Kemper Coal Gasification & Storage Plant Imploded (Obama’s climate ‘centerpiece’ bites the dust)

Reposted from MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr. — October 13, 2021

“Goodbye and good riddance to the most expensive, and the most useless clean coal facility ever built.” (Angus Harvey, below)

The quick fix of coal gasification and CO2 storage is all but dead. Projects will continue, and the subsidies will flow if Biden gets his way. But it is greenwashing and greenwasting.

The shiny star to be, Plant Ratcliffe, better known as the Kemper Project, a $6.7 billion integrated gasification power plant, was an experimental boondoggle from the start (mid-2010). The dream really ended years ago, with The Guardian reporting in March 2018:

“This was the flagship project that was going to lead the way for a whole new generation of coal power plants,” said Richard Heinberg, senior fellow at the Post Carbon Institute. “If the initial project doesn’t work then who’s going to invest in any more like it?”

Company officials have blamed the failure on factors ranging from competition from tumbling natural gas prices to bad weather, bad timing and plain old bad luck.

BOOM! Mississippi Power’s Kemper Project (Southern Company) was blown up by a “controlled implosion.” Amid the ruins is the technology of converting the state’s abundant lignite into synthetic gas (syngas) to feed a 582-megawatt power plant. Politics defined the project, with Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour presiding.

“If it had become operational with coal,” Wiki noted, “the Kemper Project would have been a first-of-its-kind electricity plant to employ gasification and carbon capture technologies at this scale.”

The Left Reacts

Political economist Angus Harvey described the futile dream that only the US Department of Energy et al. could have dreamed up:

This is the glorious footage of the Kemper coal plant in Mississippi – one of the fossil fuel industry’s biggest ever scams – being destroyed yesterday (to some lovely backing music).

A decade ago, this supposed technological wonder was being advertised as the coal industry’s moonshot, a $7.5 billion project to produce energy from ‘clean coal.’ It never worked, but did manage to burn a huge amount of carbon and taxpayer money in the process. The ratepayers of one of the poorest states in America coughed up $2.8 billion for this fuckup, and then a further $1 billion in 2012 after the state’s governor used his power to force Mississippi Power to pay for it in bonds owned by customers.

Just to put this into context: the budget for the main agency in the United States that handles substance abuse and mental health, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), is around $4.1 billion. Instead of spending this money on a coal plant that never worked, that agency’s funding could have been doubled for a year. Choices huh?

Last summer the plant’s owner announced it was abandoning construction after years of blown-out budgets and missed construction deadlines.

Goodbye and good riddance to the most expensive, and the most useless clean coal facility ever built.

Susan Krumdieck, a self-described “author and thought leader in Energy Transition Engineering,” added:

What a mess. But at least we can use the evidence, and never consider doing this “clean coal” nonsense again.

Today some economists won the Nobel Prize for using “natural experiments” – which apparently means looking at what happens in the real world and using real data. Brilliant.

This is a natural experiment in “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. When pressures are building, the ability to undertake nonsense as a “solution” to the problem can take on gargantuan scale.

To which the critic can say: This is what you get when you try to invert reality with dilute, intermittent energies substituting for dense, reliable ones–for wind/solar substituting for natural gas/coal.

To end politics, Ms. Krumdieck, reconsider the futile, wasteful crusade against carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. End the war against affordable, reliable, utilitarian mineral energies.

4.9 38 votes
Article Rating
143 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rusty
October 14, 2021 3:11 am

And not one single person will ever be held accountable for such massive waste of taxpayer money.

fretslider
Reply to  Rusty
October 14, 2021 4:18 am

Before they’ve passed on.

Reply to  fretslider
October 14, 2021 8:13 am

Why can’t the Senate muster 60 votes to abolish the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

RickWill
Reply to  Curious George
October 14, 2021 3:36 pm

Surely politicians can do that. Climate models have been doing it relentlessly for a long time now.

Reply to  RickWill
October 14, 2021 10:28 pm

And the 1st Law… in spades. GCMs — Creating energy out of nothing.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Rusty
October 14, 2021 5:20 am

and that’s it – just how did such a thing ever even get onto The Drawing Board?

I’ve searched and looked and I simply cannot understand what was hoped to achieve in that ‘thing’

Maybe maybe if, as in Town Gas in days-of-yore, they were producing gas for another (remote) application or use. Exactly as Town Gas was for home heating and cooking

But to use energy to gassify the coal and then simply burn that gas ‘on-site’ is perfect nonsense. Presumably the resulting coke went into another fire, again on the same site?
Why. Its simply crazy

It was an outright scam from start to finish and at $7 Billion, a very successful one doncha think.
Not unlike Solyndra, where anyone with any experience of sunlight, optics and geometry could have told you what a Complete (very unfunny) Joke it was.
Yet still sank shedloads of money
And Crescent Dunes Solar Energy = another financial black-hole.

PS. If they’d have taken the coke, munched it down to half-inch sized pieces and incorporated it into the surrounding farmland – THEN there really would have been an environmental benefit.

No. Everybody is Far Too Clever to do that
We really are Led By Donkeys

Scissor
Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 14, 2021 5:31 am

You answered your own question. “Not unlike Solyndra,” money.

Bryan A
Reply to  Scissor
October 14, 2021 6:03 am

Such is the case for ALL Subsidy Mines. The only requirement is to give the appearance of “big and impressive” but without the requirement to produce anything useful

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Bryan A
October 14, 2021 6:24 am

….with cost over runs and bonuses before the actual end point.

Paul S.
Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 14, 2021 10:50 am

We are led by Donkeys
Err, that would be jackasses.

mike
Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 14, 2021 1:08 pm

Sorry but you are completely wrong in your comments, you are referencing the wrong technology, you seem to be thinking in terms of an old town gas production facility.

The fluidized bed gasification as per the intent of the Kimber facility is not a new technology and if constructed and operated correctly the technology works, there is no coke produced, just a small amount of residual ash.

I don’t know the core reactor design they used in this facility, there are three different commercially available versions, what I can be certain of is that it would have been an oxygen and not an air blown design if it was to capture CO2.

Do some research on the history of the Eastman Kingsport Texaco based technology gasifier. Eastman marks 25 years in coal gasification | Local News | timesnews.net It regularly achieved better than 80% availability and they had over the years developed proprietary capability in the critical and essential refractory material technology.

You might also take a look at the south African SASOL facilities.

Condemning the whole concept because of the mistakes made in this government boondoggle of a “camel design by a committee” is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Governments should have no active involvement in any construction projects of this nature they’ll “f-it-up” every time.

David Kelly
Reply to  mike
October 14, 2021 4:03 pm

The Kimber

Otto K.
Reply to  mike
October 14, 2021 4:34 pm

Thanks for providing appropriate perspective. My company managed engr & construction of 2 SASOL coal gasification complexes a few decades back which were highly successful. You are indeed right that government interference has the probability of substantial detrimental impacts on cost, and schedule. However, sometimes only government $ are available for some advanced technology risks.

Loren Wilson
Reply to  mike
October 14, 2021 5:27 pm

The usual reaction starts with coke, which you make from coal, but at a cost of equipment and energy lost. Then you make CO from the coke. You can then make hydrogen from the CO and steam, but you get much less energy out than if you just used coal for what it does best. SASOL only exists because South Africa does not have any liquid hydrocarbon resources but has abundant coal. The coal liquids coming from this process are high in good feedstocks for the chemical industry. The economics of doing coal gasification for power generation are well known and not worth doing unless you are given taxpayer money.

Streetcred
Reply to  Loren Wilson
October 14, 2021 7:15 pm

Like doing hydrogen manufacture, the substantial input energy might as well go straight to electricity manufacture and be blowed with hydrogen.

Steve Z
Reply to  Loren Wilson
October 15, 2021 11:50 am

It is possible to “make hydrogen from CO and steam”, by the reaction

CO + H2O –> H2 + CO2,

where the CO is used as a means of splitting the water (steam) molecule and reacting with oxygen. But the carbon in the CO (which came from coal) ends up as CO2, which is would would otherwise occur if the coal were burned directly. How does this process decrease CO2 emissions? It doesn’t!!!

In response to Streetcred below, it does not make sense to use energy-intensive processes to generate hydrogen, for the sole purpose of burning it. All that does is transfer the pollutant emissions from one place to another.

The only place for hydrogen-generating processes is if the hydrogen is used in a chemical reaction to produce some other useful product. A classic example is steam-methane reforming, where natural gas is reacted (in two steps) with steam to produce hydrogen and CO2:

CH4 + 2 H2O –> CO2 + 4 H2

In a petroleum refinery, the hydrogen is used either in hydrotreating (reacting with sulfur-containing oil to produce sulfur-free oil and H2S) or hydrocracking, where the hydrogen is used to break large molecules (with high boiling points) into smaller molecules (with lower boiling points, which make better fuel).

Steam-methane reforming is a much more efficient way of making hydrogen than coal gasification: with steam-methane reforming, 4 moles of hydrogen are obtained per mole CO2, while coal gasification gives an H2 / CO2 ratio of only 1:1.

In a petroleum refinery, the hydrogen produced becomes a reactant, which is consumed by reactions to give desirable products–only a small fraction is burned (from purge gases at low hydrogen purity, which also contains methane and ethane).

But steam-methane reforming is not useful if the hydrogen is to be burned. More net energy is obtained by simply burning natural gas.

David Kelly
Reply to  mike
October 14, 2021 5:37 pm

The Kemper facility was air blown. A mistake in my view since this multiplied the equipment cost down stream of the gasifier. The primary issues were: serious site congestion during construction, safety issues due to the site congestion; and extensive cost overruns as contractors were constantly in each others way. You don’t get these issues with oxygen blown units… but try telling that to someone who’s never built a gasification system in the utility industry… its a struggle.

The gasifier Southern selected for Kemper was a KBR pressurize transport gasifier. As I recall, talking to Southern engineers at the the time, they went with the KBR design to increase their chances at reaching a desired 85% capacity factor. A the time I thought this was a good gamble, as Southern was at least paying attention to capacity factor concerns.

I am well aware that Eastman’s gets as you have said “better than 80% availability” using Texaco gasifers. However, to my knowledge, no one else has been able to crack that nut. For example Duke was able to get ~73% capacity factors in 2018 and 2019 out of it’s Edwardsport IGCC system. But this dropped to 60% in 2020… for a three year average of 69% (after debugging) . Back in the day, I recall fighting with DOE as they typically listed coal gasifiers as having an 85% capacity factor in their economic models… as did the EPA.

At TVA we were conservatively pricing coal gasification projects with 65% capacity factor per gasifier based on our prior experience the TVA “Ammonia from Coal” project using a Texaco gasifier. The issue being the then need to account for down time to address liner corrosion within the gasifier itself. (I worked on “Ammonia from Coal” project while working at TVA’s National Fertilizer Development Center).

Another mistake Southern made, in my view, was in it’s estimate of the long term price of natural gas. They based their economics on the presumption that the long term price of natural gas would be in the range of $12/MBtu. Furthermore, they stuck with that assumption long after it was is crystal clear fracking had killed off that price point. They were very very slow to recognize that coal gasification power plants simply can’t compete with a natural gas based power plant that price point. (And, frankly, too politically committed to admit error).

Also, in my view, Southern economic justifications were over reliant on an assumption that they would be able sell their CO2 for oil recovery… they failed recognize that the specific oil fields they planned to sell CO2 to were obsolete. In the sense that the tertiary oil fields they planned to sell CO2 too had much higher oil/gas production cost than competing shale fields using flacking technology. Again, Southern was very slow to recognize this error.

In Eastman’s case your producing chemicals which have an entirely different break-even point visa via natural gas. And are therefore in a far better competitive position than pure power producers. For example, when TVA was considering modification of the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant to go with with a coal gasification back fit (before fracking), my team proposed a facility with: max scale electrical production (over 1,000 Mw), chemical co-production (minimum 1,000 tpd ammonia plant w/ urea facility), multiple gasifiers (to allow for a spare gasifier), and maxed out oxygen blown Shell gasifiers (multiple 2,000 tpd units).

It was a battle to convince the TVA generation guys that their profit margins were too low to incorporate the risks for a generation only coal gasification unit. We won the internal fight, but we didn’t go forward with the project for external political reasons. (i.e. Al Gore chicken out after becoming VP). If had we had constructed the complex we would have paid for the plant three years… due entirely to the timing of world urea market prices at the time.

We couldn’t do the same project today simply because natural gas prices are selling below gas production cost and we wouldn’t be able to compete in today’s urea market against a traditional fully depreciated ammonia/urea complex. So, that opportunity is gone.

Last edited 1 month ago by David Kelly
Robert Jonathan Davis
Reply to  David Kelly
October 15, 2021 6:08 pm

Were you involved with TVA’s attempt to link a Shell gasifier with the turbine generator sets at the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in Northern Alabama? I was involved in assessing the environmental benefits which looked good at the time. What happened to that venture?

David Kelly
Reply to  Robert Jonathan Davis
October 18, 2021 11:58 am

Yes I was involved. My primary role was in developing the project’s technical specifications and economic justifications. I also worked closely with the TVA generation side of the business examining a variety of conceptual design/cost/economic issues around power generation, chemical co-production, and coal refining. The Bellefonte project was just one of the projects we worked on.

With regard to the fate of Bellefonte project. We had secured both TVA and DOE funding. However, the project died when the proposal went to Vice President Al Gore’s office for approval. My understanding is that V.P. Gore killed the project because he didn’t want the appearance of favoring projects close to his home state. So… a purely political decision on his part.

Last edited 1 month ago by David Kelly
Craig from Oz
Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 14, 2021 4:16 pm

We really are Led By Donkeys

Why are people so down on Donkeys? I mean I do see the link between the US Democrats and the Ass, but the slur of ‘Lions led by Donkeys’ is outdated and flawed.

In various forms the ‘Lions’ theory of leadership can be dated back to pretty much the dawn of recorded history. The implication is that to be a true leader you should not be a soy cuck and instead get stuck in and let your sword do the talking.

Which was fine when warfare was simple enough to meet in a nice flat space, consult some chicken gibblets and then close with each other and beat your enemy into a bloody pulp.

The slaughter in these more hands on battles happened when one side turned and tried to flee, so being ‘timid’ in battle was probably not a great tactic.

Moving forward in time and technology battles got bigger, were fought over larger areas, were fought longer and involved a lot more and varied weapons. Simply getting stuck in would more than likely get you slaughtered by an opponent who had taken the effort to prepare a combined arms battle plan.

To be a ‘Lion’ in such a battlefield was still useful at the actual bayonet end of the fighting, as at that level you did need to take risks and overpower your immediate foes. However to be a Lion at command level and simply order CHARGE on the understanding that elan of your troops would make up for the lack of supporting artillery is how you get your command slaughtered.

Donkeys on the other hoof tend to not get massive blood rushes to the head and change off to deploy violence. This may make them worse in a one on one cage fight (although I personally believe a donkey would kick the stuffing out of me in such a situation), but a donkey is also probably more likely to carefully consider the operational conditions and plan their battles.

Lions led by Donkeys? Yes. Better then Donkeys led by Lions.

Also, were we mocking Green Energy? I can’t remember 😛

Streetcred
Reply to  Craig from Oz
October 14, 2021 7:25 pm

The Brits were very good at lions led by donkeys, WW1.

ATheoK
Reply to  Craig from Oz
October 15, 2021 6:59 am

Digging precious opal at the Royal Peacock mine in Northern Nevada while camping nearby.

The largest animal we saw were wild donkeys. Descended from donkeys used prospectors and the Army.

Small bands of donkeys were led by a matriarch, a jenny. Bands were mostly adult jennies and immature donkeys of both sexes.

Approach too close and it would be the matriarch who interposed herself between us and the band.
The first warning would be the Matriarch stomping. On subsequent stomps, other donkeys would join in and the Matriarch would bray warnings.

Approach too close and the matriarch with 2-3 other jennies would signal the band and they would leave the area while the matriarch and her associates faced the danger.

We never approached closer than that.

We did find dead rattlesnakes in some of the hoofprints, stomped.
I was told by the mine owner that the donkeys would even stomp coyotes occasionally. They weren’t neighborly and considered where they stood, their desert.

We kept a small dried rattlesnake that outside of a flat head was in perfect semi coiled desiccated condition.

We kept that rattlesnake in a little sand filled diorama. We also discovered that the local grade school did not consider dead rattlesnakes proper “show and tell” items.
Apparently, panic stricken school workers were convinced the tiny dried tyke with smashed fangs was a terrible danger.

Donkeys are not naturally deceptive, cowardly, shy or timid.
None of those wild donkeys reminded me of any democrats I’ve met.

Steve Z
Reply to  Craig from Oz
October 15, 2021 11:27 am

This country is better led by elephants than by donkeys.

PCman999
Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 16, 2021 10:46 pm

The plan was to use dirty lignite for power generation, with the gasification helping to trap contaminants like sulfur.
Really it’s a shame it didn’t work out. It would have used local coal, that was basically rejected for any power or metallurgical use, and done something useful with it and increased oil production in practically dead oil fields.

While I don’t give a fig for it’s co2 reduction capabilities, the goals of increasing efficiency, reduction of real environmental pollutants, and maintaining employment in the state were very worty goals.

bill Johnston
Reply to  Rusty
October 14, 2021 10:45 am

Why start now???

fretslider
October 14, 2021 3:16 am

Susan Krumdieck, a self-described “author and thought leader”

So, I wondered what exactly is a thought leader? Apparently…

Thought leaders are the informed opinion leaders and the go-to people in their field of expertise.

She likes telling other people what to think

Ron Long
Reply to  fretslider
October 14, 2021 3:32 am

Susan is obviously a seriously conflicted person. She is certainly “smart” as she has a PhD in Mechanical Engineering, but she has devoted her work to “achieving the COP21 objectives” and in a transition to carbon neutral or net zero. One chapter she authored is “Energy Solutions to Combat Global Warming”, which, like COP21, presumes there is a problem then proposes economic disasters to fix the supposed problem.

David Kelly
Reply to  Ron Long
October 14, 2021 6:36 pm

And… one should never hire a mechanical engineer to do a chemical engineer’s job. But, apparently, making statements in field where you have no professional competence isn’t a “problem” to the Climate crowd.

Last edited 1 month ago by David Kelly
Editor
Reply to  David Kelly
October 15, 2021 8:11 am

It’s only a problem if it’s the “the sky is NOT falling crowd” doing it wrt to climate studies. Then, you’re immediately hit with the accusation “he/she isn’t a climate scientist”.

rip

Streetcred
Reply to  Ron Long
October 14, 2021 7:26 pm

The world is full of academic dumbazzes. The root cause of most problems.

Last edited 1 month ago by Streetcred
Dennis
Reply to  Streetcred
October 15, 2021 7:30 pm

Which brings up the point that
“Political Science” is an Oxymoron !

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Ron Long
October 14, 2021 10:04 pm

As an old friend once described someone: “Booksmart but can’t open a pickle jar.”

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  fretslider
October 14, 2021 3:46 am

“Thought leaders”, aka “intellectuals” aka “useful idiots”, are essential to the small minority of people who comprise the State in maintaining their control over a much larger populace.

fretslider
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 14, 2021 3:55 am

The technocracy

Abolition Man
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 14, 2021 4:11 am

Frank,
All to often the correct term is “intellectual morons!” Why so many highly educated people say and do such crazy stupid stuff will be debated for generations!

Yooper
Reply to  Abolition Man
October 14, 2021 5:01 am

It’s study will become a specialty in Mental Health Disorders.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Abolition Man
October 14, 2021 5:18 am

Unfortunately, I’m sure it will be debated endlessly, to the same end as debating the effect of gravity on a dropped dinner plate. The sad reality is that there are always so-called highly educated individuals who chafe under the knowledge that their expertise is less valued by society than, say, a rock star, professional athlete or successful business person, and who will therefore reliably shill for the State to improve upon their societal position.

Rick C
Reply to  Abolition Man
October 14, 2021 6:21 am

I think Charles MacKay described the behavior almost 200 years ago in “Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.”

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Abolition Man
October 14, 2021 7:54 am

I have noticed while teaching as have my sons at school and uni how those who have an excellent memory and are tested mainly by having to parrot work fly through with top grades. However, when they have to do something new, working things out from first principles, they come horribly unstuck. Perhaps this is why so many of them are comfortable in the ivory towers of academia or management jobs but not making useful things in the real world by getting their hands dirty.

Mark Whitney
Reply to  fretslider
October 14, 2021 7:03 am

Thought leader, reminiscent of Trofim Lysenko.

ATheoK
Reply to  fretslider
October 15, 2021 7:10 am

thought leader”

Sounds like a mental midget trollop. No matter what the topic, their opinion is the only proper, (allowed), opinion.

Speed
October 14, 2021 3:27 am

And we continue closing safe, clean, reliable nuclear power plants …

Abolition Man
October 14, 2021 4:20 am

Like so manyGangGreen projects, most of the money probably goes to the wealthy investors and their political cronies! At least this one appears to have employed quite a few long term workers judging from the from the photograph. Unless it was storage for a car dealership!
It would be interesting to see how much bang for their bucks the Mississippian ratepayers obtained. Perhaps the site can now be used for a new FF or nuclear power facility!
Nah! That’d be too sensible!

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Abolition Man
October 14, 2021 4:31 am

in the twitter comments: its swapped to gas and ONLY the gasification section was blown up, small mercies for the power supply remaining viable(with luck)

Last edited 1 month ago by ozspeaksup
bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 4:33 am

The quick fix of coal gasification and CO2 storage is all but dead. Projects will continue, and the subsidies will flow if Biden gets his way. But it is greenwashing and greenwasting.”

I suppose they had to try and prop up the dying coal biz. And it IS dying, in spite of the current supernova of trans pandemic activity.

I agree that the CCS boondoggles are bipartisan. Especially hypocritical to the “unfunded mandate” whiners. If you don’t make the $/carbon ton rebate funded by an identical carbon tax, first used to pay out the sequestered CO2, and then fully, regularly, equitably, rebated to every US resident, then you are cognitively dissonant.

I am in favor of a carbon tax. Most posters here would not be. No problem, as I think we all agree that unfunded CCS projects are neo Bridges to Nowhere…

fretslider
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 4:47 am

I am in favor of a carbon tax”

You are carbon based

Your existence must be taxed.

fretslider
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 5:02 am

A poll?

Blimey.

Bryan A
Reply to  fretslider
October 14, 2021 6:07 am

Now now now, we all know that polls can never be skewed least of all by controlling the demographic of those being subjected to them

fretslider
Reply to  Bryan A
October 14, 2021 6:31 am

Let alone the leading questions….

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bryan A
October 14, 2021 12:17 pm

And if you poll misguided people how is that going to help anything?

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 14, 2021 3:13 pm

They DO and it DOESN’T help

ATheoK
Reply to  Bryan A
October 15, 2021 7:30 am

The poll questions must be framed so that those polled do not realize it means them paying more money.

Once people learn a carbon tax increases their economic burden, they are uniformly negative towards any carbon tax.
Only dilettante elites and non working youngsters happily agree to pay more money towards such a foolish concept.

Streetcred
Reply to  fretslider
October 14, 2021 7:31 pm

And a poll of “voters” at that … same as how Bernie, I mean Biden, no Brandon got elected 🙂

rbabcock
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 5:44 am

Let’s see, a poll from an organization asking questions about its charter. Care to guess how the questions are constructed? Maybe ask if you are willing to pay an additional $6000 US a year in your power and auto gas bills, plus be willing to have no power or auto gas during periods of extreme cold and see what the response is.

The people of Earth are already paying a Carbon tax in the increased cost of the energy we use due to the wind and solar boondoggles being built everywhere. So we need another tax?

MarkW
Reply to  rbabcock
October 14, 2021 8:49 am

Bob doesn’t care about any potential problems.]
Since the poll reached the proper pre-determined conclusions, it must be right.

JamesD
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 8:26 am

Here’s poll: People who want the carbon tax pay it. People who don’t, don’t. How many would opt in?

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 8:49 am

More propaganda.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 12:16 pm

I think a “carbon” tax should be voluntary, if at all.

jtom
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 12:57 pm

Did the poll bother to mention that the voters would ultimately be paying that tax? Of course not. Only taxes that others pay are good taxes.

What you have is a poll of uninformed voters, and would quickly change as they became aware of all the facts.

Yooper
Reply to  fretslider
October 14, 2021 5:00 am

It already is: IRS.

fretslider
Reply to  Yooper
October 14, 2021 5:03 am

So why are there benefits when one is out of employment?

I did say existence.

n.n
Reply to  fretslider
October 14, 2021 5:17 am

The few, the proud, the unPlanned.
Thanks, mom and dad. Good choice.

jtom
Reply to  fretslider
October 14, 2021 1:03 pm

Those out of employment still pay taxes, with extremely few exceptions. I am retired, and my income taxes, alone, are in the five figures to the left of the decimal place. Most everyone, though, ‘enjoys’ paying sales taxes or property taxes (which may be buried in your rent).

ATheoK
Reply to  jtom
October 15, 2021 8:29 am

Retired is not “unemployed”!

On forms under “employment”, you write ‘retired’, not ‘unemployed’ or ‘laid off’.

Five figure taxes indicate not insignificant earnings.

n.n
Reply to  Yooper
October 14, 2021 5:10 am

Obamacares

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 5:43 am

You are conveniently “forgetting” Obama’s War On Coal, which did great damage to the industry. Mission accomplished. However, it is far from “dying” despite your wishful claim. Of course you are in favor of a carbon tax, as that ties in neatly with the stupid, misguided effort to do away with fossil fuels.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 14, 2021 5:56 am

Uh, you mean this war on coal?

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2020/10/16/gop-should-stop-peddling-obamas-war-coal-its-myth/3659635001/

As for the carbon tax, it’s utility is only in moderating the rate at which we use the rest of the available fossil fuels up (and no, they will not be available forever, no matter how many times you close your eyes and tap your slippers together). Thereby marginally reducing the much greater AGW costs that would otherwise ensue. As an adult lifelong petroleum engineer, I am in favor of “best practices” fossil fuel production, with most of the external costs – now communized onto the rest of us – paid for instead by those who produce and use it. Milton Friedman would approve. But I’m cool with your fact free disagreement on this.

Since you didn’t comment on the CCS corporate welfare, I hope you agree with me that it’s just that…

Last edited 1 month ago by bigoilbob
Bruce Cobb
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 6:40 am

Typical of CAGW Believers, your grasp on reality and the facts is tenuous at best. Despite your blather to the contrary, the sole purpose of a carbon tax is to punish “carbon” in favor of “green” energy. Obama’s War on Coal was a fact. It was even a part of his campaign. Oh, and your so-called “external costs” are, once again, just one more fairy tale you anti-carbon, anti-fossil-fuelers love to hang your hat on. Yeah, good luck with that.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 14, 2021 6:54 am

“Oh, and your so-called “external costs” are, once again, just one more fairy tale you anti-carbon, anti-fossil-fuelers love to hang your hat on.”

Er, not so much. And this is the link just partially addresses ARO’s. Additionally, any campaign to address this would result in skyrocketing oilfield service costs that would easily double the ARO watch estimates.

Oh, almost forgot. We still have the shirked coal ash clean up, the failure of coal to fund the promised medical/pension bennies, the ongoing environmental, safety health regulatory Ben Dovers for ALL forms of fossil fuel extraction/conditioning/transportation, and the ridiculously low US royalty rates. Meaning, you can fugget aboud carbon taxation altogether and you’re still stuck with an an industry group that would be uncompetitive, save for it’s thousands of lobbyists facilitating continuation of these cost communizations.

https://www.arowatch.org/

Last edited 1 month ago by bigoilbob
JamesD
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 8:28 am

“the ongoing environmental, safety health regulatory Ben Dovers for ALL forms of fossil fuel extraction/conditioning/transportation,”

If he was in the oil industry, he was a janitor. No one dealing with regulators would make such an idiotic statement.

Bryan A
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 3:17 pm

Meaning, you can fugget aboud carbon taxation altogether and you’re still stuck with an an industry group that would be uncompetitive, save for it’s thousands of lobbyists facilitating continuation of these cost communizations.

Don’t forget about the 90% of global population that makes use of fossil fuel energy and the petrochemical derivatives it provides

Last edited 1 month ago by Bryan A
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 7:19 am

The Great Obomba is only 1/2 black but he is 100% against black coal…and wants a carbon tax to fund more Solyndras and Kempers…need more government control….the Great Obomba is 100% for 100% government…supported by 97% of all scientists.

Rich Lambert
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 5:57 am

The carbon tax is already in place. It is called inflation.

PCman999
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 5:57 am

Why do you want to tax an imaginary problem? Just because the ‘cool kids’ dominate the media with tales of doomsday doesn’t override the fact that the gentle warming of the past century and a half is nothing but welcomed by the biosphere, and there is no runaway greenhouse effect. The world hasn’t even recovered the heat lost during the Little Ice, let alone returned to the warmth enjoyed before the current ice age we’re in.

bigoilbob
Reply to  PCman999
October 14, 2021 6:02 am

Why do you want to tax an imaginary problem?”

I thank the Imaginary Guy In The Sky every AM that his POV is confined to subterranea. As soon as it crawls out from under the rock and is exposed to air and sunlight, it withers and dies. WUWT is a fair QED for this….

No, I don’t know why I have such a prurient interest in this forum and continue to post. Kramer effect?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 6:48 am

Nasty much?

fretslider
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 6:58 am

I thank the Imaginary Guy In The Sky every AM”

I think most people get you are devoutly religious.

“No, I don’t know why I have such a prurient interest in this forum “

Because here science is debated and challenged with no censorship. In the AGW faith everything is settled and it will stagnate just like all religions do.

ATheoK
Reply to  fretslider
October 15, 2021 8:52 am

AGW faith everything is settled and it will stagnate just like all religions do.”

Absolutely.
As a religion they’ll adopt bizarre rituals that primarily require attendees to recite meaningless propaganda.

AGW beliefs will become absolute pseudo-spiritual precepts mindlessly repeated by the devout. (Just like today, except today a significant portion of the apparently devout are really rewarded for their unintelligible illogical AGW outcry.

Taken a little further:
“AGW faith everything is absolute and will stagnate, ossify and eventually set into immutable immovable rock just like all religions do.”

  • Their deity will be various elites who renounce knowledge and science and favor fascism even as they claim it is democracy.
  • Their demon is already carbon, not just carbon dioxide.
  • Their religion/rites demand copious offerings, not just cash.
  • Their punishment is unhinged chastisement until the offender caves or is destroyed.
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 7:27 am

Arrogant much? Tell us again how CO2 went up 15% from 1940 to 1980 while the temp went down?….and the last 5 or 6 years ? All Powerful CO2 seems kinda weak and non correlative?….certainly over the last millions of years – no correlation between CO2 and temp.

Last edited 1 month ago by Anti_griff
Rory Forbes
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 9:53 am

No, I don’t know why I have such a prurient interest in this forum and continue to post. Kramer effect?

Classic self loathing of a useful idiot. You come here to be scorned by real scientists and learned people because you know your ‘beliefs’ are wrong, but they fit your politics.

Abolition Man
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 5:30 pm

BigOilyBlob,
Is this imagainary guy you worship Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Mao!? It’s obvious from your comments that you are against economic freedom, and want the state to be all powerful. Could you tell us where such a system has ever worked; besides ant and termite colonies, that is?

Streetcred
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 7:35 pm

Hasta la vista bobby, we too don’t know why.

Last edited 1 month ago by Streetcred
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 6:54 am

What exactly will this “carbon” tax accomplish?

bigoilbob
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 14, 2021 6:56 am

Already described that, about an hour ago…

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 12:07 pm

Pray tell, how much of your payday are you willing to donate for the Green New (Raw) Deal:

10%?
20%?
40%?
80%?

Bryan A
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 14, 2021 3:21 pm

Hint AOC wants >80%

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bryan A
October 14, 2021 3:58 pm

Yep. And BOB here won’t answer.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 14, 2021 12:37 pm

Nothing good will come of taxing CO2.

Taxes always drive up costs and hurt the poorest people the most.

It’s a fantasy to think that the government will hold the poor harmless through rebates for CO2 taxes. The government will rebate them their direct fossil fuels costs, but nobody is going to rebate them the cost of everything else they buy going higher, because the CO2 tax has increased the costs of shipping everything from paperclips to Cadillacs.

Any kind of taxes reduce economic activity. A CO2 tax would do so in spades as it would detrimentally affect every aspect of our economies by raising prices for *everything*.

You think we have bad inflation now. Wait until these fools implement a CO2 tax.

Apparently, there are about 70 Republican Washington DC politicians that may be onboard with a CO2 tax. These Republicans claim the “solution” to CO2 emissions needs the Republican touch, i.e., free market solutions. Whatever those are.

The basic problem with this Republican climate change effort is they are not any closer to the truth than the Democrats. These Republicans still think CO2 is a problem that needs to be fixed. Without any evidence to back up this position, btw. They think they know what they are doing, and actually don’t have a clue. All they are going to manage to do is give aid and comfort to the maniacal Democrats.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 14, 2021 6:07 pm

#FJB, and the spineless-mindless RINOs.

Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 7:04 am

The answer is….what was the question? The answer is a demrat tax…tax Joey..and Nanci…,and Chuck E ….100%.

Bryan A
Reply to  Anti_griff
October 14, 2021 3:23 pm

Go for Tax Throttle-up
Roger that…Taxation to 104%

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bryan A
October 14, 2021 3:58 pm

BOOM

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 8:48 am

It really is amazing how climate warriors actually seem to believe their own propaganda.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 12:33 pm

I suppose they had to try and prop up the dying coal biz. And it IS dying

He says, as the price of coal rises and rises, and demand just keeps rising too…

ATheoK
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 15, 2021 8:59 am

As the usage and price rises and rises.

Amazing, how “dying ” means more users, more consumers and much greater usage of coal!

I suppose they had to try and prop up the dying coal biz. And it IS dying”

a mindless illogical phrase used by alarmists as proselytization to their adherents. Just one of their absolute precepts.

Bruce Cobb
October 14, 2021 4:55 am

Company officials have blamed the failure on factors ranging from competition from tumbling natural gas prices to bad weather, bad timing and plain old bad luck.

Ba-hahahahahahaha! It was nothing but a humongous fairy-tale-based boondoggle, and tragic waste of taxpayer dollers from the get-go.

But sure, go with that. We can always use more humor.

Last edited 1 month ago by Bruce Cobb
Buckeyebob
October 14, 2021 4:56 am

My company has been in coal gasification since the early 1980’s and we derive 30 to 40% of our raw materials from syngas for multiple chemicals in our product portfolio. We have also figured out how to take plastic waste and run it through the same process to generate syngas.

Barnes Moore
Reply to  Buckeyebob
October 14, 2021 5:32 am

What is it that made Kemper fail? I am not challenging your statement, just wanting to understand how/why your company is able to produce syngas and apparently do carbon capture while Kemper failed.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Barnes Moore
October 14, 2021 7:30 am

He never said they do carbon capture. That’s the uneconomic part, better left to leafy plants.

Last edited 1 month ago by DMacKenzie
Barnes Moore
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 14, 2021 9:39 am

True – I made an assumption. Leafy plants are more than happy to capture all the extra co2.

PCman999
Reply to  Barnes Moore
October 16, 2021 10:52 pm

BuckeyeBob’s company is using coal gasification to get useful feedstock for their products which people actually buy – not for mining carbon credits.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Buckeyebob
October 14, 2021 5:48 am

So what? That has nothing to do with the total government-funded scam of Kemper, and any other like-minded money-wasting schemes.

JamesD
Reply to  Buckeyebob
October 14, 2021 8:46 am

Is all of your syn gas sourced from coal?

Coal gasification makes sense if coal is dirt cheap and NG is expensive. However it is a lot more complex due to the hydrogen. You basically “waste” a lot of the CO to make the hydrogen. The NG route makes excess hydrogen, which is a valuable product.

Tim
October 14, 2021 5:03 am

This North Dakota synfuels plant pipes CO2 into Canadian oil field for EOR:
7.5.1. Great Plains Synfuels Plant | netl.doe.gov

Barnes Moore
Reply to  Tim
October 14, 2021 5:34 am

Same question for you that I asked of Buckeyebob. What was different about Kemper that caused it to fail if there are already plants that are doing what Kemper was supposed to do?

JamesD
Reply to  Barnes Moore
October 14, 2021 8:38 am

ND is getting paid for the CO2.

ResourceGuy
October 14, 2021 5:35 am

Notice how the utility rate payers never get a mention. The war on CO2 is mostly about subverting the concept and institutional framework of public utilities for fairness on rates and efficiency. From Grand Gulf Nuclear cost over runs to Kemper Project cost over runs and excuses, the rate payers are targets of fraud. To make matters worse, the Feds have been accomplices.

ResourceGuy
October 14, 2021 6:09 am

Tisk, tisk

Obama is comfortable in his seaside mansion among the rising seas. The rest of you are saps.

Abolition Man
Reply to  ResourceGuy
October 14, 2021 5:36 pm

ResourceGuy,
Isn’t he behind the curtains at the White House; pulling levers and strings while trying to get Dementia Joe to speak the right words?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Abolition Man
October 14, 2021 6:08 pm
Tom Abbott
Reply to  ResourceGuy
October 14, 2021 12:40 pm

“Not one dollar”

That’s my attitude. It ought to be the attitude of every Republican and conservative.

ATheoK
Reply to  ResourceGuy
October 15, 2021 9:19 am

35% unwilling to spend anything on climate, including carbon taxes.
17% willing to spend $1 to maximum $10 monthly. (The is a lie. Once the ols are allowed to tax, the cost will be far greater.

52% are unwilling to throw serious money at climate issues.

Then there is the CEI National Poll: 0.8% consider climate issues important… Likely that number will be a lot less when people discover the hidden costs.

Numbers that should warn/frighten every alarmist politician.

CEI national poll pg 9.JPG
Last edited 1 month ago by ATheoK
Duane
October 14, 2021 6:27 am

This is neither a win or loss for either side in the climate change war. What it most certainly is is a loss for the utility and their ratepayers and investors. Since it never operated, and the problem was out of control construction costs, it proves exactly nothing about “clean coal”.

Similar construction effups have occurred on nuclear power plants, resulting in their cancellation as well due to out of control construction costs.

Gas power plants are extremely simple, non-complex, to build and to operate. Coal plants of any kind are significantly more expensive to build and operate now than gas plants, because they are much more complex and have much more extensive pollution controls required than for gas plants.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Duane
October 14, 2021 6:47 am

Duane,

Please provide an objective, quantified definition of “climate change war”.

Duane
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
October 14, 2021 8:39 am

It’s a subjective topic. But I would say that is the ongoing war between the warmunists and the climate change skeptics.

Not every outcome is a win or loss for either side. Sometimes companies just eff things up, or alternatively do a really good job, with zero impact on the ongoing argument.

Gordon A. Dressler
October 14, 2021 6:42 am

The above article states “. . . Plant Ratcliffe, better known as the Kemper Project, a $6.7 billion integrated gasification power plant . . .”

Wow! This makes the infamous Solyndra (solar cell manufacturing) debacle in the US look like pocket change . . . it “only” cost US taxpayers $570 million.

A billion here, a billion there . . . pretty soon your talking about real money.

Gordon A. Dressler
October 14, 2021 6:59 am

Don’t bother linking to the “BOOM!” Twitter video of the “controlled implosion” of the Kemper project. It shows nothing of the sort. There was no implosion. The video coverage starts first with a fixed camera showing a second or so of the controlled explosive demolition of just a fraction of the Kemper facility, then cuts to drone footage of the aftermath (mostly clouds of dust and smoke, with a few shots of the demolished facility segment). It does give some idea of the overall acreage of this facility.

Nothing to see there; move along, move along.

vboring
October 14, 2021 7:50 am

The technology worked at small scale and may have a place in the world somewhere. There’s more demand for CO2 to get oil out of the ground than there is natural CO2 in deposits.

The problem with this project are well documented. The scale up was too much compared to the previous version. And they started construction before design was complete.

John McKeon
Reply to  vboring
October 14, 2021 2:13 pm

We need to mine Venus! I hear they have loads of the stuff

Olen
October 14, 2021 8:20 am

The public has got to have trust that their taxes are properly spent and with as little waste as possible. There seems to be no concern for that.

Billions for substance abuse when cutting off the supply by sealing the border might be a better solution to save lives. You can’t use what you can’t get.

ATheoK
Reply to  Olen
October 15, 2021 9:29 am

Most folks in government do not receive bonuses, awards or promotions for operating efficiently or effectively.

The ones with bold claims, over the top actions get all of the press and attention.

Too often, failures are long after the initiators have moved elsewhere and their replacements are loathe to accept blame by fixing problems.

It is very much a “shoot the messenger” environment.

Andy Pattullo
October 14, 2021 9:05 am

“Company officials have blamed the failure on factors ranging from competition from tumbling natural gas prices to bad weather, bad timing and plain old bad luck.”

So greed, incompetence, poltical malfeasance, and the well understood laws of physics and economics had no role in this complete disaster? Just bad Luck?
One outcome should be to ensure those company officials are never employed on the taxpayer’s dime again.

Sara
October 14, 2021 9:44 am

Can anyone tell me how to get a wood-burning fireplace into my home? I no more trust the utilities these days than I can fly without wings.

I remember this episode of ‘WTF?” and wondered what might happen to it. Now I know: wasted money, waste on things that hadn’t been tested but, so what? Let’s Do It! anyway, right?

Moving on.

Tom Schaefer
Reply to  Sara
October 14, 2021 11:26 am

You may be too late. Recommend cold weather clothes and sleeping bags for the black-outs this winter at this point.

ATheoK
Reply to  Sara
October 15, 2021 9:35 am

It starts with an insulated chimney and some masonry work..

Find a dealer and interview installers. It will involve building permits and inspections.

Check these out: https://www.vermontwoodstove.com/

Tom Schaefer
October 14, 2021 10:13 am

The best carbon sequestration is iron-fertilization of the ocean. It would feed hundreds of millions, remove billions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere (like that is a good thing LOL), and cost very little (paid for by a 1% tax on the bonus fishing). I raise this periodically, but I get the sense that powerful forces don’t want a solution to problems, as it breaks their Cloward and Piven leverage.

Reply to  Tom Schaefer
October 14, 2021 12:42 pm

Nuclear power plant hoaxes have been going on even longer. Magic rods don’t produce heat wake up to that scam.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Fakeologist
October 15, 2021 12:54 pm

Ok
Explain?

Dennis G Sandberg
October 14, 2021 12:20 pm

KM-CDR Process™ , with own developed unique amine solvent (KS-1™), has been adopted for thirteen (13) commercial plants all over the world (as of Feb. 2019), which has several outstanding features as follows;Can be applied to various types of flue gas sourcesAdvanced energy saving process – significant operation cost savingHighly efficient proprietary solvent (KS-1™), with the lowest energy consumption and the least degradation
There are many different applications for CO₂, but Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) in particular has gained attention as a technology that can simultaneously help prevent global warming while increasing the production of crude oil, by means of CO₂ storage.
Mitsubishi Corporation (MC) and Shell Canada Products, by its managing partner, Shell Canada Limited (Shell Canada) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding relating to the production of low-carbon hydrogen through the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) near Edmonton, Canada. The low-carbon hydrogen, commonly called blue hydrogen, would be produced via a natural gas feedstock and exported mainly to the Japanese market to produce clean energy.
In 2020, the Canadian government released its Hydrogen Strategy for Canada, which sets an ambitious framework to cement hydrogen as a key part of Canada’s path to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and make Canada a major exporter of hydrogen and a global leader in hydrogen technologies.
 In March, U.S. LNG export project developer NextDecade launched its subsidiary NEXT Carbon Solutions to develop a large carbon capture and storage (CCS) project at the Rio Grande LNG. The project is expected to enable the capture and permanent geologic storage of more than five million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
October 14, 2021 6:09 pm

a technology that can simultaneously help prevent global warming

How, exactly does this work?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
October 15, 2021 12:53 pm

I had made peace of sorts with CCS as it’s being done with my tax dollars so I’m getting my piece of the action and justifying it as the concentrated storage of plant food for future generations in a new glaciation period.
This is merely a period of madness that Will one day end, but when it does we will have source for feeding massive greenhouses in the far future
If we need to

ResourceGuy
October 14, 2021 12:23 pm

Another Project Obama fails.

AGW is Not Science
October 14, 2021 2:13 pm

This is the glorious footage of the Kemper coal plant in Mississippi – one of the fossil fuel industry’s biggest ever scams – being destroyed yesterday.

Amazing how the Climate Fascist driven effort to eliminate CO2 emissions is blamed on the “fossil fuel industry,” which never would have birthed such a stupid and unnecessary idea as this absent the Eco-Nazi campaign against CO2, since far more energy could be far more economically gotten from simply burning the coal without any “gasification and storage” needed.

Whose “scam?!” This is just another example of why governments should never pick winners and losers, because when they do, everybody loses.

leitmotif
October 14, 2021 4:23 pm

Only 4 days to go before BBC One screens The Trick and nothing from WUWT.

Phil Jones will be declared a hero after being hounded by climate change deniers for 12 years.

FFS wake up!

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  leitmotif
October 15, 2021 12:49 pm

This is starting to look like spam

Chuck no longer in Houston
Reply to  leitmotif
October 19, 2021 1:20 pm

Honestly Leit, what would you have us do about it? Write stern letters?

Loren Wilson
October 14, 2021 5:17 pm

So you build an average-sized power generation unit which would cost about 1B USD but it cost you 6.7B USD. Then, you blow it up ten years later when the expected lifetime of a normal coal-fired power plant is 40 years. This is the problem with liberal government sponsored activities. You always spend someone else’s money so there is no accountability.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Loren Wilson
October 14, 2021 10:21 pm

Most of what liberal politicians do is not for the people, but simply to enrich their developer friends and big donors. It never matters if it will work, makes sense, or if anybody asked for it. Why else would California still be building a high/low speed railroad between Wasco and Modesto? Nobody needs to get from one to the other any faster than the freeway will get you there, assuming anybody wants to go to either place.

October 14, 2021 10:26 pm

We should leave a few of these Green Monuments to Foolishness up and standing, preserved, rather than implode and demolsih them.

Like the Great Pyramids of Egypt, those stone colossals that were stupendous wastes of vast resources then and are merely tourist attractions now, they’ve been standing for 4,000 years. Leave them up so generations far into the future can come visit the utter foolishness of our time and this Climate Scam nonsense.

The Earth’s bio-ecosystem has been lving on the edge of CO2 starvtion for repeated cycles for 3 million years now. We may have ended with fossil fuel burning, Gaia thanks Humanity. Hooray for us.

JAW3
October 15, 2021 6:11 am

Check out all the cars in the parking lot around the plant. That sure looks like massive overhead to me.

S.K.
October 15, 2021 10:06 am

Super critical boilers have the ability to clean up the emissions from the burning of coal. There is no need to end the use of coal.

friendsofscience.org Burning Questions report

%d bloggers like this: