By Larry Hamlin,
A recent article discussed at Watts Up With That? exposed that many of the world’s largest CO2 emitting nations are proceeding with energy policies involving the building of huge numbers of new coal plants without regard to increasing CO2 emissions completely contradicting the aims of the Paris Climate Agreement.
These nations actions clearly show the Paris Climate Agreement is meaningless in addressing global emissions and that President Trump was very wise to reject it’s oppressive provisions that were imposed on the U.S.
Supporting the story of huge new coal plant building plans by many global nations as revealed in the WUWT article is an article in the climate alarmist scheming New York Times which was forced to admit that plans are underway around the world to build over 1,600 new coal plants in the next decade with nearly half of those plants being built by Chinese Companies.
The recent WUWT article revealed that China is planning to build more than twice as many coal plants in the next decade as the U.S. has in operation today.
The New York Times article further notes:
“Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.”
“These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.”
The title of the New York Times article is hilariously political because the article never explains how the Chinese building 700 new coal plants in China and around the world justifies the headline claim that “Beijing Joins Climate Fight”.
The Global Coal Plant Tracker portal mentioned in the Times article provides easy and updated access to observe the huge numbers of new coal plants that have been announced, are in pre-permitting, permitted or under construction for nations around the world. China’s new coal building plans are displayed below.
The absurdity of the Paris Climate Agreement provisions are clearly illustrated by the fact that China is allowed to increase future CO2 emissions by as much as it wants until year 2030 and even in that year no commitment to any future reduction is provided.
India will more than triple its electricity generation capability in the next decade and the majority of power plants needed to achieve this growth will utilize fossil fuels. India like China enjoys the same absurd Paris Climate Agreement pass on emissions reduction and has no CO2 reduction requirements through year 2030 with no reduction requirements provided even after that date.
Many of the world’s nations are simply ignoring the politics of flawed, failed and exaggerated climate alarmism claims which underlie the Paris Climate Agreement and proceeding to implement plans to meet their countries required future energy needs regardless of how these plans increase global CO2 emissions – and given the pathetic state of inadequate climate alarmist science that is how it should be.
Shown below are new coal plant building projects planned in Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines.
Germany, the EU’s resident climate alarmist and renewable energy activist bully, is in crisis with politically driven energy policy schemes which are incompetent and failing.
Germany has driven its electricity rates through the roof with mandated use of costly and unreliable renewables while stupidly forcing its nuclear plants to close through misguided political edict and ended up using more coal which is increasing its CO2 emissions.
The level of renewable use is now so high in Germany that serious electric grid reliability and stability issues now exist which require both fossil power plant emergency backup for failed renewable production and dictate rejecting renewable energy to ensure operation of fossil plants required for electric grid reliability and stability.
California is also experiencing the same kind of electric grid reliability and stability problems as are occurring in Germany because of our states excessive reliance on costly and unreliable renewable energy.
California Governor Brown and Senate Leader Kevin de Leon are proceeding to dictate massive and draconian costs, bureaucracy and freedom suffocating laws and regulations upon the states more than 37 million residents to achieve absolutely meaningless and completely unnecessary emissions reductions in our state.
The New York Times carried a recent story announcing that California Governor Brown will hold “the Global Climate Action summit” in the state in 2018 aimed at “upholding the goals of the Paris climate agreement” which President Trump decided to dump in June.
Governor Brown and Senate Leader Kevin de Leon have demanded and Californian’s have paid billions of dollars in Cap and Trade taxes (over $5 billion to date) and higher cost renewable energy mandated use (state electric rates 50% higher than U.S. average) to meet globally irrelevant and meaningless state greenhouse gas reduction targets established under AB 32 (year 2020 emissions at 1990 levels) and further escalated under SB 32 (year 2030 emissions 40% below 1990 levels).
Governor Brown recently traveled to China to discuss climate change issues.
However regarding this trip the governor neglected to make any mention of the huge increase concerning the building of more than 700 new coal power plants under way by China during the next ten years.
Instead and astoundingly Brown proclaimed that China is “leading” the way in fighting global climate change.
Governor Brown appears to be completely clueless and disconnected from reality in making such absurd claims and the mainstream media incredibly disingenuous in reporting such idiotic climate alarmist political gibberish.
EIA data updated through year 2015 shows that California’s renewable wind and solar generation used for electricity amounted to only about 3% of our states total energy use.
While Brown loves to tout how much renewable wind and solar generation is used in support of his climate alarmist folly to meet California’s energy needs he and other political leaders in the state grossly mislead Californian’s concerning how small these generating sources are relative to the states total energy use.
The states transportation energy sector is by far the biggest user of energy and nearly twice the size of the electricity sector accounting for more than 39% of California’s totals energy use compared to only 21% for the states electricity sector.
The states industrial energy sector accounts for more than 23% of the states total energy use and is also larger than the states electricity energy sector.
Brown and other California climate alarmist and renewable energy activist politicians tend to report the states wind and solar renewable generation contribution amount relative to just the states electricity energy sector.
This exaggerates the claimed wind and solar energy contribution by ignoring the other energy use sectors which account for 79% of the states total energy use and where the energy in these sectors is is not provided by wind and solar renewable generation.
The mainstream media further hypes and misleads the public concerning these renewable energy use exaggerations.
Governor Brown and his cronies make the same kind of exaggerations concerning the irrelevancy of California’s incredibly costly state greenhouse gas reduction targets where achieving the SB 32 escalated targets represents only about 0.4% of global emissions – a reduction that is totally irrelevant.
Compared to the avalanche of CO2 emissions growth coming in the next tens years from the world’s largest CO2 emitters, including huge increases by China who Governor Brown claimed is “leading” the global climate change fight, and given the total absence of any present or future commitments in the Paris Climate Agreement regarding such emissions growth the state of California’s emissions reduction efforts lead by Governor Brown and Senate Leader Kevin de Leon represent nothing but an incredibly bureaucratic, costly and politically contrived dog and phony show devoid of any real world relevance, importance or significance.
It is abundantly clear that President Trump got the decision on the Paris Climate Agreement right and that Governor Brown’s climate alarmist views and policy are simply clueless and completely disconnected from reality.
I don’t think Brown is clueless.
I believe he wants to destroy his states economy.
There is no other intelligent explanation for this wanton finiacial destruction.
The ultimate aim is to inflict anarchy on the country and replace the constitution with a dictatorship from the smoking rubble.
If people are comfortable and optimistic this cannot be achieved.
Scratch any macro left mentality and you will find a belief that the masses are to stupid to have a say in who governs them.
Steve: I realize that there are numerous individuals (including it seems yourself) who truly believe that climate alarmists and fossil fuels bashers really want to destroy the U.S. economy or that of an individual state. I don’t think however that this is the case.
Instead, I will suggest that the somewhat radical thinkers like Jerry Brown, Al Gore and others are confusing their destructive belief systems for transformative ones. They want to completely overhaul society until it fits their world view–a society which they think is better. History is replete with examples where radical thinking and beliefs are imposed on societies with the best of intentions only to turn out disastrous. I believe that this is the case here. They cannot understand the notion that they and their follows could be going down a road to hell paved with good intentions.
The renewable energy and climate alarmist pushers like Brown and Gore are so radically blinded by their belief system that they are totally incapable of accepting any constructive criticism of it. One could argue with them until you are blue in the face in an attempt to make Brown and Gore understand the shortcomings of wind and solar energy, including the poor energy density, toxic waste, intermittency and unreliability issues. Their blind devotion is so complete that only the visible damage to society from the imposition of their beliefs MIGHT cause them to rethink their positions–and maybe not even then. Did Hitler ever admit that he was wrong? The ability of the radical thinkers to sweet-talk entire societies into following them down this possible path to self-destruction is what makes them so dangerous.
Brown and Gore are engaging in what they believe is a good-versus-evil religious holy war without any cognitive ability on their part to listen to or understand the problems with the “good” that are emanating from the other side. The critics of climate alarmism and renewables are just too evil.
Wars can start this way, and that is what Brown and Gore believe they are fighting here.
Spot on, CD. Humans are incredibly irrational. For proof of this one needs look no further that religion.
Please excuse typo. ‘than’, not ‘that’
The typo was the least of your transgressions.
I think that Gov Brown likes the rock star status of being a leader who helped save the world. He wants this as his legacy as does Al Gore and some of the others. They will be in for a big surprise in a few years time, imo.
The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensiviy of CO2 is zero. The AGW conjecture is based upon a fabled radiant greenhouse effect that has not been observed anywhere in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is hence science fiction as must be the AGW conjecture. Many countries live in the real world and are trying to meet energy needs as cheaply as possible and for them coal make sense. The USA needs to take actiion to reduce our annual trade deficit by reducing imports including fossil fuel.
or by increasing exports of fossil fuels
Maybe the Chinese know that our climate scientists don’t really know statistics all that well
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3000932
This guest essay is written by Larry Hamlin.
Good post, and don’t let the grammar polis get you down!
Thanks.
I am concerned about critical deceptions and distortions of climate alarmists and renewable energy activists that are driving governments to misallocate and waste trillions of dollars in global resources that should be directed toward real world problems of poverty, inadequate health care and education.
I have little concern about apostrophes.
I’m totally onboard, brah! I have to admit that on occasion I am a grammar nazi, though not as much as I used to be.
Apostrophes are for wimps
I don’t know! Properly used, they can be quite powerful. Not that I did here, look, a squirrel!!!!
Good read. Keep swinging out in California. It’s looked homeless before and turned around. We fight long odds because we can not do otherwise.
See, this just goes to prove again, still, that people based in reality go with what works. Coal works. Now if EPA and environazis will get out of the way and allow advances in emissions scrubbing/capture to be used and improved upon we can all MOVE ON with our lives.
Buy Coal shares.
It’s all about the cost to produce steam.
Everything runs on steam in China and in every coal-fired power station Worldwide.
Energy Content and Combustion Efficiency of Fuels for producing steam:
Coal/ton/energy content Btu/sales unit = 27,000,000; Combustion Efficiency = 90.3%
Natural Gas/MMBtu/energy content Btu/sales unit = 1,000,000; Combustion Efficiency = 85.7%
Forget all others including nuclear!
700 is wrong . . . China is planning to build over 1500 new coal power stations in the coming decade.
The West is pathologically stupid and China has a credible plan to rule the industrial World with coal within a decade thanks to AGW insanity which has provided them with the perfect political and business setting for domination.
My Chinese associates are rolling on the floor in uncontrollable laughter.
So Westerners sit back and enjoy the ride to hell in a coal cart.
The fact is, a relatively small amount of worldwide coal exists. The entire world has approximately 40-50 years of coal remaining, at current prices and existing technology.
Coal is only economic if it can be mined and brought to the surface at fairly low cost. Indeed, coal must exist in a seam at least 2 feet thick, and at less than 4000 feet depth, or it is stranded, left in place. CalTech’s Professor Rutledge gives an excellent overview of world coal reserves in his 2011 paper. (“Estimating long-term world coal production with logit and probit transforms,” International Journal of Coal Geology, 85 (2011) 23-33 ). He paints a grim picture. Roughly, there are 500 billion tonnes of mine-able coal left in the world, and the existing consumption rate is 7.8 billion tonnes per year (Note, that was in 2011. It’s now up to 9 billion tonnes per year production). This provides approximately 50 years of coal remaining. Note also that as more coal power plants are consuming coal, and the annual consumption increases, the years remaining decreases much faster. The world will likely run out of economic coal in less than 40 years.
Rubbish.
There’s 1.2 trillion tonnes of recoverable coal Worldwide and growing each year.
Well over 100-years at current rates.
That’s not including brown-coal for which boiler technology is fully mature with high efficiency (refer Victoria in AU).
Roger enjoy your ride in the coal cart to you know where . . .
The Chinese are counting on you remaining delusional.
Warren Blair, the world’s coal experts would laugh at your comment. They know the coal is there, but simply not profitable to mine at current prices. Note well, Mr. Blair, the number of coal mines that closed in the UK because of that very fact. Note also, and note it well, Mr. Blair, that Germany ran out of economic coal years ago. The German government chose (and still chooses) to keep the coal mines operating while subsidizing the coal production. Without the subsidy, the mines would close in a heartbeat.
The issue is one of economics, not how many tonnes of coal are in the ground.
This is very well-known in coal circles. There is no dispute about it, no debate about it.
Facts are like that.
Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.
Yea, you gots to repeat it LOUDLY!!! Just ask Goering.
The last deep mined coal plants in Germany close this year: one is being converted to a pumped storage device.
so it is only open cast lignite which survives in Germany, the deep mines having closed due to cost.
Re: coal as a fuel for power plants:
The grim fact is that coal, that mainstay of electric power generation world-wide, is in shorter supply than most people know. In fact, several reputable sources now state that world economic reserves of coal will be exhausted in roughly 60 to 70 years – and that is if no increase in current consumption occurs. Yet, growing economies in several countries are increasing their coal consumption year-over-year. China and India are on that list. It is entirely conceivable that coal will run out in less than 50 to 60 years. My estimate is 30 to 40 years. (economic reserves are not the same as proven reserves. Economic reserves are what can be mined at current prices with proven, current technology. Proven reserves are much higher than economic reserves)
What then, are the alternatives? From Yogi’s famous quote about predictions, it may be futile to make predictions. It was only 135 years ago when no one had electricity, because the first generators connected to a grid were started in approximately 1880. Only 72 years ago, the first atomic energy was created – and that was a bomb, not a power plant. How, then, can one predict the future of energy supplies 100 or 200 years into the future?
One thing we can do is examine the existing energy mix, and see what will be available in 100 years. We note that power is generated today by hydroelectricity from water flowing from dams, by burning natural gas in power plants, by burning coal in power plants, a small amount by burning oil in power plants, some is by nuclear fission in power plants, and a small amount by renewables such as geothermal, wind, and solar. There are also some very small experimental plants for ocean waves and tides, and river currents.
However the greatest source of modern electricity is burning coal, at 41 percent of the total in 2011 (source, IEA). Next is natural gas at 21 percent. The people who drill for gas are quite good at finding more as the need arises, drilling in new areas or deeper in old areas. In addition, we know that great stores of methane exist in the cold, deep ocean as methane hydrates. The same is not true for coal, however.
Coal is only economic if it can be mined and brought to the surface at fairly low cost. Indeed, coal must exist in a seam at least 2 feet thick, and at less than 4000 feet depth, or it is stranded, left in place. CalTech’s Professor Rutledge gives an excellent overview of world coal reserves in his 2011 paper. (“Estimating long-term world coal production with logit and probit transforms,” International Journal of Coal Geology, 85 (2011) 23-33 ). He paints a grim picture. Roughly, there are 500 billion tonnes of mine-able coal left in the world, and the existing consumption rate is 7.8 billion tonnes per year (Note, that was in 2011. It is now up to 9 billion tonnes per year). This provides approximately 60 to 70 years of coal remaining – from 2011 and 7.8 billion tonnes per year consumption. Several years later, and at higher consumption rate, there are likely only 30-40 years remaining. .
However, a slight positive note is that Rutledge did not include coal deposits near the Arctic, in Alaska North Slope, and Siberia’s Lena and Tungus fields. Whether those fields in the harsh, cold far north can be produced economically is an open question.
As I have stated earlier, nuclear fission is not a candidate due to resource limitations, outrageous cost, and serious safety concerns (see D. Abbot, 2011). The world is in great need, then, dire need actually, of a replacement energy source for coal and nuclear. Together, that is nearly 55 percent of today’s energy production.
Knowing this, it makes sense to turn to the renewables: wind, solar, and ocean current. It may also be possible to make the ocean-temperature-difference technology (OTEC) work. If the technologies still need a subsidy to advance so they can stand alone and provide electricity at reasonable rates, then prudence dictates the subsidies be made.
Advances in grid-scale energy storage have been made, with underwater storage in the shallow oceans an excellent candidate. Similar systems can be deployed around the deeper Great Lakes in the US. Also, batteries are in grid-storage service. And, a rail-based gravity storage system is under construction in Nevada near Las Vegas.
Is this hubris? Will engineers and planners of the year 2100 read this or similar articles, and get a good laugh? It could happen. Until some major technology improvement or discovery occurs, though, this is about the best we can do. We can alter our grids so that power can flow from onshore turbines in windy areas to storage facilities. We can install large, economic wind turbines offshore and store the power underwater in hollow spheres for later use. We can maintain the improvements in solar photo-voltaics, primarily efficiency and cost reduction. A recent announcement showed that 40 percent efficiency has been achieved in PV (2014). We can install and test slow-speed ocean current turbines, and tap into the incredible amounts of energy in the ocean currents.
The problem is made much, much more acute when one considers the effect of population growth, and the increase in energy-per-capita. A growth rate in electricity consumption of only 2 percent per year will triple electricity demand in only 55 years. (the STEM majors will run that calculation and verify it as 2.97, close enough to 3.0) Even more sobering is that number will again triple in another 55 years. That puts the world needing 9 times the present energy in only 110 years. That puts Professor Rutledge’s 60 to 70 years for coal-exhaustion as an optimistic figure. We may well run out of coal long before that.
When various governments decide to continue subsidies for wind, or solar, or fund research into alternative energies, and some decry these as a waste of money, I hope someone points this article to them. What would the nay-sayers do? There will be a grim day of reckoning when the coal runs out. It would be far, far better to have proven, economic means to provide grid-scale electricity at least a decade before the coal-runs-out-day.
It may be possible, someday, to gasify coal in-situ and collect the gasified product at the surface and do all this economically. There is research into this. The practical challenges are, however, enormous. One must essentially start a fire in the coal-bed, deep underground, with sufficient oxygen to maintain the burning. The economics of oxygen injection make the entire thing questionable. Also, a patent from 1980 describes injecting methanol and steam into a coal bed to produce methane.
original article on my blog; “Forecasting the Future – Hubris or Honesty; Subtitle: Coal Exhaustion Looms – Renewable Energy to the Rescue”
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/forecasting-future-hubris-or-honesty.html
No problem Roger I’ll let my Chinese associates know their trillions of dollars are at risk and suggest they modify their strategy to focus on solar or wind or nuclear.
I’ll let you know what they say tomorrow . . .
Don’t bother. My Chinese colleagues have known this for many years. They see what the short game is in China, and the end game, too. Coal in power plants is a short-term means to the end, which is giving the country enough electricity to achieve a comfortable standard of living. When the coal runs out in 40 years, the plants will be old and ready to retire.
Their hope is for nuclear power to take over the power production – the government’s hope, that is. My colleagues shudder at nuclear, as do I.
However, nuclear plants in sufficient number will increase the average price of electricity. That in turn will increase the price that coal can obtain, thus making a few more years of coal available.
See what “your” Chinese associates have to say about that.
Yes Roger, and according to the experts, we ran out of oil 50 years ago.
Roger Sowell, I want to thank you. It is because of people who are like minded to you that I have rejected the AGW theory. You grasp at horribly expensive and impractical straws for energy generation while purposely denigrating the least expensive and most practical means of energy generation. It is without debate that nuclear power has inherent dangers but it is by far the most practical means of energy generation if minimizing CO2 release into the atmosphere is the goal.
If you are able to make the calculations on energy production needs by 2100 (with questionable assumptions about relevant population increase), then you are also able to make the calculations about how many solar panels (and corresponding rare earth materials) would have to be made to provide even 30% of those energy needs. Don’t forget the amount of land required to meet those needs for only solar and then do the same for wind power. Don’t forget to factor in the replacement time and costs. Go ahead and calculate the cost of your ‘ocean current power generators’, their practicality and their financial costs. I recommend that you take the time to study time value of money and opportunity cost.
I can only assume that you are intelligent enough to recognize the weaknesses of solar, wind and ‘ocean current’ power generation. Personally, if I truly believed that the earth was being catastrophically warmed and action was needed immediately to avoid horrific consequences in the future, I would reach for the best immediate solution available, even if that solution had potential problems. Even if I acknowledge that nuclear power generation is unsafe (which I don’t), I would still rather deal with the potential regional problems of a nuclear reactor than face the consequences of all the horrible, deadly, and hellish occurences we have been told will happen to us because of AGW.
Modern day proponents of Catastrophic AGW do not however. Ergo, I can only assume that is because you either A) Don’t really believe what you say you believe or B) Truly wish that your fellow human beings live in squalor and poverty while a special few grow ignorantly rich on government subsidies a.k.a. the ultimate payola scam.
Coal may indeed be almost out. Hey, who knows, we could run out of natural gas at any moment (although evidence points otherwise). But if you think solar, wind and ‘ocean current’ energy generation is practical on a large scale basis and you think that is the solution, you are living in a fantasy world.
Ultimately fusion power is the best long term solution but we seem to be at an impasse on that currently as the NIF has not quite made it to the Lawson point yet. Until then, we must go with the most practical, economical and intelligent method of power generation available, which is what we are doing. When coal runs out and if fusion has not been made viable yet, we can increase our mix to whatever is then the most practical and economical method at that time. Until then, the mere fact that almost all believers in Catastrophic AGW also reject nuclear power is proof to me that they do not believe what they say they believe. Or even worse, they are a vicious band of Malthusians that need to ridiculed.
For Andrew Cooke, re your comment. You could not be more wrong.
“It is because of people who are like minded to you that I have rejected the AGW theory.”
People like me? You obviously have not read much, probably not any, of what I write and have written. I’ve been making speeches and writing on the false-alarmism of global warming for many years not.
” “You grasp at horribly expensive and impractical straws for energy generation while purposely denigrating the least expensive and most practical means of energy generation.”
No, completely wrong. Again, read my writings.
“It is without debate that nuclear power has inherent dangers but it is by far the most practical means of energy generation if minimizing CO2 release into the atmosphere is the goal.”
No, completely wrong again. Nuclear power, in any form, is hopelessly uneconomic due to very high construction costs and, in today’s economy, high operating costs compared to natural gas-fired plants. Again, read my writings.
“If you are able to make the calculations on energy production needs by 2100 (with questionable assumptions about relevant population increase), then you are also able to make the calculations about how many solar panels (and corresponding rare earth materials) would have to be made to provide even 30% of those energy needs.”
You could easily do the calculations for solar panels to power any given entity. A state, the US, or any other country. With adequate storage, an area less than 100 miles by 100 miles could have solar panels and power the entire US. We would not do that because of transmission issues, even if the storage already existed. Again, read my writings.
“Don’t forget the amount of land required to meet those needs for only solar and then do the same for wind power. Don’t forget to factor in the replacement time and costs”
See above.
.” Go ahead and calculate the cost of your ‘ocean current power generators’, their practicality and their financial costs.”
Nobody can yet calculate the cost of ocean current power generation. The research is ongoing. I commend to you the Florida State University research and their publications. They will figure it out.
“I recommend that you take the time to study time value of money and opportunity cost.”
Now, you’ve made me laugh. I teach those courses to engineers. And have practiced all over the world using such principles in mega-projects. Most valued in the multiple billion $ range. Again, read my writings.
“I can only assume that you are intelligent enough to recognize the weaknesses of solar, wind and ‘ocean current’ power generation. P”
I don’t know how intelligent that would be. I managed ok on what little intelligence I was given, with my engineering degree, more than 40 years of consulting experience world-wide, and a law degree an license to practice law. Perhaps I’m just too stupid, in your not-so-humble opinion.
Your comment, is, however, more and more the norm here at WUWT. People I have never, ever heard of nor seen as commenters at WUWT have the nerve to rip into me. I’ve been reading, commenting, and making guest posts at WUWT for more than 8 years (March, 2009 first guest post).
After some thought, I decided to reply to your reply of my posting.
I decided to go back and read your blog and your multiple postings on subject matter such as renewables and nuclear energy. I usually don’t do this but, alas, my curiosity got the best of me. I read through your articles on nuclear power. I read through your feelings in regards to renewables.
I shall now apologize for one of my statements. You’re loving embrace of renewables led me to assume you were of the CAGW bent. Apparently you are not. I am truly glad to see that. I have been reading WUWT for at least the last five years on an almost daily basis, including comments and now that I remember and go back over previous articles and comments I have seen your name before. It was unfortunate that when I posted a reply to your posts I did not remember that.
Now on to some other issues. I am not a ‘proponent’ of Nuclear power. I am a proponent of cheap energy. Your willingness to gloss over particular issues in regards to renewables and your laser like focus on subject matters that are not as cut and dry as you try to make them (peak oil, peak coal) do not do you any favors in the art of winning arguments.
In regards to your reply to my reply.
1. I said people like-minded to you not people like you. Words mean things.
2. Saying “Wrong, read my writings”, although it directs people to your blog, does not make for an effective argument. Not to mention, your writings gloss over a few issues.
3. What is the current life of a solar panel? It’s attendant parts and pieces? What rare earth metals (which we must purchase at an elevated cost) are used in solar panels? What is the efficiency curve of solar panels? Even if we have 100 solar farms at 1 square mile each, would that be sufficient? How many panels would that be? Would it be sufficient if they are only built in Arizona?
4. I do not know anything about ocean current power generation. Just a logical overview of what it would take causes me to question its feasibility.
5. Frankly, I was not casting aspersions on your intelligence, my assumption is that you are intelligent. Your degrees while good do not set you apart. Most posters on this site have that as well, myself included. I did rather enjoy your whole “I have been on this site longer than you so by quiet” vibe that you put off with the last paragraph, but that is life.
Renewables do have issues. They cannot at this time provide base load power. That is not an opinion. They suffer from economies of scale. A thousand small turbines, turned by wind, water or magic, will never be as efficient as ten large turbines turned by something powerful enough to turn them. Pointing out how California has not suffered from its large renewable mix doesn’t mean much. Disconnect California from the national grid and then tell us about the wonders of renewables.
We use hydrocarbons to power our energy grid because they are the most efficient, they provide base load power and they are sufficiently powerful enough to provide massive amounts of energy in a comparatively small footprint. Since energy companies want to make money, I am confident that they will happily switch to all renewables once it is economical to do so. Until then, talking about peak anything with the zeal of a evangelical preacher is pointless.
Roger that’s precisely the plan so hey we’re on the same page.
Seems only our ‘reserves’ knowledge differs.
Olympic Dam (SA) is going to be a very busy place when you and I are long gone.
So it’s buy Coal shares for yourself and BHP + ERA shares for your kids.
Go China and to a lesser extent go Trump who has too many globalist AGW vested interests to really fix the USA for the long haul.
The Chinese know this and Trump is simply a minor hitch in their master plan.
They’re very happy with Malcolm of Oz though.
He’s sending a lot of industries to them as did the Labor Party before him.
Cheers . . .
It is odd that this NY Times article came out AFTER Trump pulled out of the Paris deal, not before. It’s like the NY Times didn’t want to give Trump any justification or political cover for his action.
This is, after all, not new information.
Really odd. I mean, whose side are they on?
North America has coal reserves good for 356 years. Back to the good old locomotives
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/coal/coal-reserves.html
http://www.limelightmagazine.com.au/sites/www.limelightmagazine.com.au/files/goodwp.com_25372.jpg
Not a good example, I’m afraid.
It’s not the CO2 from coal the greenie lunatics are obsessing about that’s the issue, it’s the soot coming out of the pipe. That particulate is the real pollution and the Chinese government knows it.
I’m all for using hydrocarbon energy sources if used cleanly [feasible with coal too] and efficiently. That locomotive with it’s 1.5% overall energy efficiency, is obsolete – the 35% efficiency of a new gen turbo diesel or LNG / electric motor hybrid is the route go.
You’ll be out of oil and natural gas in 50-100 years. New Quadrum steam engine has 36% efficiency
I took one of those from Durango to Silverton back in the 1960’s. I rode in the open top car and kept getting soot in my eyes. Not the most pleasant experience. I wisely grabbed a window seat in the coach car for the return trip.
arthur4563
What would be a laughable sight would be stranded electric cars all over California on a rainy day. You can juice them up just fine and cheaply with coal or gas fired power.
Thorium reactor was demonstrated at Chalk River (Ontario) in the 50s and I believe followed up at Oak Ridge. The unenriched uranium – Candu reactor invented at Chalk River was the most brilliant of the U-reactors, but we boy scouts didn’t get into the payola and kickbacks game so didn’t win the bullying marketing scrum with inferior enriched and its waste problems.
Prophetically, Candu can be simply converted to Thorium. Thorium is even amenable to miniaturization apparently. Think personal nuke in your garage! Canadian technology was already there and waiting for over half a century.
Harper government sold the tech to premier engineering firm SNC-Lavalin in 2011 who build and market. India and China will be coming out with Thorium quicker than you think-they happen to have Candu reactors which they bought eons ago and these are ready to go! We’re it not for chauvinism in the nuclear market, everyone would already have this fruit of engineering excellence.
Anthony, I can live with a typo or two, but a simple Find and Replace that changes “states” to “state’s” would probably generate an article with far less typos than the current article contains. Actually, I just checked; it would. In doing so I also encountered Mr. Ware’s similar objection regarding apostrophe use generally. But “states” is far and away the most prevalent error. Close to a dozen of them.
“The level of renewable use is now so high in Germany that serious electric grid reliability and stability issues now exist which require both fossil power plant emergency backup for failed renewable production and dictate rejecting renewable energy to ensure operation of fossil plants required for electric grid reliability and stability.”
absolute nonsense!
Germany has the world’s most reliable and stable grid.
It simply does not have outages caused by renewables.
It has had more than one day this year with over 80% of demand met by renewables. Outages as a result? none.
It got 355 of all demand met by renewables in the first half of the year from renewables. Outages as a result? none.
I notice this doesn’t show the charts for new coal in US and Europe.
That’s because there is hardly any and it will be massively surpassed by retiring coal plant.
also note that announced and pre-permitted plants are very, very likely not to be built. The chart for W Europe shows 5 plants which are complete vapourware and have no chance of construction (there’s one in Scotland, for example. No way!)
And here I though that WUWT’s resident troll had given up at this website. Oh well.
Anyway, as usual, Griff’s comment regarding coal in the U.S. and Europe doesn’t tell the whole story.
https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t7p01p1.pdf.
The EIA table linked to above shows that U.S. coal exports have risen quite significantly in the last year, including to many countries who have built or are building coal plants. This includes Germany, China, Japan and India, just to name a few.
So, demand here in the U.S. may indeed be flat or down because of the shutdown of coal plants and the lack of new ones. But if that coal export trend continues as new coal plants are built overseas, Griff’s comments, such as the one above make for amusing fodder to read. Griff is trying desperately to kill off an industry which shows no sign of wanting to die.
Our coal exports, if the upward trend continues, will hopefully help with our trade deficit with many countries. Hard to say how much, but it is better than nothing.
But keep trying anyway Griff, don’t give up!
Oops. Coal exports to Japan did not increase. My bad.
Germany is NOT building coal plants… it completed its coal programme and will never build another coal plant
(I qualify that as the Dateln 4 plant is only 75% or so complete and it is anyone’s guess as to whether they ever finish it)
Japan’s coal plant plans are still just plans… with a declining population and a huge roll out of soalr power, how many of the planned plants will ever get built?
china and India have both cancelled planned coal plant and India won’t think of approving new applications till 2022.
South Korea is now moving away from coal.
90% of coal plants in the Western US will close by 2037…
Once again reality trumps alarmist claims and diktats. The world won’t stop using fossil fuels until there is a reliable and affordable alternative. Like it or not that is the fact. You can force feed solar and wind until the cows come home but they cannot replace fossil fuels in the foreseeable future no matter how much one tries to justify or lie about it.
Where did the data for the scatter plot of renewables vs. electricity cost come from? Thanks.