Guest “From the Famous Failed Prediction Files” by David Middleton
ENERGY Published 5 days ago
John Kerry says US ‘won’t have coal’ by 2030
Climate czar John Kerry claims America ‘will not have coal plants’By Kyle Morris | Fox News
U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said Tuesday in Scotland that America, which boasts the world’s largest economy, will stop burning coal sometime within the next nine years.
“By 2030 in the United States, we won’t have coal,” Kerry told Bloomberg editor-in-chief John Micklethwait during an interview at the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow. “We will not have coal plants.”
Discussing a shift from coal, Kerry placed emphasis on markets being a driving force behind more cost-effective power sources like renewables and natural gas. Kerry also reaffirmed his support of the Biden administration‘s goal to eliminate all carbon emissions from the U.S. power grid by 2035.
“We’re saying we are going to be carbon-free in the power sector by 2035,” Kerry said. “I think that’s leadership. I think that’s indicative of what we can do.”
[…]
Fox News
Meanwhile, at the Energy Information Administration…
ANNUAL ENERGY OUTLOOK 2021
Release date: February 3, 2021 | Next release date: January 2022 | AEO Narrative
Annual Energy Outlook 2021
The Annual Energy Outlook presents an assessment by the U.S. Energy Information Administration of the outlook for energy markets through 2050.
The Annual Energy Outlook narrative
The Annual Energy Outlook narrative is the primary discussion of the Annual Energy Outlook:
[…]
Energy Information Administration
I downloaded the Electricity PowerPoint. Here is slide #2, as it appears in the report:
Here’s the left panel expanded:
Here’s the same dataset, displayed more realistically:
“We’re saying we are going to be carbon-free in the power sector by 2035 2050…”
We’re not only not “going to be carbon-free in the power sector by 2035,” will be generating almost as much “carboniferous” electricity in 2050 as we are today.
Even with EIA’s rosy projections, unreliable energy sources will only account for the overall growth in electricity demand over the next 30 years.
The downside is that the grid will be degraded from ~90% reliable down to ~60% reliable sources.
The EIA’s base case outlook will have the US sacrificing grid resiliency, while barely reducing GHG emissions. They won’t achieve anything other than making energy more expensive and less reliable.
John Kerry’s energy forecasts are the sorts one would expect from someone who barely got a D in geology.
But he did nearly get a B in French.
John Kerry wins the Geico Cavemen Award….
You want carbon-free power? OK, then start building MORE nuclear power plants, upgrade and update current facilities, and take down the wind farms and solar desertification spots. And pick up the trash you leave behind, while you’re at it.
Otherwise, please stuff it.
“We will not have coal plants.” while China has hundreds and are rapidly adding to that total.
We will devastate our economy while making no impact on the rising world wide CO2 emissions.
Such a deal!
From the article: ““We’re saying we are going to be carbon-free in the power sector by 2035,” Kerry said. “I think that’s leadership.”
No, that’s insanity.
EXCERPT from:
WIND AND SOLAR TO PROVIDE 30 PERCENT OF NEW ENGLAND ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION BY 2050
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide-50-percent-of-future-new-england
China, India, etc., to Continue High Levels of Coal Burning
Each year, China burns about 4 BILLION metric ton of coal, more than the rest of the world combined. China is planning to build 43 new coal-fired power plants and 18 new blast furnaces. Do you really believe that China can afford to stop burning coal? Do you think they want to? Of course not.
Chinese reliance on coal is increasing, and it is expanding its mines to produce an additional 220 million Mt of coal in 2021, up almost six percent from 2020.
The Chinese and the Indians are not going to throw away their economic progress on the altar of global warming. The Indians made it perfectly clear at the beginning of the Glasgow COP26, the developed nations should de-industrialize first, before asking developing countries to follow suit.
India: India declared it would not sign the statement of COP26 goals regarding coal burning. Instead of reading “close down coal by 2030”, India insisted on “phase down unabated coal”. Unabated refers to the common practice of Indian households, etc., cooking over open fires with coal, a major source of local air pollution. It would be phased down (no time limit was stated).
All this means, the burning of coal in power plants, with air pollution abatement systems, would be unaffected (no time limit was stated). The major coal burning countries, such as China, India, Australia, Brazil, the US, etc., would continue to burn coal in power plants.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop26-caves-on-coal-phase-down-rather-than-phase-out
China: Despite various RE boosters, such as financial adviser Bloomberg, bragging about China’s wind and solar efforts, the reality is, almost 80% of China’s electricity growth is from fossil fuels, almost entirely coal.
Because China is so big, that fossil growth is worsening its own air pollution, plus the air pollution around the world; the soot falls on snow/ice-covered areas; melting of snow/ice is much quicker.
In one year, China added 460.2 TWh of fossil electricity, which is 3.9 times the annual electricity supply of NE, or 76.7 times the annual electricity supply of Vermont.
From third qtr. 2020, to third qtr. 2021:
Total electricity production growth was 586.9 TWh, up 10.7%, of which 460.2 TWh, or 78.4%, was from fossil fuels, mostly coal.
Wind growth was 89 TWh, up 28.4%, from a low base
Solar growth was 12.6 TWh, up 10.2%, from a low base.
Nuclear growth was 33.2 TWh, up 12.3%, from a low base
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/03/china-still-burning-more-more-coal/
https://chinaenergyportal.org/en/2021-q3-electricity-other-energy-statistics/
China plans to build 200,000 MW of near-zero-CO2 nuclear plants; about 150 units, each 2,350 MW, at about 75 sites, at a cost of $440 billion, by 2035
Amortizing the capital cost at 3.5%/y over 60 years would be ($17,556,485,920/y) / (200,000 MW x 8,766 h/y x 0.90, CF) = $0.01113/kWh, about one third the cost of EU and US nuclear plants.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/uranium-stocks-soar-market-discovers-chinas-plans-150-nuclear-reactors
https://www.myamortizationchart.com
Several months ago I asked a simple question: If the only source of oxygen that we breathe is made by plants how is it possible to maintain a 20% level of the oxygen with only 400 parts per million feedstock?(CO2). No one has satisfactorily answered this question or really tried. Perhaps we are all doomed and don’t know it. I would really be interested what people have to say about this.
That’s an interesting question!
Consider a small Diesel engine pumping water out of the ground. Say it uses 1 kg/hour fuel and pumps 100 kg/hour water into a lake. Now let that supposed engine run for a few thousand years. It doesn’t matter how big the lake is, it only matters that there is enough fuel to run the engine. Similarly, plants do not care about the atmospheric oxygen level, only that there is enough CO2 to stay alive.
BTW, here’s a chart of CO2 and temperature for the past 600 million years.
https://medium.com/@ghornerhb/heres-a-better-graph-of-co2-and-temperature-for-the-last-600-million-years-f83169a68046
Note that there have been “ice ages” and tropical global weather when the CO2 concentration was far higher than today.
The oxygen in the air used to be CO2, normally a large component of planetary atmospheres, however a couple of billion years of photosynthesis has reduced CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere to levels where photosynthetic plants have been on the verge of asphyxiating themselves.
How can something be renewable when it goes off due to earth’s rotation and unfavorable weather conditions? Probably for the same reason the most dense area in the country, for morons, is located at one spot.
The idiocy of the LEFT/DEM knows no bounds. Not only are the racists they are inept scientifically. GET-THEM-OUT in 12mo. Please. Thank you.
Ya’ll don’t get it. “Carbon neutral” means it will be achieved the same way Google, Facebook, and Yahoo have done it. By buying carbon indulgences.
The Telegraph, quoted by Paul Homewood, put it perfectly:
And it applies just as much to the US as to the UK. At some point the electorate wakes up to the fact that what they are being asked to do, at vast expense, cannot possibly do what it has been sold as doing.
In the UK, it will be Farage or his successor who will capitalize on it. We saw with Brexit that the potential is there. There will be something similar in the US.
Salute!
Until the realists can overcome the warmist phobia of using nuclear power , then we shall fight a running battle for years to come. Ditto for realists not emphasizing the “environmental inpact” of thousands, hundreds of thousands of square miles of trees gone to pellets in England. And those trees were sequestering carbon! GASP.
Despite not able to unequivocably being able to define the complete causes of a warming climate, this fascination with carbon as the root of all evil is literally killing us.
The clever warmists divert arguments to temperatures and sea level and such. Use data from the last two hundred years, plus proxies from longer. O.K., but they ignore 90% of all the good things in those years that humans have invented and implemented to dramatically increase food production, much less millions of items that depend upon electricity to display what civilization is today – warts and all.
Somehow I cannot be convinced that we have gotten here by completely destroying “the planet’ and setting the stage for the end of life as we know it. That is, unless we rewind the clock and revert to a way of life so common a hundred years ago. And we have to do it right now!
There is zero possibility to have the same or more watts, water and watermelons in 50 years by starving the petroleum and nuclear power infrastructure of its ablility to provide reliable power and plenty of it. Not just volts but transportation capabilities and manufactured goods from the eveil fossil fuels.
My soultion is to sequester the greenies that harp on the solar panels and windmills, and wish to exist without using a drop of oil or gasoline. No need to be Fairbanks Alaska, but maybe some comfortable place in the middle of New York or Scotland or Germany. Hope they have super engineers and planners that designed their habitat. What will happen when the first severe blizzard hits and the windmills freeze up, panels are covered with snow, the batteries die after day 3, the EV emergency vehicles cannot be recharged, and worse of all? The Starbucks had to shut down! Oh, hope they stored all their organic carrots and turnups and meat from the free range chickens, hogs and cattle.
Look up Clancy’s ‘Rainbow Six’, and his solution.
Gums rants….
So, according to Kerry, coal use for generating electricity will be eliminated in the US by 2030 because it can be replaced by natural gas and “renewables” . . . read that as be replaced by natural gas.
Then, according to Kerry, using natural gas to generate electricity in the US will be eliminated (as is necessary to “eliminate all carbon emissions from the U.S. power grid by 2035”) . . . just 5 years later.
Yeah, right.
There is no need for me to pile on beyond what other have posted about the outright
naivetéstupidity of John Kerry.Climate change is befuddling people’s brains and making them believe in and fear climate catastrophe.
I worked for large stockholder companies. Having to support lies about future activity and worth made by the CEO during telephone calls with investors was demoralizing. The US EIA technical wonk who made that energy source slide must be a heavy drinker by now. All he did was keep the coal steady at current levels going forth – he couldn’t increase it for political reasons, and he couldn’t reduce it for practical reasons: there was no acceptable substitute he could call on: natural gas and nuclear are forbidden, and renewable at that replacement level would crash the grid!
The guys who oversaw the pullout from Afghanistan had the same problem. Couldn’t say the Biden plan was a disaster, couldn’t offer another for political reasons, just had to stuik with the announced rollout and let the future make the call.
The future of coal will be neither of the phase out nor status quo. When natural gas production declines, as it does at a shocking rate without constant new drilling, coal will have to step up again. Massachusetts will have to get its nighttime winter heating and New York City, its daytime summer air con somehow.
Okay but 2030 is not that far away in utility planning terms, so is he planning to pull the plug without notice at the last minute for industries and households using power from newer coal plants? Some of these industries are very high demand electric arc furnace steel minimills. They operate 24/7 and at night and on calm wind days. Those jobs are some of the highest pay jobs in states and regions.