From The Daily Caller
1:28 PM 12/05/2018 | Energy
Jason Hopkins | Energy Investigator
The Trump administration is reportedly preparing to give the coal industry a boost by rolling back another Obama-era environmental regulation.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Thursday is expected to rescind a rule that requires new coal plants to be fitted with carbon capture technology, according to several officials who spoke with The New York Times. Under the Obama-era mandate, new coal plants were not allowed to emit more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour. The Trump administration is due to raise this limit to 1,900 pounds.
“It’s fantastic that the Trump EPA is repealing the Obama EPA’s ban on new coal-fired power plants,” Junkscience.com publisher Steve Milloy said in May when The Daily Caller News Foundation exclusively reported the administration’s mumblings of the rule rescission.
Established in 2015, the carbon capture rule was widely derided by industry representatives who argued it made the construction of new coal-fired plants essentially impossible. The expensive and cumbersome technology to this day has not been implemented on a commercial scale.
While the rule change will make it easier to build new coal plants, it’s not immediately clear how much it will help the industry, which has witnessed steady decline in recent years. Cheap natural gas and subsidy-backed renewables are increasingly rendering coal-fired plants unprofitable.
Throughout the first year of Trump’s presidency, a total of 27 coal facilities announced early closure or conversion. Plant retirements took place at an even faster rate in 2018, with a grand total of 14.3 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity shutting down. Analysts predict the pace of coal plant retirements will continue for at least another 10 years.
Trump — who campaigned on reviving coal country — has taken unprecedented steps to try and breathe life back into the industry.
The president embarked on an ambitious energy agenda since entering office in 2017, rolling back numerous Obama-era regulations such as the Clean Power Plan, Waters of the United States, vehicle emission standards, and he notably withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. Additionally, the Energy Department has twice considered a federal bailout plan for at-risk coal and nuclear plants. (RELATED: Bernie Sanders, Climate Hawk, Spends Nearly $300K On Private Jet Travel In Month)
Instead of the carbon capture mandates, the Trump administration will allow new coal plants to open if they implement more efficient boilers and technology.
Follow Jason on Twitter.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
HT/Marcus
The issue with building new coal plants would be investors fear of the Democrat greens coming back into power.
Possibly or we could add a huge carbon tax and become Paris…
The destruction in Paris has less to do with the protesters’ motives than with the refusal of police to crack down on them. Any time demonstrators are burning property, police should be shooting to kill.
jdgalt
The police seem largely sympathetic. One union has threatened to strike disrupting communications which would render riot police largely blind and deaf.
Thousands of ambulances blocked the streets last week in protest. The police hardly dare do anything about them as they might need those colleagues sooner than later.
As opposed to government policy that kills by overtaxing?
You really need to look at the big picture and ask if excessive taxes are deleterious (and perhaps nefarious) in scope and objective.
I don’t think Macron ran on astronomical tax increases that please the EU but burden the common citizen of France!
SNIP. No personal insults – 1st warning . At least the French know what to do when some jerk starts using “carbon tax” as an excuse to impoverish those who work and still can’t make ends meet.
Macron just made the same mistake that Thatcher made in 1989 when she got so drunk on power she thought she could take on the whole population. The first poll tax riots in early 1990 saw similar destruction in the West End of London: the elite’s playground.
The night before the second demo in October 1990 she announced repeal of her “flagship” poll tax. By Christmas she was on her way to a quiet and senile retirement.
Oedipus Marcon can take early retirement and go running home to his statutory rapist wife/mummy.
Apologies, I should have said “idiotic comment” .
Keep an eye of Paris today to see who captures the spirit of the times: those who are demonstrating for “climate action” and those who want to be able to afford to drive to work tomorrow.
Greg
Thatcher transformed the UK from a socialist, nationalised industry playground into something approaching American standards of wealth, independent business and opportunity for the little man.
It was tough and it hurt but it worked. We are now the 5th wealthiest nation in the world and considering our islands physical size and population, that’s a staggering achievement from where we were in the 1960’s, the poor man of Europe.
Thatcher was responsible for that.
Her one major mistake was the Poll Tax, but you regurgitate it as her epitaph.
“No personal insults”? Is this really a rule here? If I had a buck for each time I’ve been personally insulted, I could pay my property taxes with the proceeds. Even Anthony has called me a troll.
(Yes, its a rule here. Mod)
It’s not an insult when it’s true. 😉
“…we could add a huge carbon tax and become Paris…”
Be careful what you wish for…
Well that isn’t just a US problem. It’s a problem for any country that has ‘regular’ elections.
Life of a plant might be forty years – life of a Government four. Would you invest in the good will of the next ten Administrations?
Ocasio-Cortez for President!
Yes…. I fear that until the endangerment finding is reversed… Coal power has no future. However if we roll back regulations to those in effect in the year 2000 then energy from coal can be delivered to customers at less than 10c kwhr. At that price coal can compete with anything.
Coal power has no future.
Maybe in “western”, 1st world countries. In many other parts of the world, construction of new plants proceeds. Good.
Coal can be made environmentally friendly, as any fossil fuel can be, through various scrubbing and filtering processes. There is no way to successful carbon capture and storage because we have no know safe place to put the vast quantities generated by power plants.
The big advantage that coal has a plant can reasonably hold a month or more of supply. Solar depends on the sun, windmills need wind instantaneously, natural gas is great until there is a pipeline problem. It isn’t economic to store more than a day or two of nat gas.
Any well-thought out plan for expanding and stabilizing the electric grid will have to have coal plants in the grid to maintain critical amounts of electric power when needed.
Why roll the CO2 emissions up to 1900 per MW-h? Why not cancel the limit all together? It’s not a matter of being efficient, as it is in the interests of the power plants to get the most out of their coal.
“Under the Obama-era mandate, new coal plants were not allowed to emit more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour. The Trump administration is due to raise this limit to 1,900 pounds.”
Why have limits on CO2 emissions at all? If Trump wants to help, cancel the decree that CO2 is a pollutant.
Somebody please publish a cost-benefit analysis that includes the benefits of extra CO2 to crop production.
Somebody please loudly broadcast the lack of correlation between rising CO2 rate and temperatures.
SR
“Somebody please loudly broadcast the lack of correlation between rising CO2 rate and temperatures.”
People have tried…. but the correlation in undeniable. Maybe you should give it a crack.
Probably a correlation to the number of sardines in a tin or the number of gnu on the African plains.
Which brings up the question: How many gnus can dance on the head of a pin….
Simon — “but the correlation in undeniable.”
ME–Surely you mean the LACK of correlation is undeniable, David.
IPCC says man’s CO2 was not significant until about 1950:
1950-1975 (approx) CO2 goes up temperature goes down.
1975-1995 (approx) CO2 goes up temperature goes up.
1995-present (approx) CO2 goes up, temperature stable.
You forgot to mention that temperature always precedes CO2 changes.
You also forgot to mention that earlier warm periods (Minoan, Roman, Medieval) were warmer than now, without man’s CO2.
I think Simon just put his fingers in his ears and is saying “la la la …”
Oh please!!! Only a complete moron is still at the stage of denying that CO2 has an influence on global temperature. Seriously??? I mean, argue it is not as bigger influence as the world scientists are telling us. Or argue the damage will be less than forecast, but don’t tell those of us who have an IQ above 100 that CO2 has no correlation with temperature. If you want to get past climate change 101, you need to understand the basics.
Here is the correlation for those of you struggling.
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf
That equation, aas pointed out above, has been correct for only 22 years of the past 4 billion of the earth’s history: 1976-1998.
Heck, both the “decline” and the “pause” are longer than the “correlation” is!
Simon—“Only a complete moron is still at the stage of denying that CO2 has an influence on global temperature”
ME–Please pay attention David:
I DID NOT deny that CO2 has an influence on climate.
I showed evidence of non-correlation.
Any non-moron knows the difference.
Let’s see your theory of climate that establishes your claim, Simon.
And don’t pretend that climate models provide your proof. They don’t.
I can fit that same trend with an emulation equation that’s merely linear in the fractional change in forcing. Like Berkeley Earth’s the fit has no physical meaning.
Berkeley Earth are the folks who don’t know that liquid-in-glass thermometers have a resolution limit. They also don’t recognize systematic temperature measurement error.
To see what Berkeley Earth were actually fitting, take a look at Figure 12 here.
What’s the meaning of a fit to a temperature trend that has physical uncertainty bars larger than the trend itself?
That work has been published by the World Federation of Scientists as a paper delivered at the 48th Session on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies.
The summary conclusion of the session on climate, delivered by Chris Essex of the University of Western Ontario, was that there is no climate emergency.
The whole of AGW climatology is like that: physically meaningless.
It’s the worst case of widespread blind incompetence, ever.
Pat Frank
Sorry mate but that is just verbal diarrhoea.
“Like Berkeley Earth’s the fit has no physical meaning.”
WHAT???
If you want to remain clueless, your strategy of denial is working. Look at the fit. It’s obvious to anyone not hell bend on deluding themselves.
Simon, amongst sceptics there is an understanding concerning the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect. There is no denying that CO2 has an influence, the issue is the phenomenon’s magnitude.
To be sure, adding greenhouse gases (CO2) to the atmosphere raises the ERL (effective radiation level) where outgoing long-wave balances incoming short-wave (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). This means the new emission level is colder than the original emission level ergo reducing the outgoing infrared radiative flux, which no longer balances the net incoming solar radiation. Thus, the troposphere, because it’s dynamically mixed, to achieve equilibrium must warm as a whole (including the surface) while preserving its lapse rate (the rate of decrease with height for temperature).
Both the elevation increase of the new emission level and the time required to establish the new equilibrium are not measureable, and there are serious questions about the supposedly “preserved” lapse rate. So how much it warms and what impact the phenomenon has on climate has not and likely cannot be determined. Observations, over time, may provide some answers.
Right now, observations indicate the 20th century was slightly warmer than the 19th. In the last 150 years the instrumental record indicates approxan increase 1 degree C. in mean temperature which has climbed fractionally and sporadically from the depths of The Little Ice Age 370 years ago and continues to do so. So in attributing some of this warming to man, it needs to be pointed out the warming has been small, and nothing to be alarmed about.
Moreover, the 0.5 degree C. attribution of the late 20th century warming to Anthro CO2 is nowhere near affirmed. There are arguments for reasons other than ACO2…… cloud cover variance, ENSO in combination with the PDO and the AMO, solar activity (not solar irradiance, which is a constant), the subtle changes of insolation in response to the Precession nutations, and libration’s impact on A) the magnetic fields, B) Earth’s orbital mechanics, and C) the solar wind. ….to name a few.
Bottom line…years into the topic we simply don’t know the quantitative relation between CO2 in the air and its temperature in the natural system. And the recent warming “pause” while CO2 increased has many wondering if there is an issue at all.
“….amongst sceptics there is an understanding concerning the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect. There is no denying that CO2 has an influence, the issue is the phenomenon’s magnitude.”
Wait, what? I have no knowledge of this “understanding” and I certainly do not subscribe to it! There is no “Greenhouse Effect” this is a totally bogus concept devised by people who have no understanding of how a real greenhouse works. Plus, IF CO2 really did contribute to a warming effect, what about all the commercial greenhouses where it is pumped in at 1200ppm to facilitate plant growth. Wouldn’t these growers realize a significant reduction in heating costs over a growing season? If such is actually happening, it sure is a big secret!
Indeed. There is no man made warming. Click on my name to read my final report on that.
Pamele, although the term “greenhouse” is inaccurate in that CO2 does not trap heat (it actually convects it, hot air rises) the CO2 GHE effect is well understood and not in question.
CO2 is a radiatively active molecule and is resonant in the far (longwave) infrared (IR) at an amplitude range of 13-18 microns, for which the corresponding temperature (minus 80 C.) is found 5 to 6 kilometers above the surface. It’s called the Top Of the Atmosphere (TOA), above the cloud deck where there is no water vapor yet still well within the troposphere.
TOA is the imagined Equilibrium Radiation Level (ERL) where incoming solar shortwave IR is balanced with outgoing terrestrial longwave IR. The additional man-made CO2 raises this level to a colder altitude thus delaying the radiative cooling process ergo surface temperatures must increase to re-establish equilibrium.
How much it warms is the debate.
I do not agree and suggest that most commenters on this site also disagree with your insistence that CO2 has some effect on temperatures. The geologic record is very clear on this, warmth precedes increased CO2, causes its increase, is NOT caused by CO2.
There is no man made global warming. Click on my name to read my final report on that.
Simon,
Try googling this for a bigger picture:
The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years
W. Jackson Davis
There is no measured empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming
EMPTY, NOTHING
just manic baseless belief in an UNPROVEN anti-science conjecture.
Simon @ December 8, 2018 at 2:17 am . You apparently don’t understand anything about measurement error, either.
Berkeley Earth ignores thermometer resolution and sensor measurement error. Their uncertainty bars neglect both of those limit of accuracy.
The true accuracy of their temperature trend is about ±1 C before 1850, and at least ±0.5 C thereafter. My paper discussing this is here (1 mb pdf), and my post at WUWT discussing the same problem is here.
The Berkeley Earth temperature trend is physically meaningless because it’s full of ignored inaccuracy. The fit is meaningless because it follows a physically meaningless trend.
You are uncritically accepting garbage science as real.
If you want to be scientific, do the work, conduct yourself with integrity, and be a real scientist.
If you want to be an advocate, then go on collecting your biased talking points and continue as you’re doing.
But don’t expect any of the rest of us to pretend that your advocacy is science.
Pamele, HenryP and fred…to be clear, this needs to be said.
Only to an extent is Anthropogenic Global Warming vetted. The AGW Climate Change hypothesis is nothing more than supposition, a concept using imagination and conjecture without empirical evidence and likely nothing to be concerned about.
The CO2 effect is demonstrated in simple, static, homogeneous systems such as Tyndall’s bottles of glass, but in a complex, heterogeneous, dynamic system like the real world’s climate we have yet to determine its significance, if any.
CO2 is a radiatively active molecule, it is IR resonant at an amplitude around 15 microns. As a result the planet’s atmospheric energy balance at its top is influenced by the additional CO2 of fossil fuel combustion…common knowledge. Now, how much? To what effect? who knows?…there is no evidence. Out of thousands of papers regarding AGW’s influence there is yet one confirming its magnitude….again, common knowledge.
The mean temperature significance of fossil fuel CO2 is likely close to zero, which is why so little work has been done to elucidate the conditions that give rise to a damage threshold and how little empirical information has been generated about its magnitude.
“The CO2 effect is demonstrated in simple, static, homogeneous systems such as Tyndall’s bottles of glass”
The atmosphere is not remotely similar to an enclosed glass bottle.
Other factors such as thermalisation, convection, conduction, advection, wind etc totally overwhelm any possible tiny CO2 radiative effect in the atmosphere.
I repeat.. warming from atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured.
It exists only in models.
True
M.W.Plia, “ CO2 does not trap heat (it actually convects it, hot air rises) the CO2 GHE effect is well understood and not in question. ”
CO2 doesn’t convect heat. The atmosphere does that. CO2 coverts IR into kinetic energy. That’s the radiation physics.
But radiation physics is not a theory of climate.
There is no established CO2 greenhouse effect because no one knows how, or even whether, CO2 affects the climate.
Were all other things to remain unchanged, the radiant level would elevate a bit and the surface temperature would rise with increasing CO2.
But all things are very unlikely to remain unchanged.
A percent or two increase in tropical cloudiness or in tropical precipitation could remove all that excess kinetic energy without any measurable increase in sensible atmospheric heat.
Fritz Moller pointed that out in 1963 during his published debate with Gilbert Plas.
It remains true.
“atmospheric energy balance at its top is influenced by the additional CO2”
More CO2, more outward radiation = COOLING
Again, to be clear….I’m with Lindzen
“The issue of climate sensitivity is somewhat complicated, but the common measure is the equilibrium response of mean temperature to a doubling of CO2. Almost all observational approaches to this question have led to sensitivities less than about 1°C. However, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on model outputs, still offers 3°C as the most likely value.”
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 18 Number 3 Fall 2013
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, professor of atmospheric sciences, emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Simon
Well there’s progress for you.
We were all global warming deniers, then climate change deniers, now we’re climate change science deniers.
“In the next episode…….”
but don’t tell those of us who have an IQ above 100 that CO2 has no correlation with temperature
He didn’t just tell you, he showed you by pointing out where temps and CO2 have gone in different directions (hence correlation is lacking). That you still deny it after it being pointed out to you shows that not only are *you* the “science denier” but also that your IQ is a very small faction of what you are claiming.
no amount of denial will change the facts:
1950-1975 (approx) CO2 goes up temperature goes down.
1975-1995 (approx) CO2 goes up temperature goes up.
1995-present (approx) CO2 goes up, temperature stable.
Ron Manley @December 14, 2018 at 7:24 pm
“Your point is about shale oil, the point of the article is about shale gas. .
Ah.
You mean the article that starts out, first sentence, to say: “Some experts predict that if onshore and offshore reserves of shale oil in Britain meet or exceed their estimates, the country could actually go beyond being energy self-sufficient.”
That article.
The one mentioning shale oil that you suggest has no reference to shale oil. Wrong again, Ron.
“They don’t have a clue how much shale oil is there, they are assuming that since there is gas, there might be oil, but they don’t know. If they knew there was oil there they would provide an estimate the resource.
You mean the “they” who consulted Nigel Smith? Nigel Smith, “a geophysicist at the British Geological Survey and a subsurface geologist… He’d not know anything would he. We can discount his professional estimate, can’t we, “that their [oil and gas] reserves offshore may even be five or 10 times higher than the onshore reserves.”
“You’ve now shown all of us that you don’t have a clue about either shale gas, or shale oil.”
No, Ron.
The thread clearly shows you have a pathological need to deny what is manifestly true. I established my point. You merely deny the obvious. And then pretend an argument.
“You post an article that says there might be oil in the formation, when not a single barrel has been recovered.
The article includes discussion of, “onshore and offshore reserves of shale oil in Britain…” Reserves, Ron. Not “mights.”
“Reserves” has a technical meaning.
They are, “estimates of the amount of crude oil in a specific area.,” made after drilling experiments and estimates of the geological extent of the field.
Reserves are quantitative estimates of what is known to be present. Not “mights.”
“Frank, you are supposedly a chemist/scientist: “considerable” has no numeric value.”
“Considerable” conveys the idea of a large quantity. That was my point. The number obsession is your contrived objection, which you disingenuously adduced to my comment.
Your argument is a mere flaccid invention. You throw terms around (might), don’t know what you’re talking about, and seem unable to do any actual research.
But then, doing the research has disproven your case every time. So perhaps it’s no wonder you neglect fact-finding research and instead indulge spurious and ignorant dismissals.
“Now to show how ignorant you are about oil you posted “0.7 billion barrels” of oil. Do you even know how much that is? Let me clue you in, since you are clue less. The global consumption of oil has exceeded 100 million barrels per day, so the UK has the equivalent of seven days of world oil consumption. I believe the term is “a drop in the bucket.””
Your arguments are so easily shown up as nonsense, Ron.
The UK presently uses about 1.5 million barrels of oil a day.
The 0.7 billion barrels is equivalent to supplying all of the UK’s oil needs for 1.28 years.
The UK is the relevant bucket, Ron. Not the globe. Yet another specious argument courtesy of Ron Manley logic.
In any case, supplying the needs of the entire globe for 7 days is no bucket drop. It is a huge amount of material.
But you’re in worse shape than that. The USEIA report I linked goes on to say that the recoverable 0.7 billion barrels are based on just two assessed regions.
Wider scale assessments yield estimates of 623 Tcf of shale gas and 54 billion barrels of shale oil.
And these, “reflect only the higher-TOC portions of the Carboniferous and Jurassic shale intervals.”
The 54 billion barrels would serve the entire present oil needs of the UK for 98.6 years.
And apparently that estimate still is unlikely to exhaust the extent of the resource.
If you’d actually consulted the report, Ron, you’d not have made such an ignorant argument.
“They haven’t even produced as single barrel as of today!!!!!
Because of the loonie policies of your incompetent green allies, Ron. Those whose policies cause the excess Winter deaths. Deaths in which you morally collude, Ron.
As to production, this from the USEIA: “Shale testing is still at an early phase in the UK – flow testing and horizontal shale drilling have not even been attempted.”
Why is that? Well, because, “DECC [the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change] put in place a new regulatory regime for shale development … to evaluate potential seismic hazards posed by hydraulic fracturing, implement seismic monitoring of each individual well site area, and propose mitigation steps to minimize the chance of future earthquakes due to hydraulic fracturing. A real-time trigger is to be installed to cut off injection should significant earthquake risks arise. These rules are expected to add significant cost and time to drill shale wells in the UK.”
Loonie polices, Ron, imposed by government loons, supported by Ron Manley.
“I would think a chemist would not be so numerically challenged.”
The inadvertent irony of your final statement, and on whom it lands, should be obvious to all. Maybe except to you, Ron.
Ron Manley@December 14, 2018 at 7:31 pm
“Mr. Ignorant of How Things Work thinks that: ” recovering all that shale gas and oil will have no impact on the price of a barrel of oil in the UK””
Wrong again, Ron. That was your view, not mine.
Your position is now so depauperate that you’re assigning your views to me, and then disputing your own views. Incredible.
“Mr Ignorant forgot to consider that if it is cheaper to import the gas/oil than it is to produce it locally, nobody will invest the capital required for local production if it is not profitable, and less costly to import. (my bold)”
If, if, if, Ron. According to the BBC the UK gets 67% of its oil and 53% of its gas from domestic production.
Apparently, ifs aside, it is cheaper to produce oil and gas in the UK than to import it.
We’ve already established in this thread that fracked gas and oil are made more expensive in the UK because of government regulation.
The relative base cost of fracked gas and oil is subject to technology. It’s somewhat more expensive than conventional oil now, but who knows what the future will bring.
Several companies — Cuadrilla, IGAS, Dart — are presently investing in UK shale. Suppose you let them decide the economics, Ron. They’ve apparently set aside your “if.”
“The chemist does not have a clue about economics, yet he trumpets some bizarre concept of “energy poverty” causing excess deaths.”
Yet once again, “approximately 3,200 excess winter deaths are linked directly to people experiencing fuel poverty: that is when low incomes and high, or relatively high, energy bills combine to make a warm home unaffordable.”
For you, factual denial is an argument.
You’re a special case, Ron.
There are other drivers affecting climate and temp will not follow CO2 directly as a result, especially before the -ve NV forcing did not much outweigh the +ve GHG forcing prior to 1970.
(look on this graph)….
“1950-1975 (approx) CO2 goes up temperature goes down.”
because -ve forcing from anthro aerosols outweighed the +ve GHG ones.
(post WW2 industrial boom and “global dimming”)
“1995-present (approx) CO2 goes up, temperature stable.”
Wrong ….
“You forgot to mention that temperature always precedes CO2 changes.”
Wrong again.
Only within the carbon cycle does it.
Not if f expelled from vast volcanic activity (PETM?).
Mankind adding it.
In the CC temp goes up and CO2 follows as warmer oceans cannot hold as much (vice versa).
Add/subtract it outside of NV then as a driver of warming global temp will rise.
You do know that mankind’s influence is not part of the history of the Earth as recorded in ice cores??
I do wonder, because the above is just a basic.
“You also forgot to mention that earlier warm periods (Minoan, Roman, Medieval) were warmer than now, without man’s CO2.”
You also “forgot” to include any (peer-reviewed) “evidence” that that was the case and additionally they global. (FI “Roman” and “Minoan” are pretty specific areas).
“There is no denying that CO2 has an influence, the issue is the phenomenon’s magnitude.”
At least there is one sane person on this thread.
Your definition of sanity is without merit, Simon.
CO2 emissions have had no resolvable effect on the climate.
And please, no more of your correlation = causation.
That’s not science, either.
“At least there is one sane person on this thread.”
But its certainly NOT you.
You are infected with AGW insanity and non-science.
Please produce empirical evidence for warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2.
“CO2 emissions have had no resolvable effect on the climate.”
..
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. CO2 does increase downwelling IR (which has evidence.)
CO2 also deflects radiation off from earth in the suns spectrum…
Pat Frank
“CO2 emissions have had no resolvable effect on the climate.”
And then you bleat and moan when people use the most descriptive work to describe people who “deny” the obvious. You sir are a “climate science denier. “
You seem to be the one DENYING that climate changes naturally
There is NO scientific evidence of human influence on the global climate. PERIOD !!
There is NOTHING to “Deny” from our behalf.
Your “AGW mantra-itis” needs some serious medicating, and that medication is called REALITY.
Deny the obvious?
Where is you “science” that shows warming by atmospheric CO2 ??
Its an unproven anti-science conjecture, nothing more,
Its like saying we “deny” a Grimm Bros fairy tale.
Rabid unsubstantiated belief, is NOT science
Ron Manley @ December 8, 2018 at 12:07 pm
“CO2 does increase downwelling IR (which has evidence.)”
And no one knows what happens to that energy. Climate models are entirely unable to resolve such a tiny perturbation. And so far, the climate is exhibiting nothing at all unusual.
Meanwhile, during the winter people are dying of energy poverty in such 3rd world countries as the UK. And in Africa they’re dying of indoor smoke.
The poverty imposed by AGW nut-cases is utterly immoral. And on your head, Ron.
Simon @ December 8, 2018 at 12:30 pm quoting me “CO2 emissions have had no resolvable effect on the climate.” And proceeding, “And then you bleat and moan …” Show us where I’ve either bleated or moaned, Simon.
Simon continues his bleat: “… when people use the most descriptive work to describe people who “deny” the obvious.”
You’ve never shown valid work of any kind, Simon. You evidently wouldn’t even recognize scientifically valid work.
And finally, Simon’s most damning moan of all, “You sir are a “climate science denier.””
What you call “climate science” isn’t science at all. And I’m not denying it. I have falsified it. All of it.
Climate models cannot model the climate. The air temperature record is so riven with neglected measurement error that it’s effectively useless. And the so-called proxy paleo-temperature reconstructions are nothing but pseudo-science.
Peer-reviewed paper here, WUWT post on proxy bushwah here.
You’re hopelessly deluded, Simon. One day you may be angry about having been so misled. If we’re all lucky.
Ron Manley is a special case. He’s not only deluded, but he’s likely making money off the falsehood of AGW alarm.
Advising clients about “climate change impact” and consulting on their adaptation projects big income earners for you, are they Ron? No conflict of interest there, is it. None at all. Nope.
Meet Demitris Koutsoyiannis, Ron. A real hydrologist, who is also a first class scientist. He won’t stand with you, either.
[Please check for a misspelled email address in your login_id. .mod]
“And so far, the climate is exhibiting nothing at all unusual. ”
…
Actually, the climate is warming. While it may not be unusual for the climate to warm, the increase in downwelling IR would in fact cause warming.
…
“Meanwhile, during the winter people are dying of energy poverty in such 3rd world countries as the UK”
…
You think the UK is a 3rd world country??????….My Lord, have you ever been to London? Get a grip Frank, the UK is not 3rd world, no wonder nobody takes you seriously.
Pat Frank posts: ” but he’s likely making money off the falsehood of AGW alarm. ”
…
Please post evidence of all of the money I’m making.
…
Thank you in advance.
Ron Manley @ December 8, 2018 at 6:36 pm, “the increase in downwelling IR would in fact cause warming.”
Show us your falsifiable theory of climate that predicts that outcome, Ron.
Climate models are not it.
I wrote, “Meanwhile, during the winter people are dying of energy poverty in such 3rd world countries as the UK”
To which you replied, “You think the UK is a 3rd world country??????….”
That was irony Ron. The UK is a technologically advanced parliamentary democracy. And yet they have suffered tens of thousands of excess winter deaths from fuel poverty.
Fuel poverty caused by the UK’s renewable energy program.
Those deaths are caused by the idiotic green policies of the people you tout, Ron. You are morally culpable.
Ron Manley @ December 8, 2018 at 6:40 pm “Please post evidence of all of the money I’m making”
I wrote “likely making,” Ron. Expressing a likelihood, in other words, not a certainty. As it’s your living, I’d suppose a high likelihood. But perhaps not.
So are you suggesting you make no money for Water Resources Associates? Not even using your “Hydrological Simulation Model for Climate Change”?
Perhaps your company accountant should be told they’re supporting you at a loss.
[mod, sorry about the misspelling. I endeavor to get it right every time. But alas. Occasionally I misspell my nmae. 🙂 ]
Pat Frank says “The UK is a technologically advanced parliamentary democracy.” They are quite wealthy also. At one point in their recent history they were the preeminent world power.
…
LOL @ Pat Frank thinks UK is a 3rd world country.
…
Want to talk about the “excess deaths” in the USA due to drug overdoses? Do these excess deaths make the USA a 3rd world country in line with your bizarre way of thinking?
Ron Manley @ December 9, 2018 at 7:47 am
You seem to have difficulty with dyslexia as well as being delusional about science and climate, Ron.
Try to grasp what “irony” means.
Diversion into drug overdoses doesn’t save you, Ron.
The subject is the falsehood that is AGW climatology, it’s application in the UK, the deaths and misery that application has caused, and your recompensed participation in it.
Embrace your culpability, Ron. It keeps your lights on and the heat flowing from your furnace.
Unlike those in the UK who don’t have your ill-gotten income.
Frank, you are ignorant of what a 3rd world country is.
…
My analogy applies perfectly to your warped thinking. “Excess deaths” do not define a country as 3rd world.
Frank says: “The subject is the falsehood that is AGW climatology.”
…
No the subject is that you don’t know what “3rd world country” means.
…
Labeling the UK as 3rd world is pretty dumb.
Ron Manley @ December 9, 2018 at 11:21 am and December 9, 2018 at 11:23 am
Evidently you don’t know what “irony” means, after all.
Clearly also, you intend to evade dealing with your participation in the immorality of negligent homicide by means of enforced fuel poverty.
Irony, immorality — a problem with i-words, is it?
Pat, you should address Ron’s concern that you seem to confuse 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world countries.
JPP, don’t waste your time with Frank, he doesn’t know the difference between a physical measurement error and the error involved with statistical sampling. He’s more concerned with my paycheck than the fact that he looks bad tell us that the UK is 3rd world.
J. Philip Peterson @ December 9, 2018 at 1:44 pm
Did you read the thread before posting? Do you understand that my original comment about the UK and the 3rd world was ironical?
If you don’t, there’s not point in explaining. If you do, then your post in inexplicable.
The UK has the 10s of thousands of excess winter deaths from fuel poverty one expects in a 3rd world country. But the UK is advanced. Hence the grim irony. Those deaths occur in the UK, an advanced society, because of so-called (i.e., fake) sustainable energy policies Ron Manley supports.
Deaths for which Ron Manley bears some moral responsibility. He can’t get away from that.
Ron Manley @ December 9, 2018 at 1:49 pm
Wrong again, Ron Manley. You’ve evidently either criticized my work without having even read it, or you’ve read it and understood none of it. One expects the former.
My criticism of the air temperature record relies on published sensor measurement calibration error. Not sampling error.
My criticism of climate models rests on cloud simulation error and the resultant long wave cloud forcing model calibration error. Not sampling error.
I’ve explained that to you in our prior debates. But you ignored it there, and ignore it here.
So which is it: willful ignorance or commitment to falsehood? There are no other choices. One hopes it’s ignorance.
The source of your paycheck indicates a conflict of interest between income and integrity, Ron. A conflict very relevant to the subject at hand. You can’t get away from that, either.
Your apparent inability to distinguish literality from irony makes you appear lexically deficient, Ron.
No Mr. Pat Frank, you have made a grievous error. You have posted: “Those deaths occur in the UK, an advanced society, because of so-called (i.e., fake) sustainable energy policies.” You cannot prove this as being factual. Poverty is the root cause, and you mistakenly infer it is due to “energy poverty.” You cannot do that. If a subject is poor, and they choose to purchase energy for heat instead of food, then they die of starvation. If they make the choice to purchase food and not heat, they die of cold. The root cause is poverty, it is not as you claim to be due to “energy policy.” I understand you have an axe to grind, but you have made an assertion of causation which you have no evidence to support. Now, if the “energy policy ” was a direct cause of poverty, then your claim might be valid. The cause of all of your claimed winter deaths is due to poverty, not to energy policy.
Pat Frank, how do you show causation instead of correlation with your claim(s) of “excess winter deaths?” Can we not assert that people die of the cold in winter simply because it is cold?
J. Philip Peterson @ December 9, 2018 at 6:07 pm and December 9, 2018 at 6:16 pm
“You cannot prove this as being factual. Poverty is the root cause, and you mistakenly infer it is due to “energy poverty.”
Here you are, JPP:
https://www.e3g.org/docs/E3G_NEA_Cold_homes_and_excess_winter_deaths_2018.02.pdf
“Public Health England cites studies that 10% of excess winter deaths (EWDs) are directly attributable to fuel poverty and that a fifth of EWDs are attributable to the coldest quarter of homes. This was regarded by the authors as a ‘conservative’ estimate as separately the World Health Organisation stated that 30% is the best estimated share – based on European evidence – of EWDs that can be considered attributable to cold housing conditions. This suggests that poor energy performance – manifested in homes that are hard and/or expensive to heat, thereby exacerbating the risks of respiratory and circulatory problems and poor mental health – is a significant contributory factor to the number of EWDs in the UK.“
If you download the pdf, you’ll find that “The UK experiences, on average, 32,000 deaths in each December to March period that are in excess of mortality rates across the rest of the year. Of these, 9,700 deaths are attributable to the avoidable circumstances of living in a cold home …”
Further “approximately 3,200 excess winter deaths are linked directly to people experiencing fuel poverty: that is when low incomes and high, or relatively high, energy bills combine to make a warm home unaffordable. This also leads to poor mental health such as chronic depression and in many tragic cases suicide. Fewer people die each year from drug misuse or skin cancer.”
The difference between the 9,700 and the 3,200, is that the 3,200 die in their cold homes directly from the cold itself. The remainder, 6,500 deaths, are from complications due to hypothermia. Susceptibility to disease, for example, or cardiac failure, or even suicide.
When E3G normalize their statistics for the longer conditions of cold in more northern European countries, “the UK [is] second-worst [in excess winter deaths] (after Ireland) amongst 30 European countries.”
The impact of fuel poverty on excess winter deaths was evident already back in the 1990’s: P. Aylin, et al., (2001) “Temperature, housing, deprivation and their relationship to excess winter mortality in Great Britain, 1986–1996“ International Journal of Epidemiology 30(5),1100–1108. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/30.5.1100
“Objectives: To examine the associations between temperature, housing, deprivation and excess winter mortality using census variables as proxies for housing conditions.
“Setting: Great Britain between 1986 and 1996.
“Conclusions: Excess winter mortality continues to be an important public health problem in Great Britain. There was a strong inverse association with temperature. Lack of central heating was associated with higher excess winter mortality. (my bold)”
You wrote, “Can we not assert that people die of the cold in winter simply because it is cold?”
The UK began its Low Carbon Transition Plan in July 2009, forcing consistent increases in so-called renewable energy with the concomitant and inevitable increase in fuel prices.
Figure 1 here shows winter deaths bottomed out around 2009 and have been rising ever since.
People don’t die from cold in warm homes, J. Philip. They die from cold in frigidly cold homes.
And you can thank the government of the UK for that. Their policies are loony. Their impacts are negligent homicides.
Thank you Frank, all of your reference show that if you solve the problem of poverty then you will have less death. Did you know that longevity is directly related to a society’s wealth? Who would have known?
…
PS, none of your references attribute “energy poverty” to energy policy. LOL
And JPP, why do you think they have to choose between heat and food? part of the answer is the skyrocketing costs of energy to heat one’s home due to misguided green energy policies. Absent those policies, energy would be cheaper and less people would be forced between food and heat. So yes, the thousands of excess deaths can be attributed, in part, on those policies.
Ron Manley@December 10, 2018 at 9:29 am
One can only surmise your reply is deliberately mindless.
In your mindless inference, increasing the cost of energy has no connection to the inability of poor people to warm their homes in the winter.
Perusing this thread, not one of your comments has been substantive.
In our debates, you have never been substantive.
Your everything has been mere dismissal or schoolyard-level.
The increase in the costs of energy is not a cause of poverty. The root problem is poverty, not energy policy Mr. Frank.
Frank, in the UK, rich people do not freeze to death in the winter. Energy policy and the price of fuel doesn’t affect them. If your “excess deaths” were spread evenly among all income classes, then your argument might hold water.
Frank, “excess winter deaths” is correlated to the price of heating fuel. Your mistake is confusing correlation with causation.
Frank, in the UK, rich people do not freeze to death in the winter.
no duh you idiot. The Rich can afford skyrocketing energy prices, the poor can not. Making energy expensive hurts the poor, not the rich.
Ron Manley@December 10, 2018 at 12:53 pm
Discretionary finances are causally associated with purchasing power, Ron.
One suspects you know that at some level as you pay for your lifestyle.
No discretionary money, no purchasing.
Really, your arguments are deteriorating in quality as the conversation proceeds.
Mr. Endicott hits the nail on the head. Mr. Frank’s argument that energy policy causes excess deaths is refuted by exactly what you say. Energy policy does not affect the rich, therefore Frank’s claims regarding excess deaths does not apply to all of the various classes in English society. The cause of the excess deaths is POVERTY not energy policy. Frank is confusing correlation with causation. Mr. Frank is also wrong about the quality of this conversation. He is losing, and cannot make a counter argument to refute me.
Ron Manley @ December 10, 2018 at 4:38 pm
Richard Endicott’s “duh” was sent in your direction, Ron. Refer to his “skyrocketing fuel prices” as an indication of his disagreement with you. Mr. Endicott noticed the obvious, which is that your recourse to the rich not dying of fuel poverty is a specious diversion.
It’s further obvious to anyone with a brain that rising fuel prices disproportionately affect the poor.
Rising fuel prices is a deliberate policy of the British government. Excess winter deaths of the poor, who must choose between food and heat, is an unintended but fully predictable consequence.
And you sport the argument while people die, Ron. Well done.
” rising fuel prices disproportionately affect the poor.”
….
EXACTLY. It’s the poverty that causes the excess deaths. The energy policy does not cause excess deaths among the rich.
…
You need to read up on what is known in statistics as a “confounding variable.” You obviously overlooked this facet of study in your flaccid attempt at pinning the blame on energy policy.
Ron Manley: Frank, “excess winter deaths” is correlated to the price of heating fuel.
John Endicott: no duh you idiot. The Rich can afford skyrocketing energy prices, the poor can not. Making energy expensive hurts the poor, not the rich.
Ron Manley:Mr. Endicott hits the nail on the head.
Ron, thanks for agree that I hit the nail on the head about you being an idiot.
Mr. Frank’s argument that energy policy causes excess deaths is refuted by exactly what you say
no, it refutes what *YOU* say, you self-admitted idiot.
Energy policy does not affect the rich, therefore Frank’s claims regarding excess deaths does not apply to all of the various classes in English society.
It doesn’t have to affect the rich. What part of “fuel poverty” do you think is supposed to apply to the rich? “fuel poverty” applies to the poor (the hint is in the name). You make fuel expensive those that can least afford the increase in price are the one that will suffer for it. Why do you hate to poor so much that you have no problem supporting policies that result in excessive deaths of the poor?
.
EXACTLY. It’s the poverty that causes the excess deaths. The energy policy does not cause excess deaths among the rich.
Again, it doesn’t have to affect the rich. It’s called fuel poverty not fuel abundance. You raise the prices beyond what the poor can afford and it is the poor that die. Don’t raise the price above what the poor can afford and the poor don’t die. It’s the *unnecessary* increase in the cost of energy that is the cause.
Endicott, let me explain it to you in very simple terms. The root cause of the “excess deaths” is poverty, not energy policy. If you eliminate the poverty the “excess deaths” vanish. I don’t think I can make it any simpler for you. Attributing the “excess deaths” to energy policy ignores the confounding variable of poverty.
Endicott, let me explain it to you in very simple terms.
No, Ron, let me explain it to you in simple terms. The root cause is increasing the price of energy to the point that those who previous could afford it can no longer do so. It’s creating poverty for those who are on the margin. If you can afford energy at price X but cannot afford it at X+Y when winter comes, you are going to suffer where before you did not. If you reduce the price of energy, the excess deaths vanish because they appeared due to you pricing the poor out of the market. Raising the cost of the essentials for living hurts those who can least afford the increase. Yet you wholeheartedly support the policies that hurts them the most.
Ron Manley@December 11, 2018 at 5:23 am
You wrote, “EXACTLY. It’s the poverty that causes the excess deaths. The energy policy does not cause excess deaths among the rich.”
Let’s see if the point can be made clear for you: poor people are further impoverished when rising energy prices require more than their meager finances can accommodate.
In other words, the raising of energy costs converts almost poor people into actual poor people.
When rising costs of energy exceed what the almost poor can pay, the almost poor become actual poor. Actual poor who can’t buy energy.
Their homes, once warm during Winter, become frigid. They die of the cold.
UK policies mandate rising energy costs. UK policies cause almost poor people to no longer afford the energy necessary to warm their homes.
UK policies raise prices. UK policies convert the almost poor into actual poor. UK policies thereby cause poverty. UK policies make people poor and then kill them.
Ron Manley spoofs intractable ignorance.
The increasing price of energy does not cause “excess deaths” among the rich. You seem to have missed the confounding variable there Mr. Endicott. The root cause is poverty.
Now Mr. Endicott, I’ll introduce you to an additional “confounding variable” in the measurement of “excess deaths.” Given two years with identical prices for heating fuel, the number of “excess deaths” will be proportional to the average temperature experienced during the heating season. If one of the years is COLDER than the other, you’ll get more “excess deaths.”
…
Not as simple as it seems!
Ron Manley@December 11, 2018 at 10:22 am
Apparently it takes excess intelligence to understand that forcing energy prices up causes more people to become poor and more to die of Winter cold.
Ron Manley@December 11, 2018 at 10:26 am
“Given two years with identical prices for heating fuel, the number of “excess deaths” will be proportional to the average temperature experienced during the heating season.”
Rather, under those conditions, excess deaths will more likely be proportional to the number of consequtive extremely cold days.
For example, “Although there was no relationship between winter severity and annual excess winter deaths, there was a clear correlation with annual cold-attributable deaths.”
Also, “[since 1997] there is no annual correlation between excess winter deaths and winter weather. However, winter weather and specific cold impacts are highly correlated.”
You wrote, “If one of the years is COLDER than the other, you’ll get more “excess deaths.””
Evidently not.
…
“Not as simple as it seems!”
Evidently so. Nor as you suppose.
Pat Frank posts: “UK policies mandate rising energy costs” in this comment: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/07/trump-has-another-plan-up-his-sleeve-to-rescue-ailing-coal-plants/#comment-2553788
..
The problem is that UK’s policy does not mandate costs. Pat Frank is dead wrong.
Ron Manly
Oh, you’re right. The UK renewables-Green subsidies-wasted money on windmills and solar and added fuel taxes only mandate prices. Not costs.
Pat Frank is finally admitting that there are confounding variables in his analysis of “excess deaths.” He posts: “Rather, under those conditions, excess deaths will more likely be proportional to the number of consequtive extremely cold days.”
….
Thank you Pat
Excellent Frank…..” However, winter weather and specific cold impacts are highly correlated.”
…
You can start with that when you begin your study of the confounding variables that impact “excess deaths.”
Ron Manley@December 11, 2018 at 11:56 am; 11:56 am; 12:45 pm
Leave it to you to tendentiously distort contravening data to your own benefit, Ron.
You claimed that, “Given two years with identical prices for heating fuel, the number of “excess deaths” will be proportional to the average temperature experienced during the heating season. If one of the years is COLDER than the other, you’ll get more “excess deaths.””
Which is exactly falsified by published work that states, “there was no relationship between winter severity and annual excess winter deaths.”
You’re proven wrong yet again, Ron.
It’s not average temperatures, Ron. It’s cold spells.
It’s not “COLDER” years, Ron. It’s cold spells.
“Winter weather” is not climate and not average Winter temperature, Ron. It’s cold spells.
For a guy who purportedly advises others, you have considerable difficulty being true to the integrity of the data.
Frank posts: “there was no relationship between winter severity and annual excess winter deaths.”
…
Frank posts: “winter weather and specific cold impacts are highly correlated.”.”
…
Frank needs to make up his mind.
PS Frank, eliminate the poverty and all the “excess deaths” go away. That, in and of itself proves causation, not your preposterous claim that it is due to policy.
Ron Manley@December 11, 2018 at 5:05 pm
You display no understanding of the difference between weather and climate, Ron. And yet you bill yourself as a professional hydrologist.
That suggests you’re either incompetent generally or opportunistically ignorant here.
At this point, it’s hard to know the correct option.
Ron Manley@December 11, 2018 at 5:12 pm
You wrote, “eliminate the poverty and all the “excess deaths” go away. ”
Right, Ron. You allow that if we eliminate poverty, the stupid policies of the UK will cause no deaths.
Therefore, it’s not the idiotic policies that increase the price of fuel that in turn causes the increased fuel poverty deaths.
No. It’s the increase in poverty itself. The increase in poverty that, prior to the idiotic policies, did not exist.
Let’s see … how best can we illustrate the deep wisdom of Ron Manley’s insight.
I know: Ron Manley’s wisdom tells us that it’s not poor hydrological polices that can cause disastrous flooding. Nope. It’s the existence of water itself.
Ron Maley’s logic is eliminate the water and, ‘Hey presto!,’ no more flooding. It’s not the policies, it’s the water!
Thank-you Ron! That clears up the question of flooding, doesn’t it.
There’s your thinking in action, Ron. Do introduce it to your hydrology clientele. They’ll be so impressed with your professional acumen.
Give it up Frank, you’ve lost. The root cause of “excess deaths” is poverty, not energy policy. Your attribution of the cause of “excess deaths” to policy demonstrates your lack of understanding of cause and effect, especially with regards to socioeconomic issues. Labeling the policies as “stupid” and as “idiotic” shows your inherent bias in determining attribution. Stick with chemistry because you are a total failure at ANOVA.
The most hilarious thing you’ve stated Frank is that you say energy policy in the UK causes poverty.
..
You posted: ” The increase in poverty that, prior to the idiotic policies, did not exist.”
..
Well that is the dumbest thing you said, especially since your supposed “cause” of said poverty happens only in winter. What about in summer where there are no “excess deaths?”
I have to hand it to you Pat Frank, you certainly are creative. You have created “seasonal poverty” in the UK. Poverty in the UK increases in winter, and decreases in summer.
The increasing price of energy does not cause “excess deaths” among the rich.
You keep repeating this meaningless bit. So I’ll repeat my response for yout “no duh you idiot. The Rich can afford skyrocketing energy prices, the poor can not. Making energy expensive hurts the poor, not the rich.”
When you increase the costs of necessities, you force those on the margin into the “poor” category. It’s the large increase in energy prices that is cause more people to be poor and more poor people to die as they choose between food and fuel. thus excess deaths. Don’t increase the price of energy and those excess deaths don’t happen. You want to solve poverty, start but making energy cheaper not more expensive.
Ron Manley@December 11, 2018 at 7:11 pm
Evidently the concept of induced poverty is lost on you, Ron. The idea that raising the costs of energy converts almost poor people into actual poor people. It doesn’t seem a hard concept, but is apparently beyond your grasp.
Policies based on ameliorating AGW are objectively idiotic, demonstrated here and here.
Not that you’d ever admit it. But I write for the others who will understand.
It’s not bias to conclude what is demonstrated.
Ron Manley@December 11, 2018 at 7:17 pm
You wrote, “Well that is the dumbest thing you said, especially since your supposed “cause” of said poverty happens only in winter. What about in summer where there are no “excess deaths?””
Is there need to heat one’s house in the UK summer, Ron? No, is it?
Ah.
Who’s dumb then? One who can’t distinguish between the need for heating fuel in the Winter versus in the Summer, or one who can do?
Ron Manley@December 11, 2018 at 7:24 pm
It is not I who have increased the poverty in the Winter, Ron.
It’s the government of the UK. Through their idiotic policies that raise the price of heating fuel.
Abetted by you.
Rising costs of heating energy does not convert an “almost poor” person to a “poor person” in the summertime. Apparently the idea that poverty is a seasonal affliction seems lost on you. Of course, you could resolve your misconceptions if you could show us all that “execess deaths” occur in the summertime due to “fuel poverty.”
…
Now, Mr. Frank, being that you are a real honest to God scientist, can you tell me what is the scientific definition of the term “idiotic?” Is the term defined in physics, biology, or chemistry? Please provide a reference link to the appropriate scientific definition…..thank you
…
Again, the root cause of the excess deaths is poverty Mr. Frank, it is not the policies of the government.
Hey Frank, how do you explain this with regard to UK’s energy policy?
..
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/12/renewable-energy-reduces-power-prices-by-more-than-cost-of-subsidies-study-finds/#comment-2554969
Ron Manley@December 12, 2018 at 12:41 pm
Be repetitive and adamantine in your mistake as much as you like, Ron. It won’t change anything. You were wrong at the start. You’re still wrong.
Fuel poverty in Winter causes excess deaths from cold. UK policies increase the price of fuel.
Ergo, UK-caused increased fuel prices cause increased fuel poverty cause excess Winter deaths from cold.
The logic is transparent for anyone but you.
Your performance does qualify you to engage in AGW science fakery, though.
You make your living doing that, don’t you.
Ron Manley@December 12, 2018 at 12:44 pm
“Hey Frank, how do you explain this with regard to UK’s energy policy?”
If you mean the study the head-post essay describes, then I explain your acceptance of that as evidence that you uncritically embrace nonsense when it suits your prejudice, Ron.
If you mean Roger Knights’ comment at the link you provided then you evidently overlooked the fact that he disputed the idea that so-called renewables are cheaper than gas power.
That idea that wind or solar are cheap is a crock
To quote: “Levelized cost comparisons are a misleading metric for comparing intermittent and dispatchable generating technologies because they fail to take into account differences in the production profiles of intermittent and dispatchable generating technologies and the associated large variations in the market value of the electricity they supply.“
Wind and solar are damn cheap in Texas.
…
Actually Pat Frank you and the axe you have to grind ignores the root cause of the excess deaths. The root cause is poverty period.
Rising costs of heating energy does not convert an “almost poor” person to a “poor person” in the summertime.
LOL Ron thinks energy is only used for heating and that increases in the price of energy only affect people’s pocketbooks in winter.
And to further connect the dots for you, as you have shown yourself incapable of doing so for yourself, rising energy prices makes “almost poor” people into “poor” people all year round. It’s just that
1) cold is the deadliest of conditions, so if you can’t heat your home in winter you run the risk of freezing to death. No risk of freezing to death in summer. duh.
2) Winter is very energy intensive for survival (IE for heating ones home), so someone who barely makes ends meet in less energy intensive months of the year can find themselves really struggling once winter hits.
Bottom line, if you care about poverty (as you claim to do) than raising the cost of necessities (like energy that is used to heat ones home during the deadly cold months of winter) is the wrong thing to be doing as it only makes poverty worse both for the existing poor who are barely getting by as it is and the almost poor whom such an increase will push down into poverty. And forcing more people to have to choose between food on the table or heat in the home only increases the number of excess deaths in winter.
You guys crack me up. When the global market for oil collapses, and the price of a barrel of oil plummets, automagically poverty in the UK is diminished. Funny how UK energy policy has very little effect on the global price of a barrel of crude. So Pat Frank, take you contention that UK energy policy causes excess deaths, and sell it to the Saudis that pump the oil.
….
You can eliminate all of the “excess deaths” by eliminating poverty.
Ron Manley@December 13, 2018 at 12:14 pm
“Wind and solar are damn cheap in Texas.”
Read here, “Wind developers are the beneficiaries of disproportionate levels and types of government aid. At the federal level, they receive a production tax credit, which costs taxpayers over $5 billion per year. On top of that, Texas stepped in, providing billions of dollars of additional state and local subsidies.”
Cheap indeed. High costs hidden from the taxpayer, rather. It’s tax-farming through-and-through.
Ron Manley@December 13, 2018 at 3:01 pm
“You can eliminate all of the “excess deaths” by eliminating poverty.”
Finally you get something right, Ron. But by recourse to a truism.
You can eliminate foreshortened lives by eliminating disease. Yessiree, there’s another deep insight courtesy of Ron Manley’s truistic logic.
But then poverty and disease aren’t eliminated, are they. And while poverty exists, imposed increases in fuel costs increase poverty, increase excess deaths in Winter.
And let’s not forget your logic applied to hydrology: eliminate all floods by eliminating water. Deep thinking you’ve got there, Ron, deep thinking.
Frank posts: “imposed increases in fuel costs.”
….
That is not happening in the UK. Costs are not imposed at all. You have no clue what is happening in the UK.
The reason you are wrong about “imposed costs” is very simple. The green policies of the UK do not impact the price of a barrel of oil in the UK. That price is determined by the global market, with supply/demand in control. If the price of a barrel of oil skyrockets, do you get more “excess deaths” in the UK?
…
Another confounding factor that Mr. Frank is incapable of handling with his simplistic, and erroneous attribution of the cause of excess deaths to green policy.
Ron Manley@December 13, 2018 at 5:32 pm
Home heating oil price in the UK has increased from EU 300 per 1000 L in 2000 to EU 638 now, with a peak of EU 700 in 2008 and EU 877 in 2012. Average increase is 23 EU per year.
Since 2006 UK electricity generation has gone from 40% coal to nearly zero coal today, while wind, solar and bio, subsidized all, have gone from about 2% to 14%.
Meanwhile DRAX, the largest power plant in the UK, has gone from burning coal to burning wood chips, as imposed by UIK policies.
DRAX supplies 11% of UK electricity and is selling power at 105 pounds/MWh, twice the going price in the UK, all the while receiving 1.7 bn pounds in subsidy for just one of its six stations.
Scottish Power, clever folks as they are, go to 100% wind power (all subsidized), and intends to raise prices.
There’s your, “That is not happening in the UK.” It seems you have no clue what is happening in the UK, Ron.
Your little cavil, “Costs are not imposed at all. is a specious evasion.
Modes of power generation are imposed. Costs follow the inefficiencies imposed by loonie policies. And excess Winter deaths follow.
Deaths from under which you try to, but cannot, squirm, Ron.
Ron Manley@December 13, 2018 at 5:36 pm … attempts a very disingenuous diversion: “The green policies of the UK do not impact the price of a barrel of oil in the UK.”
Rather, green policies impact the price of power in the UK. Dissemblance becomes you, Ron. It’s your stock-in-trade here.
Meanwhile, the UK banned fracking for 7 years. That didn’t impact the price of oil in the UK, did it Ron.
The UK has considerable shale oil reserves. Fracking was recently allowed again. But the UK government requires an 18 hr shut-down every time a 0.5 Richter temblor happens. That costs £70,500 each time and happens about once a week.
Richter 0.5 is so weak, the movement can’t be felt on the surface. But the imposed penalties are likely to kill the fracking effort.
Loonie green policies once again making everything expensive. But they don’t affect oil prices in the UK, do they Ron.
Another personal failure for you to evade.
Pat Frank shows how ignorant he is of the market for oil. He states, ” That didn’t impact the price of oil in the UK, did it Ron.”…..in fact it did not. Oil prices are not set in the UK by local supply. Oil prices are determined in the global market. Should global oil prices decline enough, fracking can become uneconomic. I’m impressed by how little you know about energy economics Frank.
Here is the perfect example of Pat Franks inability to understand the energy market. He posts: “The UK has considerable shale oil reserves.” However the link he provides is about shale gas. Pat Frank doesn’t know the difference between natural gas and oil.
Ron Manley@December 14, 2018 at 5:09 am
And, of course, a UK awash in shale oil would have no impact on global markets, nor upon the price of oil in the UK.
Here’s your logic, Ron: the UK did not develop shale oil. International oil markets remained as they were. Were the UK to in fact become awash in shale oil, international oil markets would remain as they were.
And in light of that monument to economic nonsense, you spuriously criticise me for not knowing about economics.
You’re a special case, Ron Manley.
Ron Manley@December 14, 2018 at 5:12 am
You wrote, “Here is the perfect example of Pat Franks inability to understand the energy market. He posts: “The UK has considerable shale oil reserves.” However the link he provides is about shale gas. Pat Frank doesn’t know the difference between natural gas and oil.”
The first sentence in the linked article says this, “Some experts predict that if onshore and offshore reserves of shale oil in Britain meet or exceed their estimates, the country could actually go beyond being energy self-sufficient. (my bold)”
Further down, “It’s believed that there will be much more shale oil and gas reserves offshore as compared to onshore…(my bold)”
It appears your evident problem with dislexia is getting the better of you again, Ron.
Pat Frank can’t read his own link.
.
1) Page title: “Shale Gas Fracking”
.
2) 2nd subtitle: “Shale Gas Reserves – How much is there in the UK?”
.
3) They estimate: “Reserves of UK offshore shale gas may eventually exceed 1,000 trillion cubic fee”
.
4) There is no estimate on the number of barrels of shale oil.
.
They have yet to pump one barrel of shale oil.
…
Get a grip Franky
Ron Manley@December 14, 2018 at 10:16 am
The point was about shale oil, Ron.
The article addresses shale oil, Ron. It said that the “reserves of shale oil in Britain [could make the UK] actually go beyond being energy self-sufficient.”
That the article primarily concerns shale gas does not mean that it excludes relevant mention of shale oil, Ron.
Did my argument not say, “The UK has considerable shale oil reserves. (bold added)”
“Considerable,” Ron. No number attached.
Does beyond self-sufficient directly imply “considerable,” in Ron Manley logic, Ron?
Maybe not, because then you crow that, “There is no estimate on the number of barrels of shale oil.”
No one referred to numbers, Ron. Until your triumph-clutching non-sequitur.
Your argument stretches well beyond reason into the factually irrational.
It wasn’t in your interest to do any research, either, was it. Too eager for vain crowing, likely.
In any case, “The risked, technically recoverable shale resources of the U.K. are estimated at 26 Tcf of shale gas and 0.7 billion barrels of shale oil and condensate in two assessed regions, Tables XI-1 and XI-2. This is based on the much larger unrisked estimates of 623 Tcf of shale gas in-place (134 Tcf, risked) and 54 Bbbl of shale oil in-place (17 billion barrels, risked). These estimates reflect only the higher-TOC portions of the Carboniferous and Jurassic shale intervals. (pdf)”
Tcf is trillion (10^12) cubic feet.
Bbbl is billion (10^9) barrels.
TOC is ‘total organic carbon.’
“Risked” means, “estimating the volume of in-place resources for a prospective formation within a basin, and then factoring in the formation’s success factor and recovery factor. The success factor represents the probability that a portion of the formation is expected to have attractive oil and natural gas flow rates. The recovery factor takes into consideration the capability of current technology to produce oil and natural gas from formations with similar geophysical characteristics.”
And, Ron Manley logic applying, recovering all that shale gas and oil will have no impact on the price of a barrel of oil in the UK, and do nothing to lower the cost of home heating, or reduce the number of excess Winter deaths from cold.
Right.
One after another your positions have been falsified, Ron. And your arguments have gotten wilder and more irrational as the thread progressed.
Your point is about shale oil, the point of the article is about shale gas. </b.
..
They don't have a clue how much shale oil is there, they are assuming that since there is gas, there might be oil, but they don’t know. If they knew there was oil there they would provide an estimate the resource.
..
You’ve now shown all of us that you don’t have a clue about either shale gas, or shale oil. You post an article that says there might be oil in the formation, when not a single barrel has been recovered.
…
Frank, you are supposedly a chemist/scientist: “considerable” has no numeric value.
…
Now to show how ignorant you are about oil you posted “0.7 billion barrels” of oil. Do you even know how much that is? Let me clue you in, since you are clue less. The global consumption of oil has exceeded 100 million barrels per day, so the UK has the equivalent of seven days of world oil consumption. I believe the term is “a drop in the bucket.”
…
They haven’t even produced as single barrel as of today!!!!!
…
….
I would think a chemist would not be so numerically challenged.
Mr. Ignorant of How Things Work thinks that: ” recovering all that shale gas and oil will have no impact on the price of a barrel of oil in the UK”
…
Mr Ignorant forgot to consider that if it is cheaper to import the gas/oil than it is to produce it locally, nobody will invest the capital required for local production if it is not profitable, and less costly to import.
..
The chemist does not have a clue about economics, yet he trumpets some bizarre concept of “energy poverty” causing excess deaths.
Ron Manley @December 14, 2018 at 10:16 am again
“Pat Frank can’t read his own link.” Yet one more foolish charge from Ron Manley
Directly falsified by the quotes confirming my point.
“1) Page title: “Shale Gas Fracking”” Irrelevant “
2) 2nd subtitle: “Shale Gas Reserves – How much is there in the UK?” Irrelevant
The article references considerable shale oil reserves. Which was my entire point. Your irrelevancies notwithstanding
. 3) They estimate: “Reserves of UK offshore shale gas may eventually exceed 1,000 trillion cubic fee””
Yet another irrelevance.
How you can possibly conclude that a discussion of gas obviates the explicit mention of large shale oil reserves is beyond rational understanding.
One can only chalk it up to an unhealthy desire to wring an argument from the proof of one’s own defeat.
“4) There is no estimate on the number of barrels of shale oil.”
Where was a number ever offered? Your obsessive focus on the non-existent isn’t consistent with a stable mind, Ron.
From the article; “It’s believed that there will be much more shale oil and gas reserves offshore as compared to onshore, according to Nigel Smith. … a geophysicist at the British Geological Survey and a subsurface geologist.”
If you’re so obsessed as to need a number, Ron, there’s a comparative estimate for you right from the article.
I’m sure your quantitative hydrological skills will allow you to estimate a lower limit of offshore reserves. For yourself. Nothing else and no one else requires one.
“They have yet to pump one barrel of shale oil.”
Because of the UK government loonies have blocked fracking, Ron.
The same loonies who impose policies that raise the price of domestic energy, send the poorer populace into fuel poverty, and cause excess Winter deaths. Ron.
Loonies whose stupid death-dealing policies you support. Ron. … “Get a grip Franky”
You’ve lost the debate on the merits, Ron. Which is why you increasingly have recourse to juvenile derision.
Ron Manley @December 14, 2018 at 10:16 am
“Pat Frank can’t read his own link.” Yet one more foolish charge from Ron Manley
Directly falsified by the quotes confirming my point.
“1) Page title: “Shale Gas Fracking”” Irrelevant “
2) 2nd subtitle: “Shale Gas Reserves – How much is there in the UK?” Irrelevant
The article references considerable shale oil reserves. Which was my entire point. Your irrelevancies notwithstanding
. 3) They estimate: “Reserves of UK offshore shale gas may eventually exceed 1,000 trillion cubic fee””
Yet another irrelevance.
How you can possibly conclude that a discussion of gas obviates the explicit mention of large shale oil reserves is beyond rational understanding.
One can only chalk it up to an unhealthy desire to wring an argument from the proof of one’s own defeat.
“4) There is no estimate on the number of barrels of shale oil.”
Where was a number ever offered? Your obsessive focus on the non-existent isn’t consistent with a stable mind, Ron.
From the article; “It’s believed that there will be much more shale oil and gas reserves offshore as compared to onshore, according to Nigel Smith. … a geophysicist at the British Geological Survey and a subsurface geologist.”
If you’re so obsessed as to need a number, Ron, there’s a comparative estimate for you right from the article.
I’m sure your quantitative hydrological skills will allow you to estimate a lower limit of offshore reserves. For yourself. Nothing else and no one else requires one.
“They have yet to pump one barrel of shale oil.”
Because of the UK government loonies have blocked fracking, Ron.
The same loonies who impose policies that raise the price of domestic energy, send the poorer populace into fuel poverty, and cause excess Winter deaths. Ron.
Loonies whose stupid death-dealing policies you support. Ron. … “Get a grip Franky”
You’ve lost the debate on the merits, Ron. Which is why you increasingly have recourse to juvenile derision.
Ron Manley@December 14, 2018 at 7:31 pm
“Mr. Ignorant of How Things Work thinks that: ” recovering all that shale gas and oil will have no impact on the price of a barrel of oil in the UK””
Wrong again, Ron. That was your view, not mine.
Your position is now so depauperate that you’re assigning your views to me, and then disputing your own views. Incredible.
“Mr Ignorant forgot to consider that if it is cheaper to import the gas/oil than it is to produce it locally, nobody will invest the capital required for local production if it is not profitable, and less costly to import. (my bold)”
If, if, if, Ron. According to the BBC the UK gets 67% of its oil and 53% of its gas from domestic production.
Apparently, ifs aside, it is cheaper to produce oil and gas in the UK than to import it.
We’ve already established in this thread that fracked gas and oil are made more expensive in the UK because of government regulation.
The relative base cost of fracked gas and oil is subject to technology. It’s somewhat more expensive than conventional oil now, but who knows what the future will bring.
Several companies — Cuadrilla, IGAS, Dart — are presently investing in UK shale. Suppose you let them decide the economics, Ron. They’ve apparently set aside your “if.”
“The chemist does not have a clue about economics, yet he trumpets some bizarre concept of “energy poverty” causing excess deaths.”
Yet once again, “approximately 3,200 excess winter deaths are linked directly to people experiencing fuel poverty: that is when low incomes and high, or relatively high, energy bills combine to make a warm home unaffordable.”
For you, factual denial is an argument.
You’re a special case, Ron.
Showing correlation is a necessary but not sufficient step in establishing a causal relationship. It is difficult to to prove from the climate record alone whether CO2 causes high atmospheric temperatures or high temperatures cause higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Because this thread is about CO2 emissions from coal powered electricity plants I only requested cost- benefit analyses for atmospheric levels of CO2, but a cost-benefit analysis of warmer temperatures needs to be broadcast as well. The public has been misinformed about the supposed harm warming a degree or two would do to our well-being.
I know these things have been posted repeatedly on this and other blog sites, but there needs to be outreaches that match the scale of “An inconvenient Truth” and disaster flicks like “the Day After Tomorrow” (No, I do not have the wherewithal to pay for such things.)
I just watched “Downsizing”. What a bunch of misleading blather about the threat of methane releases from a warming Antarctica!
SR
That movie bombed.
Agree with Tom H.
Coal plants have to have a working lifetime of at least 20 years to be profitable, and bet there won’t be any open after 2030 or 2035, regardless of the administration.
Hopefully, the anti-CO2 craziness will be well and truly over by 2030.
The RELIABILITY of coal /fossil fuel fired electricity generation will again come to the fore.
There are PLENTY of new coal fired power stations being built around the world, these will be providing plant sustenance for at least another 40-50 years.
Then add in the new ones that will be built in once “developed” countries once the population realises how much they have been conned.
Don’t count on that at all. One of the two major U.S. political parties hates the working and middle class and embraces a policy of moving in new voters because they don’t like the voters already here. The question is, does the Supreme Court permit what’s not constitutional? If they do, then liberty loses and liberty is what this is about. That political party also hates liberty. They abhor it.
The limit started out as 1000 lbs/mwh. I attended a conference where an EPA employee described all the lives that will be saved by this very reasonable and cost effective limit for CO2. Their modelling showed that it could be economically done and would save many lives. There was no way that you could get in investor to invest money in a new coal fired power plant with that limit.
The next speaker showed the economics used by the EPA of building coal fired plants meeting the 1000 lbs/mwh was a fantasy. It was based on every ideal assumption that you could be made. Also there was no validity to the lives saved that was predicted by the model. The data input into the models are not available to the general public.
Public comments helped to bump the 1000 lbs/mwh to 1400 lbs/mwh. Even with that limit new plants would not be built. With the 1900 lbs/mwh there is a remote possibility. However coal has become such a dirty work that getting a permit to build a coal fired plant would be almost impossible.
A great example is the last project I worked on several years ago. The permits were being applied for, the plant was going to be one of the cleanest coal fired plants in the world. All the air quality control equipment, high efficiency, super critical etc. At a meeting to approve the sale of the property where the plant was to be built the environmentalists showed up and convinced the local residents that they would all be harmed by the plant. A baby doll was thrown on the floor in front of the meeting and it was shouted that this plant would emit lots of mercury and kill our babies. The counsel voted overwhelming against the project in spite of the support all during the process.
The Obama rule claimed that carbon collection and carbon sequestration control equipment was ready for prime time and could be installed on new power plants. Of course that is not the case so new power plants could not be built. The new rate sounds like a requirement for a super critical plant that is more efficient than existing plants.
25% increase in CO2 production isn’t a big win it’s a fudge around the real problem. Too short sighted and just waiting for another administration to lower it. That being said, I’ll take any win anytime.
If they start construction then there will have to be compensation for them to stop.
sub-$5 natural gas killed coal.
Wrong… Excessive regulations killed coal. If regulations rolled back to the perfectly fine ones of the year 2000, electricity from coal would cost less than 10c s kwhr. Only things that drive the price up was regulations.
One of the best scientific presentations I’ve seen on the relationship between Earth’s temperature & CO2 atmospheric levels. Piers Corbyn also has numerous videos on youtube refuting the human-made climate change scenario.
Dr. Pierre Latour
Engineering Earth’s Thermostat with CO2?
https://youtu.be/bJ55koi7vaA
Review notes: Review of control system engineering of Earth’s thermostat with anthropogenic CO2 in 1997 proved it will never work because it is an unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable system. CO2 does not affect temperature; temperature affects CO2. There are no greenhouse gases in physics. CO2 is not a pollutant; it is green plant food.
Spot the pea and thimble trick when you consciously bankrupt investment in large centralised coal fired power stations?
https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/personalfinance/renewable-energy-reduces-power-prices-by-more-than-cost-of-subsidies-study-finds/ar-BBQBgs9
and no mention of the costs involved with hitching up so many disparate generators and the concomitant FCAS costs that go along with it. FCAS returns which the owners of the Hornsedale Tesla Big Battery are only too happy to plunder to show their Green credentials-
https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/true-cost-of-sas-big-tesla-battery-revealed/news-story/4c6dbf0505b6b0a6697ab8fc97cdf9b2
Was Pres. Obama a fully paid up member of the Green Party, and if so why. Was this all a part of the UN ideal for World Govt.
I accept that the use of natural gas is better for fossal fuel power plants, but fr way back we have been told that coal is too good a substance a burn, its full of good stuff. If so then lets use that stuff.
Another thing, coal is in effect natures solar energy’s battery, it t can just sit there as a big hep of energy waiting to be used. How many other energy substances can say that.
As one reader states, why is it that the EPA does not challenge the Court ruling that CO2 is a pollutant. As I have mentioned in the past CO2 is the key card in the whole rotten “House of Cards “which is the Warmers giant sized scam. Remove it and hopefully the scam will finally come to a end.
This applies Worlkd Wide, I doubt if the leader here in Australiaa of the Labour Party would still call for a 40 % renewables if the CO2 properganda was exposed as nothing more than much needed Plant Food.
MJE
“we have been told that coal is too good a substance a burn, its full of good stuff. If so then let’s use that stuff.”
Totally agree & people would be up in arms if they knew (like killing elephants just for tusks, rhinos for horns, sharks for fin soup…), but the IPCC etc have been chanting ‘dirty, pollution’ for years after UKs PM Mrs. Thatcher used the idea to help defeat the miners union 1983-85.
Coal gasification unlocks a cornucopia of chemical feedstock plus clean burning fuels (methane, hydrogen & coke)
…”but fr way back we have been told that coal is too good a substance a burn, its full of good stuff. If so then lets use that stuff.”
Too right! I have been wondering the same thing myself, why burn it if we can use it to make useful stuff to sell for value-added prices?
That said, if we do continue to burn it, the carbon endangerment nonsense has to go, it is totally absurd as there is no danger from carbon or CO2. That Obama’s EPA was able to push that through the Supreme Court is so outrageous that it always leaves me sputtering in futile fury.
Rising levels of carbon dioxide do not cause rises in temperature, this is physically impossible and claiming otherwise just indicates the speaker has a sketchy knowledge of physical science. This is another bit of Algorism that needs to be stricken from the record.
I like to bring things back to everyday numbers for ease of understanding of what is being said.
1900lbs/mWh is a fairly abstract number to most of us. Few people are involved in mWh activities in their normal day. So lets consider the average car.
A gallon of fuel diesel or petrol is roughly 40 kWh energy store or 34 kWh if using little American gallons. It enables me to do about 40 miles/gallon so, conveniently for us Brits. that’s 1kWh/mile. Thankfully the size of the gallon does not change the 1kWh/mile ratio. 🙂
One imperial gallon, diesel or petrol produces roughly 24lbs of CO2 for 40kWh thus 1000kWh or 1 mWh is 25 times that so 600lbs/mWh, CO2 production in my car.
Now I am pretty sure, all coal generating plants are more efficient than my Kuga, so why is 1900lbs/mWh a stretch?
For the sake of simplicity, I have ignored/averaged the difference in Btu’s in diesel and petrol or gasoline
Am I missing something?
It’s interesting that Roy Evens is bringing into discussion a practical, real world comparison. I applaud you for it. What you are missing however is the efficiency of the the internal combustion engine. If we assume a 30% efficiency [common otto cycle], and divide the 600 lb/mWh by 0.30, then we get 2,000 lb CO2/mWh, which is in line with the new coal plant emission standard.
How is it that no one has specified the CO2 emission from the new, typical super critical coal plants. There must be a half dozen people on this site that know the answer. I’ curious as to how close it is to the 1900 lb/mKh limit.
And I know that toyota is using the atkenson cycle on their hybrids. Please don’t post about it because it’s beside the point.
Michael,
Please look again at the numbers. You will see the efficiency issue is covered by the fact I am using actual consumption, which includes the innate efficiency of the engine.
The modern road cars will achieve ~600lbs/mWh if my experience is typical.
“Another thing, coal is in effect natures solar energy’s battery, it t can just sit there as a big hep of energy waiting to be used. How many other energy substances can say that.”
Well we could bypass the stockpile and go direct for the source with E=mc2 but I’m always bemused that those who believe in Gaia’s great works can’t believe we’re also part of the grand plan to avail ourselves of the stockpile to release and fertilise all Gaia’s plants. If you open yourself completely to Gaia she’ll come to you in light bulb moments like that whenever you flick a switch.
Must say:
I appreciate his efforts to put more ‘dung’ in the air as this promotes life on earth.
Perhaps we must tell him to go a bit easier on the foreigners?
e.g.
http://breadonthewater.co.za/2018/11/24/looking-for-merciful-samaritans/
When rescuing a drowning victim, step one is to pull them from the water. But unless you go to step 2, CPR, the victim will still die. So coal is at step one – it’s been pulled from the water. Yay.
Oh, and about that “cheap natural gas” meme; 1) It isn’t available everywhere, only where there are pipelines. And, irony of ironies, the enviro whackos have teamed up with the climate numpties and other assorted energy luddites and haters of progress to shut those down in some places, so congrats to them on that. Good job. And 2), It isn’t always so cheap, having a nasty habit of spiking in price when demand is unusually high.
If he got rid of the EPA’s MATS regs that PURPOSELY limit mercury emissions to near-impossible levels, the coal plants could live w/the other regs.
To amend my above reply, coal plants could live w/the other regs, but obviously NOT including the CO2 crap, as Trump is hopefully addressing.
I do wonder that even through this fine site for publication of important and factual reports, we have people who consistently ignore facts that necessitate our use of fossil fuels for mine and theirs lifetime, without any danger to our Mother Earth.
The honest research that goes on without the corruption of those who seek to harness money through fear, will ultimately provide our future with the energy we need.
I hope those honest scientists will continue to lambast and publish lies told by those destructive and greedy people, eg Al Gore, and allow the intelligence of ordinary folk to acquire the knowledge they want.
Agree 100%
To date I have seen no real evidence that CO2 is even a problem much less a pollutant. Will be real interesting to see how we meet our energy needs in the future. Still trying to figure out why wind and solar are so much more expensive than coal and NG.