Frigid cold is why we need dependable energy

Foreword by Paul Driessen

The United States has more coal than any other nation. With modern coal-fired power plants, it can be used to generate very inexpensive electricity, with virtually no significant pollution: about the only thing that comes out of the stacks today are water vapor and carbon dioxide, the miracle molecule that helps plants grow and makes life on Earth possible. Even though coal-based electricity has plummeted from 52% of all US electricity in 2008 to 30% by the time President Obama left office, it still helps to keep the lights on and keep people warm in all but a few states.

But as Tom Harris points out in this thought-provoking article, even under President Trump, the USA is a long way from taking full advantage of its mighty coal reserves – and the restrictions on coal use bring virtually no environmental or climate benefits. That’s because the scientific case for fossil fuels fueling “dangerous manmade climate change” grows weaker by the week – and because no developing countries are going to reduce their use of coal anytime soon. So any and all reductions in coal use and CO2 emissions by the United States bring zero benefits in the global arena.

Frigid cold is why we need dependable energy

Cheap, abundant coal is key to national security, warm homes and wintertime survival

By Tom Harris

Recent record-setting low temperatures have underscored the creature comfort and often life-saving importance of abundant, reliable, affordable energy. They also reminded us how appropriate it was that America’s 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) emphasizes energy security – and was released on December 18, three days before this extra chilly winter officially began.

This first Trump Administration NSS identifies four vital national interests. Two of them – “promoting American prosperity” and “advancing American influence” – require that the United States “take advantage of our wealth in domestic resources.” However, America is no longer taking full advantage of one of its most important of its domestic resources: its vast coal reserves, the largest of any nation on Earth.

Testifying November 28 in Charleston, West Virginia, at the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) public hearing on repealing the Clean Power Plan, Robert E. Murray, president and CEO of Murray Energy Corp., summarized the bleak state of affairs.

“Prior to the election of President Obama,” Murray noted, “52% of America’s electricity was generated from coal, and this rate was much higher in the Midwest. That percentage of coal generation declined under the Obama Administration to 30%. Under the Obama Administration, and its so-called Clean Power Plan, over 400 coal-fired generating plants totaling over 100,000 megawatts of capacity were closed, with no proven environmental benefit whatsoever.”

Much of this was driven by Obama’s determination to be seen as contributing to “arresting climate change,” to quote from his 2015 NSS, by mandating severe reductions of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants. Unbelievably, this NSS listed “climate change” ahead of “major energy market disruptions” in its list of “top strategic risks to our interests.”

That made no sense. Climate is, and always will be, variable. There is nothing we can do to stop it.  And many scientists do not support the hypothesis that our CO2 emissions will cause dangerous climate change.

Regardless, recent climate change has been unremarkable. It is certainly not “unprecedented,” and it clearly does not constitute a national security threat by comparison to a lack of affordable, reliable energy to power the nation and its military, and export to world markets. President Donald Trump was right to make only passing reference to climate change in the 2017 NSS.

Even in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions were or became a problem, developing countries are the source of most of the world’s emissions, and China alone currently emits about twice as much the USA. Those nations are not about to follow Obama’s lead. They understand that they must continue building coal-fired power plants at an aggressive pace, to meet their growing electricity needs.

Even the New York Times admitted that “As Beijing joins climate fight, Chinese companies build coal plants” (July 1, 2017).

“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…. Overall, 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.”

Similarly, India’s heavy reliance on coal will continue even in 2047, according to the June 16, 2017 report “Energizing India,” by the National Institute for Transforming India (NTTI) and Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ). Coal is forecast to rise from its 2012 46% of India’s total energy mix to 50% in 2047 in the “business as usual scenario.” Even in an “ambitious” scenario in which renewables supply 12% of India’s primary energy (in 2012 it was 3%), coal still accounts for 42% of India’s energy mix.

The authors of the NTTI/IEEJ report state, “India would like to use its abundant coal reserves as it provides a cheap source of energy and ensures energy security as well.” Simply put, coal is essential if the rest of India’s population is to gain access to electricity and rise up out of abject poverty. Even today, some 240 million Indians (nearly seven times the population of Canada!) still do not have electricity.

India and these analysts are right, of course. So it is a welcome development that Trump is promoting a resurgence of the American coal industry.

Obama’s dedication to the climate scare contributed significantly to coal’s tragic decline in America. Besides the impact of his Clean Power Plan, a rule that will hopefully be withdrawn very soon, coal has been hammered as a result of a 2015 EPA rule that limits plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-fired power stations. The result is that the U.S. can no longer build modern, clean, efficient coal plants to replace older stations, as is happening in China, India and even Europe. Here’s why:

The 2015 EPA rule, titled “Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units,” limits CO2 emissions on new coal-fired stations to 1,400 pounds per megawatt-hour of electricity generated. When releasing the new standard, the EPA asserted that it “is the performance achievable by a [supercritical pulverized coal] unit capturing about 20 percent of its carbon pollution.” This is irrational.

CO2 is no more pollution than is water vapour, the major greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. By calling the gas “carbon,” the Obama EPA deliberately and falsely encouraged the public to think of it as something dirty, like graphite and soot, which really are carbon. Calling CO2 by its proper name, carbon dioxide, would have helped people remember that it is an invisible, odourless gas that we exhale and is essential to plant photosynthesis. Mr. Obama apparently did not want people to remember that.

Moreover, the technology of CO2 capture on a full-scale power plant is still a technological fantasy. So in reality, the EPA was actually banning even the most modern, most efficient, least polluting, supercritical coal-fired stations – because even their CO2 emissions are at least 20% above the arbitrary EPA limit.

Speaking at the November 9, 2017 America First Energy Conference in Houston, Texas, keynote speaker Joe Leimkuhler, vice president of drilling for Louisiana-based LLOG Exploration, showed that America has 22.1% of the world’s proven coal reserves, more than any other country, and enough to last for 381 years at current consumption rates.

So it is a tragedy that America can no longer build modern coal-fired power stations to replace its aging fleet. Clearly, the rule limiting CO2 emissions from new coal-fired power stations must be cancelled as soon as possible.

The climate scare has also impeded coal’s development in the USA by restricting its export. In particular, Asia would be a huge market for inexpensive American coal if sufficient U.S. export facilities were available. But, again, thanks largely to the climate scare contributing to the blocking of construction of coal export terminals, America exports only about as much coal as does Poland.

To ensure energy security, especially when demand soars during bitterly cold spells and heat waves, and to “restore America’s advantages in the world and build upon our country’s great strengths” (quoting from the NSS fact sheets), the U.S. must expand its fleet of coal-fired power stations and build coal export facilities as quickly as possible. To make that possible, the Trump administration must do everything in its power to thoroughly debunk the climate alarm that has so crippled coal’s development.

Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. He writes from Ontario, a province that seriously damaged its economy by banning all coal-fired power generation.

308 thoughts on “Frigid cold is why we need dependable energy

  1. After all the virtue signaling and promises to save the world the fact remains that fossil fuel benefits man more than it hurts him.

  2. I’m cold… I guess I should throw another shovel-full of coal from the coalbin into the central heater. Yes!!! Mine is a “gas conversion” done in the 1930s. But originally the big hulk burned good ol’ Pennsylvania anthracite.


    • I am a climate refugee. I escaped to Southern Arizona. It was 71 F here today.

      So Stay a warm my friend in New England. I lived there for 9 yrs.

      Tonight at 50 degrees outside, my furnace burns fracked shale gas piped in from West Texas to Arizona. My electricity is coal generated from Utah-Colorado-Wyoming coal (as best as I can tell from the BN-SF coal trains.
      Dig, baby dig. Drill, baby drill. Keep it coming.
      CO2 keeps the world Green.

      • That 71 degrees would sure be nice. In Alberta we haven’t seen temperatures anywhere close to that for months. It got up to 32 F today and even that felt warm.

      • Rob,

        Lots of Alberta license plates on the roads here in Tucson.

        BTW: I grew up in Edmonton, 1964-68. Fun for a child. Snow forts, skating on open ice rinks. But Sucks as an adult.

      • How I wish I was back there! 10 degrees in East Texas this morning, with 2 inches of snow and ice still on the ground. Coldest morning here in 20 years – the high yesterday was 25, the lowest high temp ever recorded here for that date.

      • I went home for lunch and to check on the dogs around 2:30 today. Realized it was warmer outside than inside … a nice warm wind and 68 F in western Oregon this afternoon.

      • What would Popeye do for spinach without CO2, Eat that spinach. Heave them bales and tow that line.

        [One must be careful when stepping up tow’rds da line before they toe da line prior to towing dat line. 8<) .mod]

    • ‘Spent a couple of winters in Petoskey, MI in home built in 1914 with a coal furnace and stoker. There’s always a breeze off Lake Michigan and it seldom gets above freezing in the winter. During occasional power outages, we were toasty because I could manually throw coal into the furnace. Our many neighbors who had converted to gas had no heat because their gas furnaces required electrical power to operate solenoids and igniters.

      One thing about coal that isn’t emphasized enough is that coal plants have many days or several months of coal stored at the plant, so they don’t depend on pipeline deliveries of gas.

  3. The politically-correct Left is desperately trying to destroy the industrialized West and its standard of living for the middle class. They want it for their children. The Left has come to believe in the religion of the Climate Change and the Evil Magic Molecule sins. They can believe there is no future without their own private access to that molecule. They are as wrong as believing in horse and buggy in 1880 as the future of transportation. Something better came along that no one of that time imagined.

    To them, today’s standard of living represents a threat to their silver-spoon children in 2050 being able to cruise in their yachts, to private jet to St Tropez or Tahiti luxury…. because they want to use the same fossil fuel the proles want for their SUVs and blue-collar pleasures of a dirt bike or hot rod.

    On a related note: The BlackRock Hedge fund CEO today sent an open letter today to all US Fortune 500 companies extolling the virtues of a green economy and a low carbon footprint and telling them to get on-board with his Virtue Signalling message to eschew short-term profit for the “climate.” Such is the sad state of the Left today. This guy is a moron. M O R O R N.
    That BlackRock CEO is PC dolt. Invest somewhere else. Black Rock is sunk as a Hedge fund. His returns will be sub-Par. Below his peers with that strategy. I guess he valued peer virtue signalling over his investors returns. So sad.

    • The modern left is a KGB subversion program that’s been running on autopilot for nearly thirty years. Destroying the West isn’t an unintended side-effect, it’s the goal.

      • They have pretty much taken over the universities, which is what they planned. For that, and other reasons, higher education is in serious trouble. It does nothing to train thinkers. At best, it trains folks who can create BS from whole cloth. One result is that the MBA is destroying American industry. Another effect is that science, as it is currently practised, has become a waste of time and resources. Most published research findings are false.

        Our brightest minds have been inculcated into stupidity. That bodes poorly for the future of the nation. I don’t know if this was all planned by the KGB or just a ‘lucky’ accident but the net result is really bad. Capitalism and fossil fuels have created a world where almost everything is better. You have to be highly educated to believe otherwise.

      • Mark,

        Interesting observation. You may be interested in a professional counter-intelligence research and analysis of the original Comintern/KGB operation to subvert and destroy Normal-American culture.

        Willing Accomplices: How KGB covert influence operations created Political Correctness

      • MarkG, the US socialists have left the KGB and other communists in the dust. The great majority of the Russian public knew they were being conned. A large percentage (and growing) of the US public doesn’t even realize it — in fact they’re indoctrinated to love it.

        • ” A large percentage (and growing) of the US public doesn’t even realize it — in fact they’re indoctrinated to love it.”

          How’d that happen, Beng?

          Can you provide the who/why/how/where/when on the program to indoctrinate Normal-Americans to hate themselves, their history, and their culture?

      • When all the environmental hoopla started in the Nixon administration I always thought it was a communist plot. Then when earth day was started by radicals I was sure of it. Nothing in the 40 years since has changed my mind.

      • In Griff’s world, if something hasn’t happened that’s proof it can’t happen.
        Except for CO2 causing catastrophic warming. That’s definitely gonna happen. Someday.

      • Mark, I think the planning was probably the Frankfurt School. Their ideas are now coming home to roost in all areas. The KGB probably has less to do with that than Common Purpose and ‘communitarianism’

        • “Mark, I think the planning was probably the Frankfurt School. Their ideas are now coming home to roost in all areas. The KGB probably has less to do with that than Common Purpose and ‘communitarianism’”

          Good guess, Ian. The “Frankfurt School” was just one of the many groups and individuals who implemented the plan. The genius of the operation was the Comintern’s covert influence master, Willi Muenzenberg.

          Willi was a close friend of Lenin. He created the belief system that has become Political Correctness. And he created the methods to insert these beliefs into American culture.

          Some details:

      • Mark I agree with the sentiments being expressed here except for one little detail. In my view it isn’t THE RUSSIANS (or KGB leftovers) and I suspect it hasn’t been for a long time.
        “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…. Overall, 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 days ‘communist’ is seldom put in front of ‘China’ and they employ a version of capitalism to run their economy but that doesn’t make them free market. They’re a Marxist dictatorship. What was the cold war is now and economic war. So the people subverting students in the US, UK and Commonwealth countries, bribing politicians to make disastrous policy decisions on energy policy are not just bumbling along because they ‘believe’ in global warming or communism. They are, except for the useful idiots, being actively driven and know exactly what they’re about. Here in the UK we’re fighting for our lives, economically, and if I’m not mistaken, it’s much the same in the US.

        • “Kent Clizbe: Have you been paying attention to what’s happened to Columbus Day in many Left-controlled American cities lately?”

          Sure. Those anti-Columbus actions started about 100 years ago. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. The PC-Prog belief system is 6 points: “America is a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, imperialist, capitalist hellhole.” And then there’s the action corollary: “And it must be changed.”

          Once you understand the 6 point beliefs, you’ll see that every issue is framed by the PC-Progs in the light of one of those points.

          Columbus Day? Imperialist! Must be changed!

          Successful economy spreads wealth, cars, and energy across the citizenry? Capitalist hellhole! Must be changed! CO2 is a poison! Ban it!

          The “Left” (you might want to consider another, more accurate set of terms, Left vs. Right is a meaningless paradigm today–try Politically Correct Progressives–PC-Progs) is about hating Normal-America. Their beliefs are based on hatred. Every belief is anti-something. All the hate is channeled into destruction.

      • commieBob

        I quit an MBA course after the first term. I expected to be enlightened. Instead, I was to be an automated manager, a slave to left wing university lecturers and process management that sought to suck the entrepreneurial spirit from any organisation it touched.

        Perhaps it was a bad course I enrolled on, except it followed the national curriculum prescribed by left wing academics.

        Had I stuck at it, I might be by now, a very wealthy man. But Capitalism has principles, so I’m still financially broke, but at least I’m wealthy in my dignity.

      • HotScot January 17, 2018 at 3:02 pm

        … I quit an MBA course after the first term. …

        One of my heroes is Henry Mintzberg. link He points out that the main product of most MBA education is hubris and failure. He has convincing ideas of how MBA education should be done and is putting them into practise. If I had to get an MBA, I would try to get into his program.

      • @commiebob: All the business schools are funded by the banks and banks are not known for liberal ideology. So it depends whether you are in a science or arts program or whether you are in a business program. Seems like these days we are graduating more business people than anything else. But maybe that is just my impression and its not accurate.

    • BlackRock did extremely well short selling Carillion in the UK in recent days. And as a result of Carillion’s bankruptcy fire fighters are now having to serve school dinners. So I don’t see much evidence of the CEO valuing virtue signalling over investor returns.

      • BlackRock is a Soros-Rockefeller virtue signalling shill. A lost cause.

        The Smart money will go elsewhere and expose BlackRock Investments as a Bernie Madoff-like fund. Playing shell games with investor money to stay alive.

      • “CEO valuing virtue signalling over investor returns.”
        Are you daft?
        BlackRock said one thing and did the other!

        Their public concern for the environment is a virtue signal. Believe it at your peril while they invest on the contrarian.
        If they were to now actually follow those signals, they would be toast in the investment world or objective ROI.

    • Larry Fink (of BlackRock) is, and has always been, dishonest. He made his fortune by buying high-cost, front-end load mutual funds cast off by incompetent and dishonest operators (such as Merrill Lynch and PNC). He then went on to peddle ETFs (more snake oil).

      He’s been selling what is essentially snake oil and garbage for decades.

  4. What is it about our politicians these days that stops them from seeing the bleeding obvious – that the West achieved the first world standard of living that it has over the past century primarily because of available, cheap, reliable ENERGY, and that any policies or actions that undermine this, by anyone, is a ticket to economic suicide?

    • “What is it about our politicians these days that stops them from seeing the bleeding obvious”


      Buying politicians provides a huge return on investment. And few care about any consequences beyond the next election, because they don’t even know whether they’ll be re-elected.

      One of the fundamental flaws of democracy is that it encourages politicians to make as much money as possible as fast as possible, because they don’t know how many chances they’ll get.

    • It’s not the politicians, it’s the voters. Voters are dumb enough to kept re-electing the same twits repeatedly. We get the politicans we vote for.

      • The problem is that most voters get more from government than they pay into it. For them it makes perfect sense to vote for politicians who promise to raise other people’s taxes and hand it to them.

      • I highly agree that people not legitimately disabled, who have turned public aid into a multi-generation “family business” should be refused at the polls. Though it would be too expensive, I fear, to weed them out.

      • Most voters don’t have much of a choice. We do not have anything like a viable third party on the left or right. So everyone gets a choice of the lesser of two evils, depending on your point of view.

  5. All the coal-fired powerplants projected to be built in coming years makes a mockery of the Paris Climate Accord. Emissions will never be reduced to the extent they claim is necessary to keep the Earth from overheating from CAGW.

    It’s 10 degrees F outside right now, and my house heater is getting its energy from a good ole coal-fired powerplant.

  6. In the distant future, when the climate grows colder, as it inevitably will, every damn lump of coal will be burned to to provide the heat and electricity.

    When it comes down to saving the world from some imaginary climate hobgoblin or keeping his family alive through a brutal winter, a man and his society will choose to burn that coal. Every last kilogram of coal… if necessary.

  7. Every “warmista” should have to go w/o fossil fuels and see how they manage w/o them – then see what tune they’re singing afterwards.

    • There have always been these ignorant lunatics but up until recently we listened to engineers and not hipsters. Engineers built this society but now our ‘governments’ seen to believe it was the hipsters.

  8. I bet solar works well covered in snow…… about as well as wind turbines covers with ice.

    Isn’t one of the options for de-icing turbines, using a helicopter and spraying warm something on the blades?

    • solar works about 6 hrs in the winter, from 9 am to 3 pm, that is 6 hrs. In the summer, it works about 8am to 4 pm. 10 hours.
      Not so good for the other 60% of the day. Solar sucks. Nothing can change that reality. Even batteries.

      • Because of the low angle of the sun, even at max sun, those panels are only providing a fraction of their nameplate power. That’s assuming they aren’t covered in snow or ice.

    • AndyG55: There isn’t a lot of sunlight to be harvested in winter where snows. So it doesn’t make much difference if your solar panels are covered with snow for a few days. However, solar panels in some commercial installations in northerly locations can tip and follow the sun, so the snow often slides right off. The same is true for rooftop solar.

      • “Frank January 17, 2018 at 12:17 am

        The same is true for rooftop solar.”

        Bit tricky in a block of apartments.

    • I read that this December Germany averaged just 10 hours of sunshine. that is just 20 minutes per day.

      Yesterday, I read that Moscow recorded just 6 mins of sunshine for the entire month of December. See:

      Solar power has no meaningful role to play in high latitude countries, particularly those noted for their cloudiness.

      • Yes…

        And that’s a spectacular fail, because Germany got huge heaps of wind energy during the same period…

        But look at the solar figures for the summer and see 40% of German weekday power and more being covered on a regular basis

      • I live in Germany and inhale at the moment every ray of sunshine that I can get rid of. Many are not. And I live in the sunniest area. Nearby also have Pres. Trump’s German ancestors lived.

      • And for the time when the wind isn’t blowing, Germany imports power from it’s smarter neighbors. (At great expense I should add)

      • “And that’s a spectacular fail, because Germany got huge heaps of wind energy during the same period…

        But look at the solar figures for the summer and see 40% of German weekday power and more being covered on a regular basis”

        It is and always will be impossible to force the sun to shine when it isn’t, or the wind to blow when it doesn’t, to generate energy. If either scenario is true you have no options other than constantly depleting batteries.

        The reverse is not true with coal or natural gas. It is always possible to use these resources to generate energy, whether on a small scale (to make burgers) or large scale (to heat thousands of homes).

      • Griff, you are nothing if not predictable.
        Now you are trying to pretend that the only electricity Germany imports is also renewable.
        Lies built upon lies.

      • Griff: I have a great deal for you on a car that runs 40% of the time in summer, somewhat less in winter. If it’s not running, you can rent a car from your neighbor, while still paying for the car I am selling you. It’s a terrific deal, just 25% above the cost of a car that runs year round, but the car I’m selling is green and says “I care” on the side.

      • Sheri, what we have in effect is a car which runs on one fuel in the summer and another in the winter, but doesn’t emit a substance harmful to the planet.

      • Griff said”what we have in effect is a car which runs on one fuel in the summer and another in the winter, but doesn’t emit a substance harmful to the planet.” Griff where on Gods green earth do you think the electricity your car uses come from. Here a link it show only 15% comes from renewables and nearly half of it from hydro. So you are living in your myths that your car ” doesn’t emit a substance harmful to the planet.” Oh by the solar and wind return the energy it took to produce that at a rate of 1 to 1 of 1 to 1.5, so quite frankly they are fossil fuel driven also.

    • Solar works for me in my living room in the winter, because I open the blinds and the front door and let in the solar heat. That allows my furnace to not run, and since my little house is well-insulated, the temperature stays right around 73F. Winter Solar heat cuts both my gas bill and electric bill this way.
      I also get some bodacious icicles hanging off my roof when the sun is heating it. Some are up to three feet long. 🙂

      • Same here! I did make a small fire this morning, but now that the sun is hitting the windows, I won’t need the furnace or fire for the rest of the day.

      • Wow, proof that panel output doesn’t go to zero when there is a little bit of snow on them is now proof that solar panels aren’t impacted by snow.
        Griff sure knows how to lay on the propaganda deep and thick.

      • Griff, you blunt object, I don’t have solar panels. I use my living room’s bay window as a heat collector. It only “works” when there is no cloud cover.

        Pay attention, will you?

      • My friend who actually HAS panels and isn’t trying to sell people on them says heavy snow has to be removed and the output is effected. I really don’t care what the sellers say. They aren’t going to be sitting in the dark when the buyer’s panel is snow covered for days and the batteries are dead. Real life ain’t like the sellers tell you. Remember, they are just like the oil people—they want to be RICH too. It’s not the planet they care about—it’s their bottom line and retirement money.

      • I’ve read the article. They basically say that the output doesn’t go to zero so long as the layer of snow isn’t too thick.

      • Griff,

        ”However, after the snow the panels can work very efficiently by the reflection caused by the sun that is lying on the ground. It can even cause the panels to produce more electricity than normal when the sun is lying on the ground and the sun comes out after the snow storm.”

        “ when the sun is lying on the ground“ ?? Do you even read this stuff before posting it?

      • Wow Griff. I have several panels around the farm. Want to know what the output is snow covered and 20 below? ZERO! Don’t believe everything you read young fella.

  9. Reading this again, “CO2 is no more pollution than is water vapor,” statement is so true.
    The GHG hoax is predicated on pseudo-science of CO2 as the primary GHG.

    As for science and scientists:
    Dr’s Trenberth, Schmidt, Hansen, Mann, Karl, … et al… you are all a freaking joke. And you will be treated as such in history.
    That is, your name will be the butt of endless climate Jokes. Enjoy your legacy.

      • Mark said Arsenic can also prevent headaches.Take enough arsenic and you will never have another headache.” The true of the matter without trace amount of arsenic in your body, you would be dead also. Human and animals need Arsenic to survive, again it the dose that counts! The same true for dihydrogen monoxide! Add in CO2 is necessary for most animal life on earth, and every carbon atom in your body came from CO2 it just as necessary as Arsenic.

  10. Hands up everyone under the age of 35 who can remember sitting around a kerosene heater in the middle of a small closed lounge room.
    Should be fun trying to heat a 350sq mt open plan house.

    • I dunno about that. What I do know is there are 800 MILLION people (Yes that is correct) in India, under 35, with degree level qualifications without a job to go to.

      • The current population of India is only 1.34 billion.
        Are you claiming that 70% of India is under the age of 35 and not a single one of them has a job?

      • Patrick MJD: you say “there are 800 MILLION people in India, under 35, with degree level qualifications”

        There are certainly 800 million people in India under the age of 35 (65% of a population of 1.3 billion, according to Google), but to suggest that all of them have degree level qualifications is absurd. It is thoughtless statements such as yours which give websites such as WUWT a bad name. Please try thinking before posting in future.

      • That is actually a projection for the year 2030. It appears to be worldwide.

        From India Today: “With India facing unemployment on a large scale, a United Nations’ special envoy for education, Gordon Brown recently released a report which states that more than 800 million young people graduating from schools by 2030 will not have the appropriate skills to land a job.”

        I cannot find any reference to people having degrees and not finding work. The labor participation rate is about 50%, somewhat lower than the US. Unemployment rate around 3%.

      • “Sheri January 17, 2018 at 9:24 am”

        Thank you Sheri. I was in a rush yesterday and forgot include the year 2030. That’s only 12 years away.

  11. This first Trump Administration NSS identifies four vital national interests.

    Chuckle. Merely using the term “the first Trump administration” is probably enough to cause apoplexy among all the right people as they suddenly think about the prospect of a second Trump administration. Yet they never seem to change their rhetoric that contributed so much to him winning in the first place, while still fantasizing about impeachment.

  12. I’m fully in favour of modern, efficient, clean coal-fired power stations. However, my Welsh maternal grandfather was a coal miner (who died of alcohol and silicosis a few months before I was born) and his family grew up in the dirt and pollution of the local mine, and in the shadow of a slag heap up the side of the valley. This mainly after the post-WWII nationalisation and major improvement in the wages and conditions of the miners. I used to visit each year as a child, in the ’60s, and returned later, in the ’70s, and in the ’90s and this century to visit my uncle, and enjoy Wales and the Welsh (after the cruel destruction of the coal industry by Margaret Thatcher and her government).

    In deep mining and strip mining, there need to be major advances in the health and safety of coal miners and other coal workers, and in environmental protection and clean-up from coal mining. See John Grisham’s “Gray Mountain” for a fact-based novel on these topics.

    • “Peter Lewis Hannan January 16, 2018 at 11:45 pm

      …(after the cruel destruction of the coal industry by Margaret Thatcher and her government).”

      Don’t forget the contributions of Wilson and Scargill in that destruction. Also, remember the family lives destroyed the night striking miners threw a concrete post over an overpass/bridge over a motorway that instantly killed the driver.

    • The US strip mines are not much different than any construction site. Deep mining (underground) is still plagued with the problems of dust and black lung. They appear to be working on this, but so far solutions are not economical, not actually feasible, etc.

      Many things in life are dangerous and dirty. Contruction, mining, logging, poultry farms, pig farms, etc. We can only do so much to make life safe.

      (My husband worked 20 years in a strip coal mine.)

      • Work in general has gotten a lot safer in the last 50 years.
        This is because we as a society have become wealthy enough that we are willing to spend the money needed to make things safer.
        It had nothing to do with government mandates. Most of the time, government mandates tell people to do things they are already doing. Just be less efficient about it.

    • “Peter Lewis Hannan January 16, 2018 at 11:45 pm

      In deep mining and strip mining, there need to be major advances in the health and safety of coal miners and other coal workers, and in environmental protection and clean-up from coal mining. See John Grisham’s “Gray Mountain” for a fact-based novel on these topics.”

      Historical fact based; certainly not modern fact based. There have been significant advances for safe mining across the mining spectrums; including underground and surface coal mines.

      Claiming and playing 100 year old unsafe mining practices is irrational. Even reaching back to as recent as the 1950s ignores advances in mining safety and technology.

      Claims which remind me of the “Pebble Mine” review, EPA interjected without authorization or responsibility as EPA made a grab for Army Corps of Engineers and Alaska responsibilities.
      A review that read as a litany of 18th century mining abuses and failures without EPA ever addressing any modern technology or practices to keep the mine safe.

  13. “with virtually no significant pollution: about the only thing that comes out of the stacks today are water vapour”

    Water vapour you say?. Ah well, can’t have that now….Have to scrap them all now…

  14. Well here in Australia we are about to become the Guinea Pigs of the hot weather issue.
    South Australia and the Eastern States looks like they will get a forecast 5-7 days of hot days.
    Not a Heat Wave in my experience but it will be called that.
    Don’t worry though Elon’s Battery will save South Australia or will it??
    That pesky Hazelwood Power Station would have been just the ticket if it hadn’t been closed last year!!

    • “nankerphelge January 16, 2018 at 11:56 pm

      Not a Heat Wave in my experience but it will be called that.”

      It already has been called that, as well as the couple of hot days the other week too when in reality, it’s just a warmer summer.

    • I was at school in the next valley, sited beneath a coal tip, when Aberfan happened… I remember the men in the local shop who’d been over to help dig talking about it… my dad drove all the way from work near London, because the only news he had was a school under a coal tip had been hit…

  15. Paul Driessen: “With modern coal-fired power plants, it can be used to generate very inexpensive electricity, with virtually no significant pollution: about the only thing that comes out of the stacks today are water vapor and carbon dioxide, the miracle molecule that helps plants grow and makes life on Earth possible.”

    Unfortunately, the average coal power plant in the US is 35-years old and not necessarily “modern”. The average coal power plant in the US emits 4 lbs SO2 and 2 lbs NOx per mWh, down about 10-fold from the 1960’s, but this average is still almost 100X and 4X more than the best. Emission of particulates also varies widely. Then we have the issue of mercury, which bioaccumulates in the largest fish. World-wide, US emission of mercury isn’t a big problem, but world-wide coal is the source of about half of the mercury accumulating in fish. Health authorities warm children and pregnant women from regularly consuming some species of fish.

    Finally, if CO2 does push climate change to unacceptable levels, burning coal releases 4X more CO2 per kWh than natural gas (which doesn’t have any of the above problems). The current low price of natural gas and the high costs of reducing emissions from coal has caused a shift away from coal. Then there is nuclear.

    • You describe the exact reason the politically motivated effective ban of modern coal fired power plants by Obama’s Eco-Nazi EPA should not have happened. As for the “if CO2 does push climate change” comment, sorry that is pure nonsense. It never has, and never will, drive the Earth’s temperature.

    • “Frank January 17, 2018 at 12:12 am

      “Paul Driessen: “With modern coal-fired power plants, it can be used to generate very inexpensive electricity, with virtually no significant pollution: about the only thing that comes out of the stacks today are water vapor and carbon dioxide, the miracle molecule that helps plants grow and makes life on Earth possible.”

      Unfortunately, the average coal power plant in the US is 35-years old and not necessarily “modern”. The average coal power plant in the US emits 4 lbs SO2 and 2 lbs NOx per mWh, down about 10-fold from the 1960’s, but this average is still almost 100X and 4X more than the best.”

      Note the careful flavoring, distractions, straw men and dubious claims:

      Age of the coal plant is immaterial. What matters is the technology installed along with maintenance of that technology..

      The “Emissions from Energy Consumption at Conventional Power Plants and Combined-Heat-and-Power Plants total 2016 emissions calculate out to roughly 6.4 pounds SO2 per MWh and 5.8 pounds NO per MWh.

      Now does list emissions by fuel source(s); but only as “Uncontrolled Emission Factors” which means they calculate the amount of sulfur the fuel contains then base the emission on that total. Emissions after exhaust stack scrubbers, catalytic units are not used.

      Frank does not provide his sources; nor does he provide links to link where “the best” numbers are sourced from.

      “Frank January 17, 2018 at 12:12 am
      Emission of particulates also varies widely. Then we have the issue of mercury, which bioaccumulates in the largest fish. World-wide, US emission of mercury isn’t a big problem, but world-wide coal is the source of about half of the mercury accumulating in fish. Health authorities warm children and pregnant women from regularly consuming some species of fish.”

      Then Frank introduces the dreaded and reviled mercury into the blame coal mix. Since, USA strives to minimize mercury emissions, Frank dredges up “world-wide coal” being the source for “about half of the mercury”.

      Again, Frank fails to link to sources.
      What is especially confusing is that since a majority of the coal plants world-wide are operated in countries that do not practice open book policies; making factual sources for his claims especially probematic.

      It is of interest that the EIA does not list mercury amongst emissions from electrical generating plants.

      “Frank January 17, 2018 at 12:12 am
      Finally, if CO2 does push climate change to unacceptable levels, burning coal releases 4X more CO2 per kWh than natural gas (which doesn’t have any of the above problems). The current low price of natural gas and the high costs of reducing emissions from coal has caused a shift away from coal. Then there is nuclear.”

      Of course, Now that Frank has softened up his audience with specious fears and sophistry, Frank then drops the feared “climate change is caused by CO2” decades old egg.

      Again, Frank fails to provide references to his claims.
      A question does immediately arise; coal is sold by the ton, Natural gas is sold by the Mcf and MMcf (thousand cubic feet and million cubic feet)

      Since CO2 emissions are carbon molecule dependent, I suspect that coal vs NG emissions are dependent upon a fuel’s available molecular carbon content, not comparing apples to orangutans; as in a ton of coal versus MMcf of natural gas.

      Frank is correct that cheap easy natural gas availability has raised NG usage. But he forgets to mention the Obama’s Administration war on coal; literally trying to drive all coal plants out of business.

      Serious business impacts that the industry is recovering from, before they get back to competing for cheap electricity generation.

      Without impossible standards for coal exhaust scrubbers and coal emission; coal becomes an excellent fuel choice.

      Nor does Frank mention that natural gas availability is dictated by pipeline access. No pipeline, no natural gas electricity plant.

      Coal, can be shipped by bag, truckload and railcar load anywhere.

      Since EPA is still getting ‘cleansed’ of imbedded activists and activism; no data directly from EPA is used.

  16. Of course, the romanticism over tough guys coming up from the shaft covered in coal dust must be replaced with safe working conditions! That being implemented, we have a safe and dependable source of energy in coal, no doubt about that! Further, when dreaming of a green world we must not forget what the former UN climate boss (I do not now recollect her proper title) Christiana Figueres said: “The green movement does not care about the environment, its goal is to destroy capitalism”.

    • I don’t think there is anyway the tough guys can avoid being covered in coal dust. Coal is DUSTY. You can’t really filter it—the filter will clog off so quickly as to be impractical. There’s no vacuum system out there that works. Life’s messy. It just is.

  17. I can’t find an image of the memorial to the miners who died in an explosion in the Ynyshir mine in the 1910s; I know it exists because my Uncle Ivor took me and my daughters to see it (it’s near a supermarket – check later ref.). Still, this is close, the price of coal:

  18. The price of coal: Ed Miller, “The Prince of Darkness”. I have the lyrics in a Word document, with notes to help with the dialect, if anyone would like it.

    • I love it! Going out in extreme cold is a interesting experience. The inside of your nose freezes, beards freeze (if you’re male and have one), eye lashes, etc. These are hearty people!

    • It is co-fired coal/biomass plant, principally UK’s Drax causing the problem.

      “The former coal plants accounted for the bulk of the negative health impacts, due to factors including their much greater size and generally higher levels of harmful sulphur emissions, which were partly linked to continued coal burning in co-fired sites”

      Eliminate coal from the mix and stop the nonsense of burning importing wood pellets (which all green organisations oppose)

    • Don’t worry Ian, The Problem is being solved…
      From an ongoing thread on ‘Renewable Energy’ message board..

      Here in West Wales wood pellets seem to be in very short supply…

      ….due to large biomass projects coming on stream on the continent coupled with wet weather making harvesting difficult

      Our local farm suppliers is finding it hard getting wood shavings

      Same here, no A1 pellets at our local stockist, no animal bedding at the local Agri store

      Here in Norfolk we’ve been told it’s largely due to Verdo being put out of production due to a flooded factory,

      From an actual supplier of wood pellets….

      we’ve got significantly higher demand (from both the traditional wood pellet market and biomass power industry), and significantly lower supply of raw material. In some cases, we’ve seen raw material costs increase by as much as 90%, in others the raw material just isn’t available, regardless of what one is willing to pay.

      Meanwhile, the wood burning operation at Drax – get this – caught fire

      and their biggest concern is their share price= Selfishness. Hypocrisy. Greed

      UK Governmental Greed also sees their second largest builder of roads and rail (Carillion) go out of business.
      Because their pension fund was bankrupt, the governmentally mandated thing that says you have to pay people huge amounts of money to do nothing while bloating the accounts & wallets of Government cronies in the City of London’s financial and legal districts.

      Is it arguable that Malthus’s and Ehrlich’s predictions are actually playing out right now, in slow motion and not at all as visualised by Hollywood?
      Despite wheels coming off the train, it manages to keep rolling until, one day, one final, tiny-little & overlooked thing, thing brings on the final wreck?

  19. Even if we could stop the climate change that has been going on for eons, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue, so no benefit would be realized. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of sceintific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. Hence if we could eliminate all CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere it would serve to end life as we know it but would have no effect on climate. The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and has too many holes to defend. The AGW conjecture is based upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s climate system, or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is scince fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

    • Actually, there are no good reasons to conserve fossil fuels. None. We should use those fuels which are the best available, and that usually means fossil. They are the fuels that give us the biggest bang for the buck, and are most reliable. Nuclear fits in there somewhere as well, but is more expensive.

      • There may be plenty of fossil fuel for the short term but consideirng the long term, the supply of fossil fuels is finite and eventually we will run out. We are already having to get our fossil fuels from less than ideal locations.

  20. “and carbon dioxide, the miracle molecule that helps plants grow and makes life on Earth possible”

    and which also causes climate change, which is the reason for US E coast exceptional cold at present.

    A combination of gas and renewables (especially wind, especially offshore wind) can certainly provide for the US.

    Right now it is cold in the UK and 24% of our power is coming from wind….

    • Still waiting for evidence that CO2 caused more than a tiny fraction of the warming over the last 170 years.

      • When you can find any evidence, I will look at it. These reams only exist in your imagination.
        1) It has warmed, however it started warming decades prior to the increase in CO2 levels.
        2) Models aren’t evidence.

      • Mark, I’ve been asking Griffie for the same for close to two years now. Usually he disappeaers after being asked a question he can’t, or more likely doesn’t want to answer.

        Humor us, Griff. Name the most compelling piece of evidence that shows that anthropogenic CO2 is causing any change in the climate. Just one.

    • “and carbon dioxide, the miracle molecule that helps plants grow and makes life on Earth possible”

      and which also causes climate change, which is the reason for US E coast exceptional cold at present.

      I’d much rather be just cold than both cold AND hungry…

    • I live in NC. On shore wind is not practical so most of our green energy is provided by solar. The land used is from cutting down forest or reclaimed wetlands near the coast. Sounds like a good trade off to me.

    • Dont worry my friend, because, within 50 years the world will be run by robots and the pressing problem will relate to the law of murder and or manslaugher if you switch them off.

    • Thank you Griff
      “and carbon dioxide, the miracle molecule … and which also causes climate change, which is the reason for US E coast exceptional cold at present.”
      Now that is REALLY funny!
      So next winter when it’s even colder (as the current solar minimum bottoms out) will that have been caused by CO2 as well?
      Why don’t you share your secrets with us? And what’s your prediction for next winter?

  21. There is no significant market in Asia for US coal… India has stalled new coal plant and is trying to source more of coal it currently uses from own resources.

    China’s coal use has probably already peaked.

  22. “the technology of CO2 capture on a full-scale power plant”

    The environmental movement is fond of the “precautionary principle” when banning things, yet happily promotes the crazy idea of concentrating vast amounts of CO2 underground or under the sea for future generations to have to deal with. There is of course, government money in many countries for this fruitless and unnecessary pursuit.

    On a related theme, the current cold snap in the UK led to drivers being stranded for some 18 hours on the main England-Scotland highway, the M74. Some ran out of fuel as they ran their engines to keep warm. I wonder if there were any EV’s and how they fared?

    • The problem with an EV in a traffic jam is you cannot just bring it a new battery, drop it in and take off. My understanding is they become a large brick on the road until the tow truck arrives.

      • If they are sitting in traffic, they are still using power.
        Power for the heater or AC, power to keep the battery pack warm if it is cold.
        Lights, radio, etc.

      • The engine is not the only thing that draws power, as I’ve shown above. Even you should be able to figure that out Griff.

  23. A very good article by Tom Harris – thank you Tom.

    Green energy is typically not green and produces little useful (dispatchable) energy. The core problem is intermittency, which is the fatal flaw of grid-connected wind and solar power. Green energy enthusiasts then ASSUME they can solve this fatal flaw with battery back-up, which is more uneconomic nonsense.

    The fatal flaw of intermittency in green energy IS just that simple, but this obvious fact continues to elude many politicians and their minions.

    This fatal flaw of non-dispatchable power was obvious to competent scientists decades ago. My co-authors and I wrote in 2002:

    “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

    Since then, tens of trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered on counterproductive green energy schemes that have driven up energy costs and destabilized electrical grids. A fraction of this enormous sum could have put safe water and sanitation systems into every village on Earth, and run them forever. About two million kids below the age of five die from contaminated water every year, over sixty million dead kids since the advent of global warming alarmism. The remaining squandered funds, properly deployed, could have gone a long way to ending world hunger.

    I calculated recently, based on German experience, that intermittent, non-dispatchable wind power was worth about 5% (1/20th) of dispatchable power. Even this 5% may be too high, because it did not include the destabilizing impact of wildly-fluctuating intermittent power on the grid. A more comprehensive evaluation would probably conclude that intermittent, grid-connected wind and solar power have negative value, when one includes all their economic downsides. Then there is the enormous bird-and-bat kill from wind turbines, for which this industry is given a “free-pass”, unlike other industries.

    Regards to all, Allan

    Post Script:

    We were also confident, even in 2002, that global warming hysteria was a false crisis, unsupported by the evidence. We concluded in the same written APEGA debate:

    “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

    Increasing atmospheric CO2 is NOT a major drive of global climate – that fact is supported by the evidence. It is more probable that climate is irregularly cyclical on a multi-decadal scale. Earth experienced ~37 years of moderate global cooling from ~1940 to ~1977, followed by ~40 years of moderate global warming and no warming, from ~1977 to present – all as atmospheric CO2 increased. The next stage in this natural cycle is probably more moderate global cooling, starting circa 2020 to 2030 (as I also predicted in a separate article published in 2002).

    1. “Kyoto Accord”, PEGG debate, reprinted in edited form at their request by several other professional journals , The Globe and Mail and La Presse (in French), by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae.
    2. “Kyoto hot air can’t replace fossil fuels”, Calgary Herald, September 1, 2002, by Allan MacRae

    • Moderator, if possible, can you kindly insert a comma between “year”and “over” in this sentence:

      “About two million kids below the age of five die from contaminated water every year, over sixty million dead kids since the advent of global warming alarmism.”

      Thank you and apologies, Allan

      [Done. Pleasure. – mod]

  24. We may have the largest coal reserves, but I don’t think we should export any of that product. We may need it ourselves some day. At some point, we may run out. Reserves are finite, just like a savings account.
    The fact that gas is cheap enough to keep my house warm and the water heater running makes me happy. I don’t care if my electricity comes from the power plant 10 miles north of me, with its stacks running full tilt. I only care that I do have electricity and heat. And unless I’m mistaken, that is how the rest of the populace feels, except for the nutballs who think that there’s something wrong with using natural resources. Nobody cares where their heat and electricity come from as long as they can get it.
    I truly would like to drop these Greenbeans off on some remote part of the world, e.g., the Aleutians or Yakutia, where there are no power generating stations or stores and see just how long they last.
    Maybe we could pay Putin a few bucks for the experiment. These twits don’t even know how to use can openers. I don’t think they’d last very long.

      • They don’t have to be infinite… They just have to be fracking YUGE… And shale gas reserves & resources are FRACKING YUGE.

      • True, David Middleton, but how do we replace them with nuclear plants when these resources start to run out if people with lack of real information object to them?

        I don’t know if peat bogs are still being cut for peat as a fuel, but it wasn’t so long ago that they were. All the Bog People appeared in the cuts. Great resource for archaeologists, too. How much of our own swampland will become like that some day? And will it be left alone, or cut for fuel? That’s my “down the road” thinking.

      • “True, David Middleton, but how do we replace them with nuclear plants when these resources start to run out if people with lack of real information object to them?”

        Might it not be the case that by the time this scenario comes to fruition, some as yet unknown energy source may have been discovered to make all of this moot?

        Have no fear. Innovation is always here.

      • We’ve got hundreds, perhaps more than a thousand years before the coal runs out. Considering the state of art of technology 200 and 1000 years ago. Considering the fact that the rate of technological advancement continues to accelerate.
        Trying to guess what the best technology is going to be 100, 200, 1000 years into the future is a fools game.
        Worry about what’s best for today, leave the best possible world for your children, and let tomorrow worry about itself.

    • There is nothing wrong with exporting coal, any more than NG or any other commodity, nor is there any way we could stop it, legally, from being exported even if we wanted to. Shipping costs alone would be a big deterrence, and would help spur countries to more self-reliance for their energy needs.

    • Hi Sara,

      We can informally separate coal into two approximate economic groups, which are related to their geological classifications anthracite, bituminous, sub-bituminous and lignite through their caloric content.

      1. Shipping-grade coals (typically anthracite and bituminous) have high enough caloric content to be economically shipped around the world for steel-making, energy generation, heating, etc.

      2. Mine-mouth power plant coals (typically sub-bituminous and lignite) have lower caloric contents and are typically used to generate electricity at power plants located near the mine.

      There is an entire field devoted to formal coal classifications, not discussed here.

      In North America there has been a trend to generate more electricity from natural gas and less from coal. This is due to the current very low cost of natural gas, resulting from the fracking of gassy shales. The assumption made by many companies and governments is that natural gas will remain very inexpensive into the distant future due to fracking, so such conversions from coal-to-gas are being strongly encouraged.

      Given the absolutely abysmal predictive track record of companies and governments in energy price predictions, this assumption may not prove to be correct.

      My observation is that governments are so bad at almost everything they touch, and politicians are particularly incompetent and corrupt, that said politicians should not even opine on energy policy, let alone try to formulate it.

      Best, Allan

      • “…politicians should not even opine on energy policy, let alone try to formulate it.”

        Thank you, Allen! I wish they’d stay out of it, but they all smell money when they get involved in it.

        Some of the information you posted on coal was in one of my classes in high school. Geography, I think. That was a LONG time ago, but it brought back some memories. We had a coal-fired furnace in our house. The clinkers had to be removed in the morning, and the roads were covered with cinders, not ice, when the snow and ice got bad.

        There’s no real way to measure coal volume, is there? Even fracking measures seem to be far below the actual volume that was announced, e.g., the Permian Basin in the southwest is much larger than was anticipated. And the quality is also higher, as in the Bakken field oil being high quality and more volatile than anticipated.

      • Allan, Very informative and some very valid points. However Item 2 above is not totally accurate. The sub-bituminous coal is shipped to be burned throughout the U. S.. You are correct in the lower caloric content of the fuel so you would have to ship more to a plant to burn. However due to the extremely low sulfur content of the coal many utilities converted boilers to burn sub-bituminous coal as a way to avoid huge capital expenditures for scrubbers to remove the sulfur from burning the higher sulfur bituminous coals. It was a trade-off between higher shipping cost as opposed to capital costs.

        Many years ago the power industry started building natural gas burning power plants. They were going up everywhere because we had this huge over abundance of natural gas and prices were predicted to be low for many years. Several shot hears later we had a couple of cold snaps and even Florida had extreme cold (for them). Sounds familiar doesn’t it. Most of the power generated in Florida uses natural gas as the fuel source. A giant sucking sound was heard as the natural gas was being rushed down to Florida for power generation. The surplus disappeared and natural gas prices spiked and remained high for several years.

      • It always seems to be that any reserve of fuel turns out to be bigger than originally thought. The predictors limit their estimates to getting to those reserves to current methods, forgetting that man is pretty innovative and will discover ways to do things beyond technologies available today.

      • Sara asked:
        “There’s no real way to measure coal volume, is there?”

        Yes: “BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2017” at

        See Coal Reserves and R/P (Reserves/Production) ratio at

        The USA has 381 years of Proved Reserves of Coal, Russia has 417 year, etc.

        At the risk of entering a political debate that I do not want to participate in, I kinda sorta think that ~400 years of proven reserves is enough for exports. 🙂

        BTW: After a 40-year ban, the U.S. started exporting crude oil again in 2016.

        Best, Allan

      • HI Gary:

        The USA has 381 years of Proved Reserves of Coal, consisting of [Anthracite and Bituminous] 221.4 Billion Tonnes and [Subbituminous and Lignite] 30.2 Billion Tonnes. (Source: BP).

        Can you cite any references to Subbituminous Coal being shipped any significant distance in the USA? I am not doubting you, just seeking information.

        Note that I used the world “typically” in my above comment.

        The EIA is a good source of detailed information, for example:,1,0&freq=A&start=2001&end=2013&ctype=map&ltype=pin&rtype=s&maptype=0&rse=0&pin=

        Regards, Allan

    • Those coal reserves don’t belong to you and they don’t belong to the government. If you want to control who they get sold to, break out your wallet and buy them yourself.
      Secondly, your illogic works for every other product out their in the market. Should we shut down the economy and stop using everything because we might need it some day?

      • Ooooh! Hostility before breakfast! Not enough caffeine, MarkW?

        If you had actually READ what I wrote, I was using a generalization. If you can’t figure out that I meant the USA by “we”, I don’t know what to tell you. Your response is illogical.

      • What I see is your desire to control something owned by someone else. Even if you do try to hide behind a euphemism.

      • BTW, your desire to pretend that your hands are clean just because you get the government to do your dirty work for you is fascinating.
        Not logical, but still fascinating.

      • Yes, and you still don’t make any sense, MarkW.

        Stating an opinion does not make anyone a control freak. Adding a nonsensical non sequitur ‘every other product’ is not an argument.

        Where did I say ‘shut down the economy’? I did not. In fact, I did not even imply any such thing.

        However, your response indicates that you have a spendthrift nature which will leave you flat-footed when you need something badly. Please don’t call me when that happens.

      • 1) Where did I say anything about shutting down the economy.
        2) Off hand comments about getting the government to steal other people’s property and or limit their freedoms is still offensive.
        3) I object to your desire to have the government steal someone else’s property makes me a spendthrift?
        Either you don’t know what the word means, or you have taken leave of your senses.

      • I didn’t say you want to steal other people’s property, I said you want to control them.
        That’s what you are doing when you proclaim a right to prevent other people from selling their products.
        You are the one who is trying doing the virtue signalling on the cheap.

      • Having re-read the post that you listed, the only thing I can conclude is that you don’t know how to read.

    • Good point, Sara. Keep the COAL, OIL AND THE GAS HERE!

      For your idea about greenies dealing with actual, raw nature……. I suggest you read Clancy’s “Rainbow Six” solution to dealing with the greenies.

      aka Pat, but lost all the cookies


    Regards to all you carbon-based life forms from your most dedicated fan, Allan



    1. Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high; in fact, it is dangerously low for the survival of terrestrial carbon-based life on Earth. Most plants evolved with about 4000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, or about 10 times current CO2 concentrations.

    2. In one of the next global Ice Ages, atmospheric CO2 will approach about 150ppm, a concentration at which terrestrial photosynthesis will slow and cease – and that will be the extinction event for much or all of the terrestrial carbon-based life on this planet.

    3. More atmospheric CO2 is highly beneficial to all carbon-based life on Earth. Therefore, CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.

    4. As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on this planet, I feel the duty to advocate on our behalf. I should point out that I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms. They might be very nice, but I do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. 🙂

    The global cooling period from ~1940 to 1975 (during a time of increasing atmospheric CO2) demonstrates that climate sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2 is near-zero – so close to zero as to be insignificant.

    This and other evidence strongly supports the conclusion that there is NO global warming crisis, except in the minds of warmist propagandists.

    There is overwhelming evidence that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans is not dangerously high – it is dangerously low, too low for the continued survival of life on Earth.

    I have written about the vital issue of “CO2 starvation” since 2009 or earlier, and others including Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, have also written on this subject:

    Executive Summary

    This study looks at the positive environmental effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a topic which has been well established in the scientific literature but which is far too often ignored in the current discussions about climate change policy. All life is carbon based and the primary source of this carbon is the CO2 in the global atmosphere. As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation, CO2 dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt plant growth.

    This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation. It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon as two million years from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments. The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees. Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.

    [end of Exec Summary]

    Low CO2 means no photosynthesis, and that means the end of all carbon-based life on Earth. During the last Ice Age, which ended only 10,000 years ago, atmospheric CO2 was so low that photosynthesis slowed to a crawl – it was close to an extinction event. In the next Ice Age, which is imminent, or the one after that, or the one after that, we could see the end of carbon-based life on Earth – due to CO2 starvation.

    It gets a little more complicated – there are C3, C4 and CAM plants, but the issue is pretty much the same. Almost all plants including almost all food plants are C3 and will die out at 150 ppm CO2.

    However, you warmists are not all bad: Every time you breath out, you make a little flower happy. 🙂

    Regards, Allan

    • “Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace”

      He wasn’t.

      His nuclear test ban organisation was one of a coalition of organisations which became Greenpeace: at which point he left.

      He has only ever endorsed/founded nuclear test ban activism, no other green activism

      • The attempts to whitewash Dr. Moore’s contributions to the founding of Greenpeace have been well documented.
        Greenpeace, like it’s early Soviet masters has become experts at disappearing inconvenient people.

      • Griff said:
        “He has only ever endorsed/founded nuclear test ban activism, no other green activism”

        I guess this image is him saving a nuclear powered seal pup from having it’s head bashed in is fake news then?

        You really are the champion of stating fake facts without checking them.

        Greenpeace have lost their way and now protest anything anti-human. They now thrive off global disaster stories for income and one of the many reasons why he left.

      • His nuclear test ban organisation was one of a coalition of organisations which became Greenpeace: at which point he left.

        Let’s see, Moore helped organize a group that eventually became Greenpeace. In other words, he helped found it. He left what he helped found because of all the reasons many of us here trash that organization.
        Saying that his lack of involvement in later years disqualifies him as a co-founder is bogus.

        If A helps found B, and B evolves into C, then A helps found C, because without B, C would likely never have evolved. Again, bogus attempt to dissociate Moore from Greenpiss … peace.

      • Mark, he made no contribution to founding Greenpeace whatever

        He never had any active involvement in any issue outside protesting nuclear tests.

        I would venture to say he has no informed or expert opinion on issues outside that area.

        He comments thus have no weight of authority (no more than mine or yours)

      • Robert, he can only be said to have influenced that element of Greenpeace which is concerned with nuclear testing.

        I’m prepared to admit he may have saved the odd seal.

        But it is nonsense to quote him as if he embodied Greenpeace values, but somehow they now don’t.

      • I’m beginning to think that Griff is a closet denier whose real goal is to provide easy targets to make CAGW look bad.

      • Wozniak made no contribution to founding Apple whatever (sic)

        He never had any active involvement in any issue outside Apple computers..

        I would venture to say he has no informed or expert opinion on issues outside that area.

        He comments thus have no weight of authority (no more than mine or yours)

      • As always, Griff just parrots the propaganda he’s paid to parrot. Thinking just isn’t in his skill set.

      • ‘I’m beginning to think that Griff is a closet denier whose real goal is to provide easy targets to make CAGW look bad.’

        He certainly functions that way. It’s hard to believe anyone could remain so deliberately ignorant. Although he’s far from the only one… so, Hell, maybe. I do know that there is nothing – NOTHING – you can say to a greenie activist that will cause them to do anything other than pause, and then keep right on going like a marching broom. That button just ain’t there.

      • Griff, Fact – Mr. Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace. A group picture was displayed for years with a caption that said these men helped found Greenpeace. Included in that picture was the aforementioned Mr. Moore. I cannot locate the picture, but I used in many moons ago when this subject came up. It is rewriting history to make it support your own views.

      • Griff,

        Dr. Moore himself said he was a founder of the organization and pointed that Greenpeace thought so for many years too.

        “Who are the Founders of Greenpeace
        by admin on June 13, 2012

        Who are the Founders of Greenpeace?

        In recent years a controversy has developed on the subject of who are the founders, or cofounders, of Greenpeace. I have always considered myself to be a founder of Greenpeace, and until a few years ago, the Greenpeace organization didn’t seem to have any problem with that. Until recently, I was explicitly listed as one of the founders on the Greenpeace International website. Possibly coincidental with my decision to come out publicly in favor of nuclear energy, there has lately been a concerted effort on Greenpeace’s part to deny that I am a cofounder and to damage my reputation as an environmentalist. This short essay is my side of the story, told in an effort to set the record straight and to give the reader some historical information on the subject of Greenpeace’s early development.”

        I personally knew he was a founder since I have SEEN his name on the Greenpeace website years ago.

      • More expose on the lies and ignorance of Griff.

        Griff idiotically states:

        “Griff January 17, 2018 at 7:46 am Edit

        Mark, he made no contribution to founding Greenpeace whatever

        He never had any active involvement in any issue outside protesting nuclear tests.

        I would venture to say he has no informed or expert opinion on issues outside that area.

        He comments thus have no weight of authority (no more than mine or yours)”

        HA HA HA…., gosh you are so dumb!

        Dr. Moore’s Greenpeace activities goes well beyond Nuclear activism, as shown here by Dr. Moore himself,

        “I was not only a member of the original voyage but I stayed on for 15 years as a director and campaign leader. No other member of the original voyage stayed with Greenpeace nearly that long (Bob Hunter was next at six years). I was always in the top committee as we evolved from a church basement into the world’s largest environmental activist organization. When I left in 1986, we had 20 offices around the world and annual revenue of over $US100 million. I had been one of the most prominent spokespersons for the organization, especially after Bob Hunter left in 1977. From 1977 to 1986, I was the head of the original Greenpeace Foundation, which morphed into Greenpeace Canada when Greenpeace International was created. I played an instrumental role in founding Greenpeace International in 1979 and remained one of five international directors until I decided to leave over policy differences in 1986. I was the leader of the 1977, 1978, and 1979 campaigns to save the whales in the Pacific. I was the leader of the 1978 and 1981 seal campaigns on the east coast of Canada. I also led campaigns against trophy hunting, supertankers, the capture of orca whales, and nuclear weapons-carrying warships. I was a member of many other campaigns, often second in command. In fact I was either the designated or de facto second in command in the early years to Jim Bohlen, Ben Metcalfe, and Bob Hunter.

      • Global warming alarmism is the new “front” for economic Marxists, who were discredited after the fall of the Soviet Union circa 1990

        Read Dr. Patrick Moore’s essay, “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement”, written in 1994, especially “The Rise of Eco-Extremism”

        I have corresponded with Patrick on this essay and I think he “nailed it”. So did he.

        Regards, Allan

        Excerpt: “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement”, Patrick Moore (1994)

        I wrote this little polemic in 1994 after many years of fussing and fuming about the changes that had come over my beloved Greenpeace. In retrospect it seems a little harsh but it gets the point across. The essay was published in this form in Leadership Quarterly, 5(3/4), 1994

        More than twenty years ago I was one of a dozen or so activists who founded Greenpeace in the basement of the Unitarian Church in Vancouver. The Vietnam war was raging and nuclear holocaust seemed closer every day. We linked peace, ecology, and a talent for media communications and went on to build the world’s largest environmental activist organization. By 1986 Greenpeace was established in 26 countries and had an income of over $100 million per year.

        In 1986 the mainstream of western society was busy adopting the environmental agenda that was considered radical only fifteen years earlier. By 1989 the combined impact of Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez, the threat of global warming and the ozone hole clinched the debate. All but a handful of reactionaries joined the call for sustainable development and environmental protection.

        Whereas previously the leaders of the environmental movement found themselves on the outside railing at the gates of power, they were now invited to the table in boardrooms and caucuses around the world. For environmentalists, accustomed to the politics of confrontation, this new era of acceptance posed a challenge as great as any campaign to save the planet.

        For me, Greenpeace is about ringing an ecological fire alarm, waking mass consciousness to the true dimensions of our global predicament, pointing out the problems and defining their nature. Greenpeace doesn’t necessarily have the solutions to those problems and certainly isn’t equipped to put them into practice. That requires the combined efforts of governments, corporations, public institutions and environmentalists. This demands a high degree of cooperation and collaboration. The politics of blame and shame must be replaced with the politics of working together and win-win.

        Collaboration versus Confrontation

        It was no coincidence that the round-table, consensus-based negotiation process was adopted by thousands of environmental leaders. It is the logical tool for working in the new spirit of green cooperation. It may not be a perfect system for decision-making, but like Churchill said about democracy, “It’s the worst form of government except for all the others”. A collaborative approach promises to give environmental issues their fair consideration in relation to the traditional economic and social priorities.
        Some environmentalists didn’t see it that way. Indeed, there had always been a minority of extremists who took a “No Compromise in Defense of Mother Nature” position. They were the monkey-wrenchers, tree-spikers and boat scuttlers of the Earth First! and Paul Watson variety. Considered totally uncool by the largely pacifist, intellectual mainstream of the movement, they were a colorful but renegade element.

        Since its founding in the late 60’s the modern environmental movement had created a vision that was international in scope and had room for people of all political persuasions. We prided ourselves in subscribing to a philosophy that was “trans-political, trans-ideological, and trans-national” in character. For Greenpeace, the Cree legend “Warriors of the Rainbow” referred to people of all colors and creeds, working together for a greener planet. The traditional sharp division between left and right was rendered meaningless by the common desire to protect our life support systems. Violence against people and property were the only taboos. Non-violent direct action and peaceful civil disobedience were the hallmarks of the movement. Truth mattered and science was respected for the knowledge it brought to the debate.

        Now this broad-based vision is challenged by a new philosophy of radical environmentalism. In the name of “deep ecology” many environmentalists have taken a sharp turn to the ultra-left, ushering in a mood of extremism and intolerance. As a clear signal of this new agenda, in 1990 Greenpeace called for a “grassroots revolution against pragmatism and compromise”.

        As an environmentalist in the political center I now find myself branded a traitor and a sellout by this new breed of saviors. My name appears in Greenpeace’s “Guide to Anti-Environmental Organizations”. Even fellow Greenpeace founder and campaign comrade, Bob Hunter, refers to me as the “eco-Judas”. Yes, I am trying to help the Canadian forest industry improve its performance so we might be proud of it again. As chair of the Forest Practices Committee of the Forest Alliance of B.C. I have lead the process of drafting and implementing the Principles of Sustainable Forestry that have been adopted by a majority of the industry. These Principles establish goals for environmental protection, forest management and public involvement. They are providing a framework for dialogue and action towards improvements in forest proactices. Why shouldn’t I make a contribution to environmental reform in the industry my grandfather and father have worked in for over 90 years?

        It’s not that I don’t think the environment is in deep trouble. The hole in the ozone is real and we are overpopulating and overexploiting many of the earth’s most productive ecosystems. I believe this is all the more reason to hang on to ideas like freedom, democracy, internationalism, and one-human-family. Our species is probably in for a pretty rough ride during the coming decades. It would be nice to think we could maintain a semblance of civilization while we work through these difficult times.

        The Rise of Eco-Extremism

        Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
        Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.

        These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:

        – It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.

        · It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tradgedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.

        · It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are critisized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?

        · It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is adsurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.

        · It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are sucessful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.

        · It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.

        · It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.

    • I don’t think any non-carbon-based lifeforms have yet been discovered. There is some sci-fi that posits silicon-based lifeforms, but the reality is that while silicon can form chains, these are not stable like hydrocarbon chains; neither does silicon share carbon’s ability to easily make and unmake bonds with oxygen. When energy is released from a carbon compound during respiration it is ‘oxidised’, and the waste product is carbon dioxide – an easily excretable gas. When silicon compounds go through the same process, solid silica is produced as a by-product – less easy to remove. In basic chemistry, silicon doesn’t react with oxygen as a gas. It forms silicon dioxide, a hard, solid with a high melting point. We may all be familiar with it: it’s glass, and calcium carbonate is added to the formula to give it stability.

      So unless you see some sand critter from ST:NG invading Data’s android skin to communicate with us ugly bags of water, I doubt we’ll see anything but carbon-based life wherever we go. That’s why astronomers are looking for Earth’s twin… some day….

    • As always Mark I repeat I’m not paid or a member of any organisation or political party.

      I’m an ordinary person, with an interest.

      I don’t know why someone posing contrary facts upsets people so much: this is a website about the science of climate change and rational argument should prevail ?

      • ‘Compensation’ does not necessarily mean literal ‘payment’.
        You’ve sure got a lot of time on your hands, Grift.
        Of course, none of that changes the fact that you simply parrot the latest rationalized BS from activist groups, that are already on the front page.

      • “I don’t know why someone posing contrary facts”

        Grifter, you don’t post facts, you post Green propaganda, most of which is at best disingenuous and usually straight lies, and no matter how many times this is pointed out to you, you continue to repeat the same old BS ad infinitumM/i>, as with your attempts above to make out that Dr. Moore was not a founder of Greenpeace.

        Your only objective is purely to provoke reaction, “tweaking the tails of the den1ers” as you referred to it when posting on Guardian CIF in you ‘egriff’ persona.

      • i find it hard to believe that anybody is paying Griff.

        For example, he just stated that the exceptional cold along the East Coast was caused by climate change and carbon dioxide.

        I can see where guys who have staked their credibility and reputations on climate change like Al Gore and Michael Mann will spin things like this for personal damage control but it’s really, REALLY dumb otherwise to say extreme cold and snow are caused by global warming.

        Even if it was/is true, it’s a really dumb, completely counter productive way to sell climate change. The trick to getting people on board with the hoax is to have a believable, convincing sounding narrative.

        Extreme cold and snow caused by global warming can cause even the most brainwashed people to take a step back and think WTF??

        The alarmists should just say “extreme cold and snow can still happen because of natural weather/climate’

        To say it was caused by or expected to happen BECAUSE OF global warming/climate change is the best way to convert the most to being skeptics the fastest.

      • Hi Sommer,

        I am not familiar with this group, but there are so many of them. They are typically dishonest – “any lie is OK, if it supports the Cause”.

        As a general observation:
        Global warming alarmism is the new “front” for economic Marxists, who were discredited after the fall of the Soviet Union circa 1990.

        Read Dr. Patrick Moore’s essay, “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement”, written in 1994, especially “The Rise of Eco-Extremism”

        I have corresponded with Patrick on this essay and I think he “nailed it”. So did he.

        Regards, Allan

  26. Mike Madigan’s daughter and attorney general, Illinois’ royal family, will never allow that to happen.

  27. Ontario politicians dictated the end of burning coal. They announced that all the plants would be converted to biomass. Burning wood and wood scraps. I think it was something like 3000 MW of coal power was to be shut down and 2000 of the 3000 converted to biomass. Well the calculations showed that you would have to clear cut most of the forests in Ontario to burn to make that much electricity. Then we were told that they would import the biomass from Europe. So they were going to pay Europe to clear cut their forests. That did not work out well. When politicians try to run businesses it is not a good thing.

    I believe that they ended up converting one 200 MW power plant to biomass and several other former coal fired power plants were converted to natural gas. The Ontario politicians proudly announced that they had accomplished their goal. The one thing Ontario has going for it is a tremendous amount of hydro power. So they can hide behind this power for a while.

    In Summary. The government announces a grand plan that looks good to the public and looks green. Reporters and environmentalists ooh and ahh. Headlines are made. Everyone celebrates great and green days are ahead. Then practically it cannot be done and the grand plan turns into a dud. No follow up by the media or the environmentalists. No headlines announcing the failure of the politicians to force a business to do the impossible. Just move along nothing to see. But man those first heady days were worth it. Unfortunately at the expense of less reliable power and the expenditure of waste dollars.

    • A leak in a system designed to contain REAL pollution is, well, a REAL pollution problem. That’s a containment problem, a broken piece of equipment.

      … NOT the same thing as a standard operating procedure whose standard output through stacks is NOT pollution.

      For example, if a sewage pipe breaks, then that’s a pollution problem. The air coming off the sewage might stink, but generally, it’s NOT a pollution problem.

      Trying to demonize coal in general because of REAL accidents that can happen with it is about as fair as demonizing sewage in general.

      Do I, thus, detect an attempt to conflate one problem with another?

      • The assertion was ‘with virtually no significant pollution.’

        It is misleading at best. Sewage pipes not withstanding.

        “A leak in a system designed to contain REAL pollution”

        Exactly. Real pollution.

        I support the use of coal for power generation. My grandfather was a WV coal miner. My Great grandfather was one of the founders of the UMWA. I have his 1898 UMWA ring.

        I don’t support false statements. That ‘about the only thing that comes out of the stacks today are water vapor and carbon dioxide’ is NOT the whole story. That fly ash doesn’t make it out the stack anymore doesn’t make it non-existent, and doesn’t have to be dealt with.

        Let’s use more coal. Let’s not tell people it is pollution free.

      • Brian, Almost all Fly ash, bottom ash and CaSO4 has been and continues to be used in various industries. CaSO4 is gypsum generated by the removal of SO2 from the flue gas exiting coal fired boilers. Research is ongoing on new uses for the products that are generated from coal fired power plants. The power industry has done a great job of reducing their environmental footprint but the media would rather report the sky is falling as opposed to reporting positive news.

    • Fly ash is now a commodity. It is sought after by the concrete and cement industry. All the ash ponds are being shut down to meet the new CCR regulations. What used to be pollution is now a commodity. The industry worked hard to find uses for what was removed from the flue gas exiting coal fired boilers. What used to be pollution in most situations is now used in industry. SO2 removed from the flue gas is converted to gypsum and used in wallboard that is used in homes everywhere. Bottom ash is now used to make blocks and other structural materials.

      • “Fly ash is now a commodity.”

        Less than half of the 100,000,000 TONS of fly ash produced annually is reused. Some of it is used; most of it is NOT.

  28. This wonderful article makes numerous relevant/powerful and authentic points that we don’t hear/read often enough.

    Climate “scare” is exactly right too. 4 decades of the best weather/climate for life on this planet…..since the Medieval Warm Period, 1,000 years ago(that featured similar global warming) continues to expose it as the scare that it is.

    • Oklahoma Colder than the South Pole Thursday Morning
      By By Heather Buchman, Meteorologist
      February 11, 2011, 9:43:30 AM EST


      At 7 a.m. CST, it was colder in northeastern Oklahoma than at the South Pole.

      The Oklahoma Mesonet reported a low temperature of -31° F at Nowata, Okla. If this temperature is valid, it will be the new all-time record low for the state.

      The previous all-time low temperature record for Oklahoma is -27° F.

      In Bartlesville, Okla., a temperature of -28° F was recorded at the airport at 7:19 a.m. This temperature also beats the state record.

      Elsewhere in the Bartlesville area, a temperature of -29° F was reported around 7 a.m.

      As Meteorologist Eric Wanenchak pointed out, the temperature at the South Pole was -23° F at 7 a.m. CST Thursday morning. Therefore, parts of Oklahoma and Kansas were just as cold, if not colder.


      -31° F = -35 ° C -23° F = -31 ° C

      It was 21 °F (-6 °C) with a light dusting of snow in Houston at 0440. Photo from my office yesterday afternoon…

      Ice on highway overpasses basically paralyzed Houston early this morning.

      • Pffft! It was colder than that on Sunday here in my kingdom! 1F at 6AM CST. 80% humidity, and we started getting snow around 9:30PM.

        It was 7F when I got up at 5:45AM CST this morning. Snowed most of the week from Sunday through late yesterday afternoon. I’ve been out to feed the birds twice already.

        Ice is a problem for Indiana commuters. We just take it in stride.

      • It was seven degrees F this morning when I got up here in northeast Oklahoma. Which is cold, but certainly not a record. We hit -12 the winter of 2012.

        It is supposed to get up into the 50’s (F) and 60’s here over the next week or so.

      • Got down to 18 just north of Houston. Lucky that I have a nice 300 btu gas powered heater for my pool that kicked in. Fixing burst pool pipes would be very expensive.

    • Almost the same in and around New Orleans, John. Teens, GASP!
      Only got to 25 deg here in the Fl Panhandle but we might hit 23 deg manana!

  29. Well written, and should be required reading for all of the “true believers” who blindly accept the non-“solution” of so-called “renewable” energy to (NOT) “solve” the (NON) “climate crisis.”

    Having said that, frigid cold is not the ONLY reason we need dependable energy; we need it for air conditioning in hot weather; for reliable transport; for refrigeration of food; for industry and commerce; in short, for modern life as we know it. The only people who think we can run the world without fossil fuels are people who simply take everything the have in this life for granted.

  30. God these fossil fuel posts get old. We have far more thorium reserves than we coal. Nuclear is a million times as energy dense as fossil fuels. We would disturb one millionth of the planet using nuclear for the same amount of energy. Even if fossil fuels pollute far less than they once did, there are still impurities in it that pollute. And coal mining, in particular, damages the land where it is mined.

    I can only conclude from these incessant posts that people who frequent this place have two obsessions. Either people just have to feel compelled to win the CO2 debate at any cost, or people refuse to understand the vast benefits of nuclear over fossil fuels because their wallets depend on them not understanding.

    • One could also conclude that you have an obsession with a source of power that has yet to prove itself in commercial production.

    • Perception is reality. If we get to an energy shortage and the plan to overcome it is to build coal fired power plants or nuclear plants, coal fired plants would win in a landslide. Fukishima set back the nuclear power industry and then the bankruptcies of the nuclear plants under construction in the U.S. put another nail in the coffin. Maybe not technically the correct answer but living in the real world is messy and sloppy.

      • Well that was before people began to learn about molten salt reactors which eliminate the issues of water as a coolant. Molten salts stay liquid for 1,000 C without pressurization. It is funny how so many alarmists are getting on board with nuclear power and the skeptics are not. It is a surprisingly easy sell when you explain that Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island would have never happened if molten salt had been the coolant not water. With molten salt there is no melt down; there is only a freeze up.

      • I wish it were so easy to convince people. How many have you convinced with your persuasive skills? I know average people that I talk to would not care if it was table salt and harmless if you said nuclear they are against it. The bad publicity from recent events will take years to overcome. My company used to be heavy in nuclear. Only 4 engineers remain of over 150 we used to have. It is a dead industry in the U.S.

      • That is why the rest of the world will pass us by. Asia, except for Japan, will go whole hog for nuclear while we continue to burn coal. Indonesia, of all places may be the future for molten salt reactors and their manufacture. See post below for details.

      • David, Not disagreeing with you. I agree that the world may pass us by in producing nuclear power. One interesting thing is that the World Bank that finances so many overseas projects is not yet on board with nuclear. So financing may become an issue. I have been saying for years that more nuclear plants need to be built.

    • “Nuclear is a million times as energy dense as fossil fuels.” What a moronic statement. Try educating yourself first, then come back.

      • Easy to remember rule: Fossil fuels are 1000 times more energy dense than wind/solar, and nuclear is 1000 times more than fossil fuels.

        Not perfect, but close enough.

      • Not sure what is moronic in the quoted statement. Burning one atom of carbon (i.e., coal) releases ~4.3 ev or energy. Fissioning one atom of uranium releases 200 million ev of energy. So we start with a factor of ~45 million times more energy per atom. Uranium atoms have a molevular weight of ~20 times that or carbon, so on a weight basis, ‘nuclear’ is ‘two’ million times the energy release. But with the level of significant figures (zero, not one since it doesn’t say ‘one million’) in the quote, the statement is correct.

      • Energy density has absolutely nothing to do with anything here, since obviously, what matters is the cost of providing that energy. But then, being somewhat dense yourself, I guess you can’t see that.

      • If thorium was useful for weapons, we would have had commercial thorium reactors 50 years ago.

        Nuclear power is great; but it has two big problems:

        1) Nuclear power plants are expensive to build. They have to be.
        2) Too many people have an irrational fear of radiation.

        Properly operated nuclear power plants safely generate very dependable, cheap electricity.

      • The NRC or Congress forcing nuclear plants to dry store spent fuel rods would go a long way towards assuaging that fear.

      • @David Middleton. With molten salt reactors built on an assembly line like ships or planes, they can compete with coal on cost. In fact in many places of the world they should be able to beat coal. Thorcon has got the right business model. Build 90 % of the nuclear plant in a ship yard and barge it to the site and weld the pieces together. You can do that when you have molten salt as a coolant. Listen to Thrcon’s CEO whose targets are the countries that don’t even have much in the way of coal powered plants yet.

      • Shortly after the above video was made, Thorcon negotiated a contract with Indonesia to build a molten salt reactor there. Here is the CEO of Thorcon explaining why Indonesia will be the leading nuclear power manufacturer when they start building nuclear power plants there.

  31. To assumption that the energy crisis is an automatically s bad thing is false, because for some it is seen an opportunity to get idea they known would otherwise be rejected enforced. What to end the car ownership or any kind, energy crisis will give you that, what to make flying limited to only the great and the green, an energy crisis will give you that too.
    It is easy to make the case that sources of energy should not be wasted on such things when there is not enough energy to keep people warm or the lights on. And those are not even the madder ideas and great deal of control can be gained through ‘managing an energy crisis’ and it’s the type of control some of greens have been after for years and which they known they could never get through votes.

    • You haven’t been around long, have you, knr?

      Richard Nixon created an “energy crisis” in the 1970s with his idiotic Arab OIl Embargo. Look it up. Everyone drove gas guzzling cars back then. There were no emissions tests, and gasoline was still a leaded compound, because adding lead to the mix stopped engine knocking.

      As a result of Tricky Dick’s ineptitude, the price of gas at the pump went from a little under $.50/gallon to $.75/gallon, and there was talk of a rise to $1.00/gallon. People panicked and long, long lines formed at gas stations so that anyone needing a gallon of gas to top off that 22-gallon tank could get it. Fortunately, Chevrolet/GM developed the 4-cylinder Chevette and Chevette Scooter, just in time for the CRISIS!!! to end.

      Nixon also decided that traffic lights and street lights should be dimmed, and everyone should reduce using electric power at home to ‘SAVE ENERGY’ because he created a crisis all by his lonesome. Yes, he got fired, even if everyone thinks he resigned.

      I had a dark green 1970 Chevy Impala with a V-8 engine that got about 12 MPG. You can imagine how much it hurt to pay an additional quarter per gallon for gas at the pump. That was when the gas stations still pumped gas for you.

      I’m waiting for another such crisis to arise. They are ALL manufactured, ALL baloney.

      I once asked my mother, who had to put up with rationing during WWII, what happened to the “good stuff”, when I knew that the troops at the front lines weren’t getting any of it. Her answer? “NOBODY KNOWS!” You were supposed to support the war effort by saving newspapers, fat/grease and rubber (tires, engine belts) for recycling. There was no real shortage of anything, including butter.

      All such crises are invented and made up out of whole cloth.

  32. This topic goes to the heart of one of the conceptual problems with AGW.

    It obviously doesn’t prevent bitter cold, or even stop the temperature from going down at any given place or time.

    So, since cold (from mild to bitter) will still occur in the face of AGW, what effect does AGW actually have and when?


    • Ask one of them to demonstrate how heat creates cold. I think that’s their common mantra right now.
      Unfortunately, cold air sinks and warm/hot air rises, so they don’t make any sense.

  33. “……. the U.S. must expand its fleet of coal-fired power stations and build coal export facilities as quickly as possible. To make that possible, the Trump administration must do everything in its power to thoroughly debunk the climate alarm that has so crippled coal’s development……”

    I’ve been saying that for years now, but I don’t see any offensive against the climate alarmist narrative as of yet. If there is one pending from the Trump administration, I applaud it. There certainly isn’t a lack of refuting evidence with which to do this.

    WUWT has certainly done an outstanding job of exposing the serious scientific problems with the climate alarmist narrative. However, I don’t see how climate alarmism is going to die out anytime soon if there is no effort by the Trump administration to debunk it. Where is the Red Team/Blue Team debate?

    • with US shale gas output, there is no economic case for building and perhaps even operating a coal power plant, especially an older one, in the US at present.

      Even without considering the pollution that comes even with a ‘clean coal’ plant and without considering climate change.

      There are also many cases in which renewable energy makes sense on a case by case/local basis.

      • You couldn’t be more wrong, Griffie. But as a rabid coal-hater, we’d expect that sort of nonsense from you. The playing field simply needs to be leveled again after 8 years of anti-coal legislation and anti-coal policy. That can’t be done overnight, but an 8-year Trump administration should be able to correct most of the damage done. As far as shale gas, coal and NG are natural competitors, and competition is the bedrock of a democratic society, allowing economies to thrive. Furthermore, NG simply isn’t available everywhere. Ironically, one reason is Greenie types screaming and crying whenever a gas pipeline is proposed.

      • The only cases where wind and solar make sense is when your house is miles from the nearest power line.

      • Griff, Almost all coal fired power plants in the state of South Carolina are now operating due to the extreme cold weather. We are talking about over 2500 MW of power needed to keep the people of South Carolina warm. If that 2500 MW was not available there would be rolling blackouts and brownouts occurring. Some of these plants are old and inefficient. It would be wise to allow more efficient less polluting coal fired plants to be built to replace those old plants. But, you cannot get a permit to build a coal fired power plant.

      • “The only cases where wind and solar make sense is when your house is miles from the nearest power line.”

        Bring me propane…thanks.

    • @Griffy-poo: Griffy-poo, you appear to have a serious reading comprehension problem from what I can see. My comment was not talking about or defending coal fired power plants. It was talking about using refuting scientific evidence to go on the offensive against the climate alarmist narrative.

      I actually have no problem seeing our fossil fueled power plants replaced with 4th generation nuclear power someday, if and when it starts to happen. That is why I fully support R&D efforts to bring them from the drawing boards to reality. This would free up our coal and NG reserves for export to bring down the U.S. trade deficit. How much it would come down is probably difficult to say, but even a little is better than nothing.

      Griffy-poo, if they have treatments for reading comprehension problems in Britain, you really should seek them out and get help. The problem looks serious.

      • As long as we have a budget deficit on the federal level, we will have a national trade deficit.
        What’s happening is that foreigners are buying US government bonds, instead of buying US products.

      • Griffy-poo: I presume your last comment was addressed to me and not Mark.

        Having watched you at this website for some time now, I am somewhat familiar with your behavior here at WUWT I is quite odd at times to say the least. It often involves lying, evasiveness and ignoring the science at this blog. You know as well as I do that you NEVER debate anyone here to any degree of significance. Everything presented to you here just seems to go in one ear and out the other, and I can only presume that there is something of significance in between.

        Once again, you fail to address the subject of my first comment above which still leaves me concerned about your level of reading comprehension. The comment was NOT about debating facts here. It was about a national debate on climate alarmism originating from the Trump administration. You ask for facts from me when you frequently present none of your own to support the claims you make here. That’s funny, hilarious even.

        The science that refutes climate alarmism that has been presented at this website since its inception a decade ago speaks for me, and there has been a LOT of it. It is far too voluminous to repeat here. You behave as though it doesn’t exist, which makes arguing facts with you completely pointless.

        Griffy-poo, your behavior at this website and the level of scientific literacy you manifest here reminds me of a 10 year old. Anthony and Charles have demonstrated considerably more patience with you than I would if this blog were mine. You should consider yourself fortunate that they do.

      • “I’m happy to debate points of substance…”

        Grifter, you have never debated a point of substance in your life.

        But you’re not paid to, are you?

    • Claiming that they have ruled out all natural causes is not proof of a link to human activities. This is an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy.

      Sherlock Holmes may operate this way…

      When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
      – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes

      But Earth Science can’t operate that way due to the Principle of Non-Uniqueness and the fact that we don’t even know what we don’t know…

    • Let’s see, the evidence according to the article.
      1) It’s the hottest year ever recorded – Article doesn’t mention that accurate readings of the earth’s temperature only go back about 30 years. Hottest year in the last 30, while accurate just doesn’t get the little hearts to flutter the way the propagandists need.
      2) CO2 is up, it’s warm, therefore CO2 caused it to be warm. And wet sidewalks cause rain.

  34. Ontario did not damage anything by banning coal powered electricity generation. They had nearly none and now run exclusively on nuclear, hydro and gas. The windmills are mere decoration.

    Ontario should carry on building the next gen CANDU reactors.

    • They have wasted and continue to waste double digit $billions Crispin. Money that could have been invested in the next generation of nukes or hooking up to Quebec.

      Ontario is one of the best (worst?) examples (per capita) of the $damage man-made global warming alarmists can do. A fiscal boondoggle of taxpayer dollars unmatched in Canadian history.

      And it’s approaching $100 billion so electricity prices can only go up. Shutting down coal (Hearne, Lakeview, Nanticoke and Lambton….1/3 of base load generation), refurbishing old nukes (that should have been de-commissioned), building huge, costly wind and solar parks with the necessary and also costly conventional back-up and finally, the excess power from wind, solar and nuclear sold to the spot market for a fraction….total $fiasco and no reason for it.

      Even more mind boggling is the support. All of our educated and political class are on board the good ship AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). They have to be, otherwise they are branded politically incorrect and irrelevant and no one wants to be branded by the warmists.

      Now we have a carbon tax combined with cap and trade. They will never admit to being wrong, they can’t, there is too much water under the bridge. Even though the man-made climate “scare” is just another hobgoblin of the times I don’t think this creature is going to go away any time soon.

      Madness, just insane madness.

  35. Natural gas is a wonderful and versatile resource. To waste it on electricity generation seems a shame.

    • All natural resources are wonderful and versatile. What would you have replace it to ensure a reliable, stable, cost-effective grid?

    • Good point, and one seldom discussed. IMHO, we should be generating electrical power with nuclear and coal first — because the fuels are abundant and have limited use beyond power production. Gas and oil are much more versatile and shouldn’t be the first choice for power generation.

      • Utilizing natural gas as a fuel for power generation is very short sighted. Robert lays it out with his statement that gas and oil are much more versatile. This means that they are the fuels that should be used by the small users like homes, small industries etc. Cleanup of the combustion gas is not as extensive since they are clean burning.

        Imagine a situation where natural gas becomes scarce. People would start burning coal or wood at their homes. The localized pollution would be overwhelming . Sulfur and ash emissions would go through the roof. I remember when my grandmother burned coal, It was not pleasant.

        Interesting side note. I lived in S. Korea for a hear on a business assignment. The apartment that we occupied had windows and no screens. I found the screens in a closet. I wondered why anyone would remove screens from windows since a lot of days they were open. I installed the screens. After a few weeks we noticed that particles were accumulating on the window sills. The screens were acting as a particulate filter. The people had removed the screens so they did not have to clean up dust on the window sills.

      • Garywgrubbs

        The combustion of coal is not necessarily accompanied by the emissions you mention. I am in Ulaanbaatar working on localizing the production of heating stoves that have neither smoke nor smell. They accomplish this by properly burning the coal in the right conditions and with the correct amount of air. I tested a low pressure boiler in Beijing a few days ago (made by a street artisan in Kyrgyzstan) that achieved a zero ppm CO and zero PM2.5 measurement for over an hour. On the PM it continued for ages. Perfect combustion, something undreamed of ten years ago.

        Using coal for primary heating is a most appropriate, low cost use of an inexpensive fuel available to the poor. Hundreds of millions of people are due their fair share of the energy generated. They deserve the application of modern science and engineering to their problems as well. It is not something that should be reserved for the problems of the rich.

  36. Obama has sabotaged the US economy for a generation or more. He eliminated 22% (!) of our electricity supply. This shortage will take more than 20 years to be overcome. Companies will be unable to open factories and the internet will be constrained in its craving for (electrical) power due to the non-availability of cheap reliable electricity. (Internet companies already have astounding social power by their manipulation of news and attacks on conservatives.)

  37. We need cheap fossil fuel to to save the trees, trees won’t last long if energy becomes expensive, they will be cut down. People forget that many areas of the US were moonscapes 120 years ago because trees were used for heating, smelting, everything. I found a brass iron ore miners time check in a 1900-1908 logging camp that was 40 miles from the iron ore mine, that’s how far miners had to go to source wood.

  38. MOSCOW (AP) — Even thermometers can’t keep up with the plunging temperatures in Russia’s remote Yakutia region, which hit minus 67 degrees Celsius (minus 88.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in some areas Tuesday.

    In Yakutia — a region of 1 million people about 3,300 miles (5,300 kilometers) east of Moscow — students routinely go to school even in minus 40 degrees. But school was canceled Tuesday throughout the region and police ordered parents to keep their children inside.

    In the village of Oymyakon, one of the coldest inhabited places on earth, state-owned Russian television showed the mercury falling to the bottom of a thermometer that was only set up to measure down to minus 50 degrees. In 2013, Oymyakon recorded an all-time low of minus 71 degrees Celsius (minus 98 Fahrenheit)

  39. What do we need heat for? What’s a few human lives compared to saving the planet?
    After all, we’re just one more species – no better than any other.
    Right, greenies?

  40. Modern Civilization and the welfare of our children is why we need reliable energy, to increase over time. The human race has grown (and innovated) to the point where cities are necessary, but are not sustainable without massive grids. Rooftop solar will not treat your water or sewage, heat the schools, or even dry your hair. Utility wind and solar will do nothing (in the end)

    PLEASE JOIN MY LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN to sound the alarm not just on scam junk irreliable energy sources, but also to oppose the shoddy ideas that would be left to us as cowardly decision-makers tiptoe around important issues and advocate (by idiotic default) complete reliance on just-in-time distribution of natural gas. Which is a grid-down disaster waiting to happen.

    Remember the Hindenberg. In this day of easy terrorism.

    This is the generation that must START to make it happen; the next will be locked in or cursed by the choices we make today. And no,I’m not talking about the cliché of ‘burning too many fossil fuels’, which is an issue fronted by hypocrites who have decided that all energy use is callous waste… save the energy they personally use.

    But it has become worse still. At this point rational people need to rise up, push back and move forward to re-take the moral high ground from the hypocrites — to demand that our children (and theirs) deserve at least as much modern convenience and disaster-survivability as they. BULLIES are needed.

    The nuclear power industry has failed us. Ironically not in any way that matters to utility or safety, they have continued to operate fission reactors with a ‘safety-by-terawatt-hour’ factor that dwarfs any other energy source. They have persisted in engineering excellence and the delivery of true value such as (for example) Japan’s nuclear plants that were essential to its emergence as a wealthy world industrial power. In the United States the safety track record is as close to perfect as is humanly possible. So this does not make sense. How have they failed us? By not actively participating in and advocating molten salt research over 40 years.

    Advocates of small-scale nuclear ‘solutions’ such as Nu-Scale, sadly, are also failing us, by knowingly taking a distressed utility business model and pushing it further into a ludicrous realm. Yes, a few wealthy nations and billionaires WILL build these small scale nuclear reactors for their own selfish purposes, because they wish to power their own survival enclaves or military outposts even if the rest of the world goes dark and Medieval. But they will be doing so at great cost to the everyday people around them who (under this regime) will never know even the baseline of today’s access to energy.

    Advocates of the irreliable wind-solar-storage-whatever utopian energy dream have always failed us, but people have pretended not to notice. But they deserve not our ire. They deserve to be ignored and pushed (or even shoved) out of the way. It is like the tale of the Scorpion and the Frog as told about Energy. For decades these people, many of whom fancy themselves engineers, have been given a ‘pass’ for their un-workable and un-scalable ideas because they sound great. It is time for ‘real’ engineers step forth, ones with the courage to laugh cool but ultimately disastrous ideas off the table.

    The smartest and most innovative ‘energy idea’ of our generation, the proposed policy that coal and nuclear plants deserve cost easement or even (gasp!) subsidy for their inherent ability to stockpile fuel on-site and avoid a cascading failure of the grid, has failed. I was hoping that no one would be able to think up a compelling reason the United States’ grid should be prone to collapse and failure over several hours instead of weeks. But someone has managed to front a mishmash of ‘consumer protection’ and crypto-gas promotion that will continue to benefit solely the gas interests, with their volatile predatory pricing practices. With every nuclear and coal plant taken off the grid, expect natural gas to become more pernicious. Which is unfair, gas is great! But electricity as delivered by grid is our last defense from darkness and cold. This is what the term ‘National Security’ should have meant all along.

    The outlook looks bleak.
    Please help.
    Get people talking, then shouting, about Thorium and molten salts.
    Demand equal time for good ideas.

  41. Anthony, I know you don’t want to hear it, or at least you declined to publish it, but see the piece I wrote here:

    Rossi has now finalized the design of the QX reactor and has investors to pay for the construction of two automated factories to make them. One here and one in Sweden. He hopes they will be i operation by the end of the year.

Comments are closed.