A couple of days ago, we noted that this year’s edition of BP’s annual Statistical Review of World Energy report on global energy use is out, and it contains one of the most telling charts about the failure of the climate crusade’s “war on coal” ever presented.
Most of the lamestream media coverage has focused on this particular chart from the BP report, which shows coal having a small uptick in 2017 after several years of decline. Doesn’t look like much, does it? Just a blip. Nothing for the enviro-faithful to worry about, the net trend is still down, right? They are blaming president Trump for it.
But, despite Trump’s focus on putting coal miners back to work during his presidency, that really doesn’t figure in much for the rest of the world.
Here is the real kick in the pants for environmentalists from the BP report:
(drum roll please) …….
Coal has the same share of global power generation it had 20 years ago
In 1997, coal power had a 38 percent share of global power generation.
And….in 2017, despite billions being thrown at renewable energy, it still had a 38 percent share of global power generation.
BOOM!
The idea that Al Gore, Bill McKibben, and their army of trained flying monkeys hell bent on stamping out coal use have made a difference in the past 20 years of climate crusading just went up in smoke. But, get this, their buddy, George Soros, has invested millions in coal, according to the Guardian.
Old “weepy Bill” is gonna need more tissues.
Meanwhile, in the USA, greenhouse gas production drops for the third straight year,
h/t to Marc Morano (via email)
UPDATE: WUWT Author David Middleton adds this graph in comments, noting that CO2 emissions from coal use have risen sharply.
That’s why the planet is greening.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I wish there was some other term than lefties to describe the political tendencies of the liberal. I am left handed and have to keep reminding my self that you are not talking about me.
My own personal thoughts on energy production is that we really need to build more nuclear fission plants. I also would like to see the use of Thorium based fission with a “tabletop” fusion generator based on the Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor design that would provide fast neutron bombardment that is easily controlled by adjusting a voltage.
Our current Uranium/Plutonium breeder reactor designs were meant to provide usable material for constructing nuclear weapons and were not really focused on electricity production. I expect the Japanese and Chinese to outpace the USA in this area. The Japanese due to their ability to refine and perfect quicker than the USA and the Chinese due to their use of existing coal to fuel their economy and provide the means for them to devote research and refinement towards nuclear fission development.
I wonder how much Thorium gets thrown into discard piles after the coal is mined in the USA?
Unless we start limiting energy users or degrade our lifestyles solar and wind will be insignificant in the mix of sources until there’s a quantum leap in technology. People may be gullible but they’re not altruistic when it comes to their well being.
“people may be gullible, but they are not altruistic” +10
Great line. May I borrow it?
Coal usage increasing worldwide has the CAGW priests desperately searching for a way to ‘hide the incline’!
The “War on Coal” was really a “War on the World”.
Some nations gave lip service to it, some did more than just lip service. (Didn’t go well for some areas that actually tried to go that route.)
“Go Green/Sustainable/Wind/Solar” because it feels good. You’ve got a problem.
Go Coal/Natural Gas/Nuclear/Hydro etc… might not “feel” as good but, at least, when you flip the switch the lights will come on.
So are the figures power generated or power exported? Would be interesting to see the parasitic load for each type of generation. How much coal would be burnt in providing spinning reserve for wind farms?
Dont ask. The two studies I have seen were for CCGT (combined cycle gas) and Oil shale/coal backup.
IN te case of CCGT the results were that half the CO2 gains of wind power were lost in increased ramping of the CCGT plants.
In the case of coal and oil shale, the reduced efficiencies of the thermal; plant led to a projection that CO2 would INCREASE if large scale wind were to be deployed.
The conclusion that [intermittent] renewable energy leads to reduced carbon emissions is simply an unproven assertion, and may actually be refutable.
Wind or solar + hydro probably works. Wind or solar + gas is marginal. Wind or solar + coal (Germany) is probably more CO2 intensive. Wind or solar + nuclear is a total waste of time and money. If you have got the nukes why on earth have intermittent renewables as well….
The continued, or expanded, use of coal for electricity generation is not something to celebrate — other than in the childish “any insult to my enemies is a good thing”.
Most of the world’s coal plants are dirty, pollutant spewing behemoths which in a perfect world would be shut down for that reason alone.
Coal can be used as a fuel for electric generation responsibly with new technologies, and one hopes that all new plants planned and coming online to utilize this resource will be “clean coal” power plants.
In a perfect world, we would have transitioned to near 100% to clean nuclear by now, except for the irrational fears of the anti-nuclear movement (rightly anti-nuclear weapons — childishly anti-nuclear power).
Paying <$0.12/kWh and not fearing routine brownouts is always something to celebrate. Regarding nuclear, "if wishes were horses, we'd all get ponies for Christmas." I'm with you on nukes; unfortunately too many people have an irrational fear of radiation.
” irrational fears “..
.
3/12/2011-3/15/2011 at Fukishima Japan:
..
…
Exactly: Irrational fears of radiation.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx
Death toll from massive earthquake & tsunami: ~19,000
Death toll from evacuation of Fukushima area: >1,000
Death toll from Fukushima nuclear incident: Zero-point-zero
Cases of radiation sickness from Fukushima nuclear incident: Zero-point-zero
The place is hot. How much $$$ has been spent on the cleanup, and how much more will have to be spent to clean up the RADIATION ?
…
Must be “irrational” spending so much $$$ .
Penalty declined…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/03/10/after-five-years-what-is-the-cost-of-fukushima/#743fa1ba22ed
Cost of Fukushima cleanup: $15 billion
Cost of evacuation due to irrational fear of radiation: $60 billion
Total costs due to earthquake and tsunami: $250 billion
So, you are telling me that $15 billion must be due to the “irrational” fear of radiation. Since the fear is “irrational” why clean the mess up at all? Just let it sit there because there is nothing to fear from it.
….
No goal post move there Middleton, just pointing out to you that spending $15 Billion is not “irrational.”
The $60 billion for the unneccesary evacuation is due to the irrational fear of radiation.
The $200 billion spent to replace the output of the nuclear reactors with coal & natural gas is due to the irrational fear of radiation.
The $15 billion to clean up the nuclear incident is due to one of the most powerful earthquakes and tsunamis in recorded history.
So what? How much has been spent on various super fund sites?
ROTFLMFAO@ur momisugly Middleton. Talk about “moving the goal posts.” Please stop talking about $60 Billion, and concentrate on the $15 Billion they are spending to clean up the RADIATION
…
Now, if a coal burning plant explodes, it doesn’t cost $15 Billion to clean up the mess. Is the higher price tag for Fukishima due to the “irrational” fear of radiation?
The tsunami wrecked the nuclear power plant. The backup power sources were flooded. This caused the meltdown.
The $15 billion in direct cleanup costs were 100% due to the tsunami.
The $60 billion in unneccesary evacuation costs were 100% due to the irrational fear of radiation.
The $200 billion in costs to replace the output of the Fukushima reactors was due to a combination of the tsunami and and irrational fear of radiation.
None of the costs were inherent in the nature of nuclear power.
All of the deaths were due to the tsunami and the unneccesary evacuation.
None of the deaths were due to the inherent nature of nuclear power.
I would try to use smaller words, but it would be pointless.
Boy oh boy Middleton, you just don’t get it do you?
..
1) The cause (tsunami) is irrelevant. (is “irrelevant” too big a word for you?)
..
2) The $60 Billion and the $200 Billion are also irrelevant. Please concentrate only on the $15 Billion.
…
3) The $15 Billion is due to the inherent nature of nuclear power as cleaning up an exploded coal plant is much less.
…
Since you are convinced that the fear of radiation is “irrational” you could make a boatload of $$$ if you were to go to Fukishima and operate a pay loader to scoop up the remnants of the core.
Now you are lying about what I posted. I never posted that $15 billion or any of the costs were irrelevant. Or, is English not your primary language?
The tsunami did the damage. The cost to fix everything was only incurred because of the tsunami. None of these costs would have been incurred without the tsunami.
The unneccesary evacuation, cost 4 times as much of the direct costs of the Fukushima cleanup and 1,000 lives… This was ENTIRELY due to the irrational fear of radiation.
English is my primary language, and you confused.
..
1) THE TSUNAMI IS THE CAUSE.
..
2) THE CAUSE is IRRELEVANT
..
still with me?
…
3) Cleaning up an exploded coal plant does not cost $15 billion .
..
4) The $15 billion price tag is DUE TO THE RADIATION. Which is not irrational.
..
BONUS POINTS: The “cause” was poor plant design, the engineers that put the backup generators where the were installed is the root cause.
Pierette – what is your point? You seem to be tilting at windmills. David is making sense, and you seem to be trying to “Fukushima-up” the conversation with your false expressions of outrage.
However, I do (generally) agree with you on this point:
“BONUS POINTS: The “cause” was poor plant design, the engineers that put the backup generators where they were installed is the root cause.”
(But I thought it was the emergency cooling water systems.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/26/claim-new-chinese-nuclear-plants-are-unsafe/#comment-1946251 (old wattsup server url)
Fearless Fukushiming Leader: We’ll put the emergency cooling water systems down near the beach – what could go wrong?
Newby on Team: What about tsunami’s?
Fearless Leader: Screw it! It’s time for lunch. Are you a team player or not?
Team: Hai ! ( OK! )
….
Later…
Team: Oh Fukushima!
If I recall, an American engineering company pulled out because Tokyo Electric refused to fix the seawall, bringing it up to the height needed to defend against known tsunami risks, as well as moving the backup generators out if tsunami risk.
The cause was the tsunami. The generators were located high enough off the ground to handle the largest tsunami that was expected. The sea walls were built high enough to handle the largest tsunami that was expected. To the extent these were failures, they were civil engineering and geotechnical failures to account for geophysical hazards.
Nuclear power plants are expensive to build and cleanups are expensive after extremely rare nuclear incidents. That’s the trade off for cheap, reliable, clean electricity. The only logical argument against nuclear power are the up front costs, which are very high.
Even nuclear waste disposal would be relatively trivial, if not for the irrational fear of radiation
If the earthquake had happened a month or two later, there would have been no accident because Fukushima was an old design that was already scheduled to be shut down.
If every nuclear plant in the world ended this way, your constant whines about cost would make sense. However when you average the clean up costs across industries, including the clean up costs in regard to mining and drilling, the costs are much more comparable.
Since nothing bad happened, why the irrational fear CPP
Coal has been clean since the 1970’s.
“Our 2004 study showed that power plant impacts exceeded 24,000 deaths a year, but by 2010 that had been reduced to roughly 13,000 deaths due to the impact that state and federal actions were beginning to have.”
http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/
The money squandered on “climate change” could have been used to develop much cleaner coal plants.
And actually help people and the environment.
And African coal plant designs are actually among the cleanest in the world, btw.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/03/18/clean-coal-is-the-way-to-power-africa-and-south-african-academics-know-how/
This is partly explained by productivity. Coal mining has some of the highest productivity rates of any sector of the economy. That might be news to a lot of casual observers and policy manipulator types.
Even higher productivity than oil & gas…
Wind and solar are the producivity equivalent of hiring 10,000 people to sweep snow off the streets rather than investing in 1 snow-plow.
What is non-fossil fuel? cow dung and wood? I am surprised with the number of coal fired plants China has built that there hasn’t been an increase in coal consumption. I continue to find it ironic that the AGW crowd spend more time screaming about USA policy relative to AGW and what fuels we use than they do China, India and Africa all of which are moving rapidly to coal fired plants, mostly built by the Chinese.
my coal shares, are 32% up in a year, across a range of companies
Would you be surprised to find out Soros’ coal investments are up more?
The graph (and data) clearly show that the decline in US electrical generation from coal has been offset by the increase in electrical generation from coal worldwide. The market for coal is growing – we need a new coal export depot on the west coast but politics stand in the way.
When I went to the coal industry night school in 1963 &1964 to study for my City & Guilds in “Solid Fuel: Production, Distribution & Utilisation (a qualification no longer taught), I learned that even with a thermal efficiency of < 8% for a steam locomotive, it was cheaper haul coal 100 miles & burn it in a local power station near the point of use than generate electricity near the coal mine & distribute electricity 100 miles over the National Grid (as was) with the attendant transmission losses.
This inconvenient information was ignored as the UK went nuclear powered & located the new generating plant on the coasts. However, the lecturer really caught my attention when he held up a piece of coal & explained that 1lb of coal when burned in the firebox of a goods steam locomotive, could generate sufficient steam to haul 100 tons 1 mile. In those days of unfitted freights, an 0-6-0 goods locomotive weighing 80 tons would chunter along at an average 25 mph with 500 tons on the drawbar.
OTOH, the East Coast mainline express train of 450 tons gross, hauled by A4 Pacifics, would run at speeds of over 90mph between London & Edinburgh (392 miles) in 6.5 hours & use about 8 tons of coal (17920 lbs). That’s just about 46 lbs per mile or 1lb of coal per 100 ton/miles… Oh for a return to high speed steam?
Here is another look at World Fossil Fuel Consumption as reported by BP statistics since 1965. The comparison with GMT suggests poor correlation between WFFC and temperatures.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/2018-update-fossil-fuels-≠-global-warming/
The climate crusade is and always has been a deceitful tactic of redistributing the wealth of industrialized nations to “developing” nations. The climate crusade was built on false UN “scientific” facts echoed by the leftist globalist lemmings seeking to establish a New World Order of planetary governance – ruled through the corrupt UN – for our own good of course. The climate crusade is fraudulent political science NOT honest natural science.
But, … but, doesn’t Liam Denning at https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-14/china-india-coal-use-alternatives-are-rising say that „ … while that is true at the headline level, there were clear signs of a shift occurring at the margin when you looked at growth in different types of power generation rather than just absolute totals.
That becomes even clearer when you back out the big two growth markets: China and India.“
„China and India account for about 60 percent of the growth in electricity generation over that period. Take them out of the equation, and the picture for the rest of the world shifts in important ways“
Anthony: When I searched via the Category drop down list for “coal,” this thread did not appear. It should.