By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.
Summary: The bankruptcy of the world’s largest non-government-owned coal company illustrates one of the two big weaknesses in the nightmarish climate change scenario that dominates the headlines. It takes us even further off the path to the RCP8.5 scenario behind those stories, onto one going to a far better future.
Climate forecasts (called “projections” by the IPCC) rely on two key factors. First, the scenario — a forecast of future emissions, must be accurate. Second, the model must accurately predict temperatures for that scenario. Previous posts have shown climate scientists’ reluctance to test their models using the decades of data after their publication. Recent events highlight that the second factor is also important.
The nightmarish predictions of climate change that dominate the news almost all rely on the most severe of the four scenarios used by the Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC’s most recent: RCP8.5. It describes a future in which much has gone wrong (details here), most importantly…
- a slowdown in tech progress (coal is the fuel of the late 19th century, as it was in the late 19thC), and
- unusually rapid population growth (inexplicably, that fertility in sub-Saharan Africa does not decline or crash as it has everywhere else).
Looking at such scenarios, however unlikely, is vital for planning. Sometimes we get unlucky. But presenting such outcomes without mentioning their unlikely assumptions misleads readers and puts the credibility of science itself at risk. Which is climate science today.
Why burning coal might become as common as burning cow dung
Coal is dirty and dangerous to mine, moderately expensive to transport (by train or barge), and dirty to burn. When natural gas prices drop below $3 per thousand cubic feet (i.e., per 100 thousand BTU), coal becomes uneconomical. In 2002 much of the US coal industry was sliding to bankruptcy. It was rescued by the energy boom, which produced fracking — which crashed natural gas prices and trashed the coal industry. In a Sept 30 report Moody’s analyst Anna Zubets- Anderson said that half of the world’s coal production is uneconomic at then-current prices (gated report; news story). Now 90% of US coal production is uneconomic vs. natural gas.
Will coal be the fuel of the future? Growth in output from renewable energy sources and a crash in natural gas prices (from fracking) have sent a long and growing list of coal companies to bankruptcy court as both prices and volume tumbled.
The result: Several score smaller companies died in 2012-2014, and then the large ones began to roll over.
- Patriot Coal, July 2012 and again in May 2015 — 12th largest US producer.
- Walter Energy, July 2015 — 17th largest US producer.
- Alpha Natural Resources, August 2015 — 4th largest US producer.
- Arch Coal, January 2016 –2nd largest US producer.
- Peabody Coal, April 2016 — The world largest non-government owned coal company.
US coal production in 2015 dropped 18% from that of 2011. US coal mines were running at 70% of capacity (before closings, which were substantial and increasing). After each bankruptcy coal mining capacity drops as unprofitable and marginal mines are closed. Once the miners leave an area and rail lines to the mine are removed (the land is often valuable), reopening mines range from difficult to almost impossible.
The climate change difference: shifting from coal to natural gas
From EIA, 16 March 2016.
The US crash in coal has largely resulted from a shift to natural gas. From 1970 to 2007 the annual production of natural gas in US was roughly 20 trillion cubic feet; since then it has risen to 29 trillion in 2015 (per EIA). The EIA predicts that in 2016 we’ll burn more natural gas than coal.
Does this make a different to climate change? Yes! Burning coal to produce a million BTUs of energy produces an average of 210 pounds of CO2; burning natural gas to do so produces 117 pounds of CO2 (coal produced and CO2 emitted per EIA) — a reduction of 45%!
More competition for coal lies ahead
Tri Alpha Energy’s fusion device.
A host of new energy sources are under development. Improvements in solar, wind, and geothermal — plus potentially larger innovations in nuclear and fusion. For example, Tri Alpha Energy has raised over $150 in private capital — from people looking for a profit in the near future (not in 2100) — to fund its 150 employees and the many patents they have filed. Here’s a presentation from 2012 describing their device, and an August 2014 article from Science about the project — and the accompanying video…
Conclusions
The horrific coal-burning late 21st century described by RCP8.5 provides a valuable warning that we have to push technological progress for any hope of a better world. Representing it as a “business as usual” future is absurd — and materially misleading. But doing so has become business as usual for climate scientists and journalists — as documented here. That this scam has persisted so long is not surprising for journalists, but shows a deep dysfunctionality in climate science.
We can force reforms. We can end the climate policy wars: demand a test of the models.
Ya, but once you turn off coal burning who is going to furnish my wheat its CO2?
Help
Oh yeah, I can hear the ecowackos cheering as coal companies descend into bankruptcy. Let’s see how loudly they cheer when they suffer their first brownout (or maybe blackout) when it -20F, -29C. I can’t wait.
Was that article written by a bot ?
I got nothing out of it.
“performance standard is 1,305 lb CO2 / MWh.”
“The entire point of EPA’s CPP is to cripple coal and encourage NG.”
I have to agree, since nukes are at about 5 lb CO2 / MWh. If Obama wanted to reduce ghg, the performance standard would be 20 lb CO2 / MWh to allow for load following nukes.
I am not advocating that. I think coal is an important part of the energy mix.
The author’s apparent glee at the loss of jobs and opportunities in coal mining areas of the US is somewhat repellent but as was mentioned further up the thread, the US is not the world:
“Does this make a different to climate change? Yes!”.
That assumes a change in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 drives the climate so assuming that’s correct before the we see a ‘difference to climate change’ (whatever that means) we must see a change here:http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif
glad someone else noted the human cost in lost jobs . seems to pass so many by on both sides of the debate these days.
The jobs are not lost. They are exported to China and other places were they are not actively dismantling their energy driven industrial economies. The USA could make things as cheaply as China if the F’ing federal government would stop interfering in countless ways.
Chris,
“The author’s apparent glee at the loss of jobs”
Progress usually requires the destruction of jobs. Fortunately free markets have proven able to create new ones. The massive industry of horse-drawn transportation systems was almost totally destroyed by modern engines. Automation reshaped US manufacturing — helping power the long powerful growth in US exports. It’s a long list.
Perhaps you would prefer an America tied to outmoded tech, where jobs were preserved while the world passes us. Fortunately few agree with you.
Global coal use
The IEA data has proven to be more accurate than the BP data, but appears only with a lag. However it and other sources suggest that world coal use peaked during 2011-13. Whatever the date, the trend is clear.
Data from the Energy Information Agency shows that world coal consumption fell by 98 million short tons (1.2%) in 2012 (most recent data) following peaking in many nations, both poor and rich nations.
* North American use peaked in 2005; 2012 was down an astonishing 21% since then (USA use in Q1 2015 was down 24% from Q1 2005).
* Europe peaked in 2007, after 6 of its 9 largest coal-consuming nations peaked: UK and Poland in 2006; Czech, Germany, and Greece in 2007; and Turkey in 2011.
* Africa peaked in 2008.
* Asia in 2011.
China data is unreliable, but their published stats show that their coal use peaked in the last year or two. Growth might increase, of course — but their plans provide for a slow decrease in consumption.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/29/china-coal-consumption-drops-again
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/world/asia/china-coal-consumption-down.html
Markets fluctuate and as long as different energy sources can compete without government interference that’s fine by me.
Obama’s so-called Clean Power Plan may be stalled in the Supreme Court but it’s very existence has had an effect creating great uncertainty.
Coal’s temporary cost disadvantage is not good news because some future fantasy scenario is less likely, it should be good news for US energy consumers because it’s the result of open government-free competition — but is it?
It may not be such a good idea to remove those rail lines to mines just yet.
Jo Nova has a piece today discussing China’s energy plans including coal (see link below on this thread).
I find this article BS. Why? It contains such lies as:
Coal is dirty and dangerous to mine, moderately expensive to transport (by train or barge), and dirty to burn.
Improvements in solar, wind, and geothermal
I would be nice if a Federal bankruptcy judge could set aside burdensome, un-warrented EPA regulations as part of the settlement.
quote “The horrific coal-burning late 21st century described by RCP8.5 provides a valuable warning that we have to push technological progress for any hope of a better world.”
Utter rubbish.
Demonstrate that the human contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere makes a difference to the total (or is it a natural increase).
Demonstrate that CO2 raises atmospheric temperature.
Demonstrate that rising atmospheric temperature is dangerous.
Then we’ll consider that we need alternate energy forms at massive expanse.
I can think of no better place to mention that Pointman has a wonderful post up called “Science and sensibility.” the link is: https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/science-and-sensibility/
As he points out in the post, he does not get involved in the “climate wars” much anymore. That makes this jewel of a post all the more worthy of a read. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Of course, the absolutely fabulous command of the language that he always displays makes it even better.
I liked this part:
Enjoy.
Sing ‘Cockles’ and ‘Mussels’, ‘Alive, alive oh’.
======================
How fewer emissions gas produces versus coal depends upon which type of gas power generator is beingused. : close cycle or open cycle. Closed cycle gnerators produce much less emissions beut can operate as baseload, not peak load generators. Of course, most coal generators are baseload, although some are mid loadtypes.
Not expecting to see a pro-warming, destroy the economy post here, but everyone has their own opinions on this. Doth the writer have any idea what to do with the people making $30 plus an hour now that they have been forced to sacrifice their hard work and jobs on the alter of global warming? You can’t make house payments on Walmart wages, trust me. Now the schools, the colleges, the businesses, etc all lose their income, so you can add another 50% to the total lost to saving the planet. Unlike innovation taking jobs and creating new ones, the government just smacks down workers and leaves them in the dirt. Too bad, but the planet thanks you or something like that. So the economy fails, which is right in line with the whole global warming thing. No one has ever considered the cost of people living in the streets, businesses sitting empty, schools closed, road repair ends, etc. Of course, if you hate and despise humanity as the greens do, I suppose there is dancing in the streets over all those stiffed by the government regulations on coal. A celebration of lives messed up and lifetimes of earnings and work stomped on by those who claim to “care”. Do us a favor—STOP CARING.
Reality,
Your view would have America with 95% of its people as low-wage farmers, or perhaps keep the US stuck using horses for transportation. Conversion would destroy jobs!
Fortunately we rely on free-market systems that both destroy and create jobs. Providing for re-training of those affected is a legitimate function of governments (business seldom does so).
But your kind of central planning mentality produces certain stagnation for everybody. Fortunately there are not enough of your kind to determine policy in the US.
No, Editor, we do NOT. There is no free enterprise when it comes to coal and oil. There is massive government regulation strangling the industries. Interesting that you failed to mention, or maybe even notice that fact. If you missed that fact, what else did you miss?
You are the one advocating central planning based on climate change regulations. Or do you believe that the government should completely and totally, 100% get out of the climate change regulations and let the free market be free? No subsidies for wind or solar—dead industries in two years thereafter. No regulations on CO2? I didn’t think so. So what was that about central planning—projection?
By the way, what is my “type”? A rational, scientifiic person who can see through the scams of those pushing political scams. Unfortunately, you may be right—you may have correctly ascertained that Americans are indeed foolish, emotional and malleable sheep, perfect for the wolves to eat without a lot of effort. Of course, only the wolves figure these things out, so where have you cast yourself?
Who was it that coined the phrase: “often mistaken, never in doubt.”
Coal may be dying but it isn’t quite dead. In 2015 in Alberta, coal supplied 64% of the power, up from 55% in 2014. Wind increased from 4% to 5% and gets priority for use when available. NG is mainly used for peaking. Interesting that recent wind power in Alberta was built with subsidies from California through their Renewable Energy Credits program (REC).
But what is really interesting is that presently Southern California gets about 50% of its power from imported coal power and 10% from imported NG power. They plan to phase coal power supply out by 2027. What will they replace it with?
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/californias-hidden-coal-use/
Note: the above is a bit biased as if you look at the state as a whole, coal imported power is at about 8% of the total. California currently imports about 1/3rd of its power.
Also interesting is that Nuclear power production has dropped by half from 2011 to 2014, and hydro has dropped by 63%. The losses were replaced by wind, solar, NG and imports. Solar was surprising as there was a huge jump in the solar in 2014 (from 4,323 Gigawatt hours to 10,557).
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/electricity_generation.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
California and some Canadian provinces have a “Carbon Trading” set up that allows them to offset their “emissions”. Not sure I understand the program but I reckon the Alberta wind farmers appreciate the money:
(bold added)
One of Alberta’s Wind Farms (money loser) was recently bought by IKEA as part of their “green” program. I have no problem if companies who are promoting a green ideology for marketing purposes want to invest in these programs as it results in less subsidies required from ideological governments. However, all wind power received by the Alberta grid is government subsidized based on the pool price.
Tri Alpha. Must admit that had not been on my nuclear radar. So checked all the links posted and then some. Must say, would not invest. Helium-Boron fusion. Advantage no neutrons released, no neutron embrittlement (which will almost certainly doom the ITER economically even if it reaches break-even plus on energy). Disadvantage, need to confine plasma at 3 billion K, not 100 million K as with hydrogen-hydrogen. 30x bigger confinement temp problem. No wonder no one else, including no government lab anywhere, is working on this. The Science piece is not a paper. It is a deputy editor comment on a Tri-Alpha PR. It says Tri Alpha has reached 10 million K for 5 milliseconds. OK, that is 10/3000 or 0.3% of the way to what they must achieve on temp. And 5 milliseconds is a heck of a lot shorter than continuous sustained fusion for any useful period of time. Like say, a whole night to offset solar intermittancy.
Me, I would bet on good old coal making a comeback after the warmunist madness passes. My dairy farm will be very grateful for the free fertilizer. Soybeans and alfalfa especially. Maples, oaks, hickories, walnuts, apples, and crabapples also. Corn, not so much since it is a C4 plant.
So much nonsense it’s hard to know where to start. “Coal mining is dangerous”, yeh right … even
“Transport, postal & warehousing ” has 4 times the death rate.
Terry,
“Coal mining is dangerous”, yeh right”
The fatality rate for coal mining was 29.5 per 100,000 workers. If compared with the most dangerous broad occupational categories, it would be #5, behind loggers, fishers, roofers, pilots, and refuse collectors. More dangerous than fire fighters (11.3), police (17.4), and oil & gas extraction (15.5).
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_rates_2007h.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
“Coal hard reality”:
1. The USA is not the planet Earth.
2. Coal is the fastest-growing primary fuel on Earth and could overtake oil as the greatest primary energy source in a few years. For proof:
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/primary-energy.html
Allan,
Perhaps BP is correct. However their conclusion disagrees with that of several other sources. The most reliable source, the IEA, produces hard data but only with a long delay.
I’ll trust the global price data as the best indicator of demand. Prices are falling fast, in much of the world. That is not consistent with coal being “the fastest-growing primary fuel on Earth”.
“The USA is not the planet Earth.”
Coal use and prices are falling in much of the world. Such as that driver of global commodity consumption, China: http://www.reuters.com/article/china-economy-trade-coal-idUSL3N14X1TC20160113
No! And this is the weakness in all your arguments, none of your assumptions are meaningful in the world today (The real world). Price is not a not a good indicator of demand in a command economy!! And the globe is such today. All is calm until the US dollar is dumped as the world standard.
GOOD news that we are losing a company that produced so much life on Earth (photosynthesis)?
My Life purpose is to increase the carrying capacity of Earth for all forms of Life.
This title had me screaming for several minutes.
“It was rescued by the energy boom, which produced fracking — which crashed natural gas prices and trashed the coal industry.”
So how was it rescued ? and from what ? Coal was doing fine for decades … the coal industry was not trashed by natural gas … are you really that ignorant ?
Cheap NG & combined cycle power plants & regulations. A trifecta put the brakes on existing and the effective end to new coal plants.
Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, recently made a devastating admission… the goal of environmental activism is not to save the world from terrifying environmental calamity, but to end capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
This brings us to verse 25 of the Obama Impeachment song (as if sung by President Barack Hussein Obama to the tune of “Please release me, let me go”)
Climate change our biggest threat,
If worse, I will break out a sweat.
Global Governance, you bet!
My war on King Coal not over yet.
The whole Obama Impeachment song: http://lenbilen.com/2015/02/25/the-complete-obama-impeachment-song/
Meanwhile, China keeps increasing its use of coal
I wager that anyone currently burning dung would line up to be able to get their hands on some coal.
I’ve seen a video Russian artisan coal miners, crawling into narrow seams and hauling out their couple of burlap bags of daily coal. They were largely vodka fueled, those soldiers of fortune.
======================
Coal is dirty and dangerous to mine, moderately expensive to transport (by train or barge), and dirty to burn….
… and we all know the special little snowflakes can’t get dirty
Latitude,
Show up at one of these and tell the coal miners your “special little snowflake” theory: “Coal miners hold Black Lung rally“. Report back to us on the results, if you can.
A form of black lung disease is at its highest rate in 40 years: see this note in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Sept 2014.
What ever happened to Jimbo? Did I miss something somewhere? Hope he’s OK…
Why should Aussies dig centuries’ supply of the best Permian coal from Sydney’s backyard when they can buy into the world’s pipeline wars, sea-lane wars, diplomatic wars, and cold wars?
Oh. I nearly forgot to mention hot wars. Gas is the new black, and if Syria can be dismantled for the Gulf/Turkey/Sunni axis then maybe German Europe can buy less gas from the opposition Russian Empire. Of course, Vlad might be tempted to liberate Azerbaijan and Georgia just to keep the Caspian a safe lake for Russians and Iranians…That’s where it gets really exciting.
Makes coal seem rather boring, doesn’t it? And if gas prices stay in the toilet (who ever heard of a gas/oil price rise?) and all the wars get won by all the right people we’ll be leaving that durrrdy coal in the ground forever.
Peace, hippies.
…If you dare !
Thanks, good, but here is the expert on Agenda 21 – Rosa Koire, a must listen to. Very entertaining and informative, You only have to listen to the first half to get the gist of it,,,
She has done many other videos, but I think this is the best for me.,,,Glenn Beck got his info from her…
Phil