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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.)
indefatigablefrog – about to become extinctfrog for publishing the UN Playbook – brought a smile to my face. Much appreciated.
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.
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?
bobthebear
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.
NO WHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD CAN DO THAT.
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.
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.
bobthebear
“….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.
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.
Bob
Zenreverend
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.
Bob
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….
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.
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…
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.
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.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas
Why would I trust Wiki or the RACE data to be accurate?
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.
“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.
Anthony,
Thanks for keeping us well informed with the facts that the MSM just ignore.
Good article by Eric Worrall getting the facts out
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.
Manipulating the World Bank for climate fraud purposes opened up all sorts of institutional responses in Asia. Add this to the policy distortion matrix.
No, just a graphic for the public’s perception of where electricity comes from. Like the plumes of water vapor pretending to be CO2.
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.
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.
http://cornerstonemag.net/setting-the-benchmark-the-worlds-most-efficient-coal-fired-power-plants/
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.
“…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.
they are actually having a problem with a volcano