.

September 14, 2015 7:08 pm

I believe this is the technology that the Japanese are using (high-pressure, high-temperature generating units). China is building these as well, the US, well, not so much.

September 14, 2015 8:31 pm

CRS, DrPH Check the Cornerstone issue following your referenced issue for some of my other observations.
USC plants are popular designs, JW Turk near Texarkansas the most recent, Comanche 3 another. However, the metallurgy required to handle 1,100+ F steam temperatures for thirty years is challenging. The efficiency gains and CO2 reductions are more on the order of 10% compared to historical sub & SC designs. Meeting EPA’s 1,400 lb CO2/MWh for new fossil fired might be a stretch even for coal fired USC designs.
EPA’s entire intention was to cripple coal. Is that an equal application of the law? Shouldn’t all sources of CO2 be compelled to meet the same standards? Cars? Trucks? Planes? Home water and space heaters? Instead of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh insert 410 lb/E6 Btu.
How about a tax or fine on your utility bill or at the pump. No, they’ll just make the refiners and utilities pay pass on and hide the cost from the consumer who will blame those greedy oil companies and utilities. Much like a tax on tea or legal paperwork.

September 14, 2015 8:53 pm

“…or a government stamp on legal paperwork.”
Back of envelope: gasoline produces about 143 lb CO2/E6 Btu. A car/truck/etc. would have to deliver 35% of the fuel’s energy to the road to meet the 410 lb CO2/E6 Btu limit. That will take some creativity and major life style changes.

September 15, 2015 6:48 am

they are actually having a problem with a volcano

%d bloggers like this: