By Dr. Lars Schernikau
More details in this short video and his book www.unpopular-truth.com/thevideo
1. What is gas, what is coal, and what do we use it for?
2. The current “switching” sentiment: coal, gas, and hydrogen.
4. Economic future for coal and gas.
Where would the world be today or tomorrow without gas or coal? Short answer: nowhere!
Coal and Gas make up 60% of global electricity and 50% of global primary energy. In China and India alone electricity from coal and gas account for about 65% and 75% respectively of the overall mix.
- In 2023 alone, China added over 40 GW of coal capacity and generated 340 TWh of additional electricity from coal (more than half of entire Germany)
- India added 6 GW of coal capacity and generated 120 TWh of additional electricity from coal
- China: 220 GW added solar capacity and 160 TWh added power from Solar (India: 10 GW added solar capa, and 20 TWh power, see Figure 1)
Most banks and government institutions support gas, but not coal as many scientific papers and most reports. They are modeling an economic pathway with “fewer emissions”, assuming that gas emits about half the “greenhouse gases” that coal does. Therefore, gas has been considered the “bridge towards the transition”.
Case in point of course, Germany. Germany’s energy policy towards so called “net-zero” relied on Russian gas to provide the “bridge” towards the desired “zero-emission future”. The Russian attack on the Ukraine put a forceful stop to that policy.
Liquified natural gas, LNG, reduces the dependence on pipelines and allows new suppliers and consumers to enter the market, making it seaborne. Southeast Asia and Europe, and so many more regions, started to take advantage of this new influx of “cleaner” fuel to power their thermal power plants
Then the year 2022 marked the big turning point. LNG prices skyrocketed, as Europe literally swept up the entire market and left close to “nothing” for developing nations. Heightened risks of grid failures in Bangladesh [1,2] and Pakistan [3] where just one of the many consequences.
Let’s have a look at Gas vs Coal. Is there a favorite? Can someone like me even answer such a question? Probably not completely unbiased, but let me try to give you a rundown anyway… to allow you to form an informed opinion about coal and gas.
Figure 1: 2023 wind and solar additions in India and China
Coal and gas use an established, relatively simple technology for power generation consisting of boilers, turbines, and generators. Looking at combustion for power generation only, the key advantages of gas include:
- Gas burns cleaner than coal, leaving less residue and causing less particle emissions. Since gas is invisible, it also appears cleaner to transport
- Gas has a higher thermal efficiency than coal during combustion
- Gas power plants can be used as “peaker plants” as they ramp up and down in minutes, faster than coal, which may ramp up and down slightly slower.
There are four key advantages of coal.
- Usually, not always, lower cost than gas (especially upfront investment and transportation/processing costs)
- Insignificant geopolitical concerns with reserves more evenly spread around the globe with difficult to control production and transportation (because of simplicity)
- Simple transportation (no pipelines, LNG terminals, regasification equipment, etc)
- High energy security, coal can be stored easily with less risk (no dependency on pipelines, no tanks required, no risk of explosion)
A CEO of a medium sized US utility that switched from coal to gas for economic reasons and under “ESG pressure”, recently summarized it as follows:
“Gas is great, but still… I used to have 4 months of energy supply in my backyard, today I wake up every morning praying that there is no problem with the gas pipeline, because I have millions of customers to serve every day. My energy security is far reduced”.
Let me reiterate that we need both gas and coal for our modern existence today and we will need it tomorrow. Personally, I am convinced that we need much more of both. The choice of coal or gas or both depends on each country’s specific geographical and geological situations, which makes it obvious why Saudi Arabia uses gas, India uses coal, and why the US uses both.
However, I sense that the biggest misunderstanding about both coal and gas is their importance as a raw material input (nothing to do with energy). There is hardly any product that we use that does not require either both or at least gas or coal as a chemical “raw material” input (your phone, clothes, your car, food, your house, computers, solar panels, on and on it goes).
For example, the importance of coal for solar panels is summarized in my recent article “Coal’s importance for solar panel manufacturing”.
What is gas, what is coal, and what do we use it for?
Natural gas or methane – simplified – is a hydrocarbon (CH4), consisting of one atom of carbon and four atoms of hydrogen. It is an energy dense gas, denser than hydrogen alone, and that is because of carbon. Carbon literally is a chemical miracle worker when it comes to hydrogen. Combined with hydrogen, carbon forms highly versatile and energetic “hydrocarbon” gaseous, liquid, and solid fuels (Figure 2). Higher carbon ratios yield solids and lower ratios yield gases, all possible at typical ambient temperatures and pressures. There is no need for complex equipment or pressure chambers.
Natural gas is considered a “fossil fuel” that developed from ancient plants and animals, tens to hundreds of millions of years ago. It is believed that both oil and natural gas originated from the remains of ancient marine organisms. Natural gas is extracted from underground reserves, often in combination with oil before it is “conditioned” for transport to the final consumer. Such conditioning may be as simple as preparing and sending it through a pipeline or as difficult as “making” liquified natural gas or LNG, a very cold and pressurized liquid form of gas. A fun fact, at −160°C the liquid gas volume reduces by a factor of about 600.
As per latest available resource information the from German BGR 2024 [18] we have over 200 years of known gas remaining potential available at current production rates. Remaining potential is the sum of known reserves and resources. Of course, new resources are being discovered continuously and technological advances continue to increase “the remaining life of fossil fuels”.
What is gas used for? Here are 5 main applications:
- Power generation (about 25% of global power comes from gas)
- Household heating and cooking
- Industrial heat (glass, cement, other product manufacturing)
- Feedstock for fertilizers (production of ammonia)
- Other raw material input (plastics, paint, pharmaceuticals, other products)
- Transportation fuel (i.e. compressed natural gas, CNG)
Coal on the other hand is a solid, largely consisting of the element carbon, mined from either underground or surface mines around the world, resulting in almost 9 Bln tons p.a., making up almost 10% of all “raw materials” we mine or grow annually for human existence. Coal is also considered a “fossil fuel” that basically comes from very old trees and plants, pressurized under airtight conditions for tens to hundreds of millions of years.
Coal is one of the few raw materials that we mine that can be used as is, without further processing or cleaning. Regardless, a significant portion of coal is processed in so called “washeries” to reduce the ash (silica or sand) content to upgrade the coal and increase the carbon content.
The German BGR 2024 [19] global analysis states that we have over 2,000 years of known hard coal remaining potential available, and over 3,000 years of lignite coal, at current production rates. Remaining potential is the sum of known reserves and resources.
There are many types of coals, depending on how old the coal is and what the geological conditions of coalification were. On average, older coal is more valuable than younger coal, but it is not always true. Two main types of coal exist: (1) metallurgical coal including coking coal and anthracites, but there is more; and (2) coal that is used primarily for thermal applications, often referred to as thermal coal.
As such, the main uses for coal include the following:
- Power generation (about 35% of global power comes from coal)
- Industrial heat (glass, cement, other product manufacturing)
- Steel making (2/3rd of global 2 Bln tons p.a. of steel are only possible because of coal)
- Other raw material input through chemical reduction and other processes (silicon for computers or solar panels, chrome, nickel, aluminum, + much more such as fly ash for cement products)
- Household heating (being phased out, rightly so)
- Source for critical minerals and fertilizer using humates
All chemical and physical details on coal can be accessed via Kindle or in print at “Schernikau’s Coal Handbook”
Figure 2: Fuels in a Thermodynamic System C-H2-O2; Conversion of Carbohydrate to Coal, Methane and Liquid Hydrocarbons
Source: Wolf 2021, from our book www.unpopular-truth.com (downloadable image available there)
The current “switching” sentiment: coal, gas, and hydrogen
The percentage of gas in the global electricity mix has been increasing over the past two decades from about 20% in 2004 to 25% in 2023. During the same time, coal’s share of electricity reduced from 40% to just over 35%. While both coal and gas continued growing in absolute terms (Figure 3) and retained their combined share essentially unchanged, this “switch” from coal to gas was driven by two reasons:
- Economic: low-cost fracking made additional abundant gas resources available especially in the US
- Political: the believe that gas has less “climate impact” than coal
Global Energy Monitor’s “Global Coal Plant Tracker” [17] – an anti-coal organization – noted that the number of countries with coal power under development (pre-construction and construction) has nearly halved from 75 in 2014 to 40 in 2024. China and India combined account for 86% of current development.
They also note that new coal-fired power station proposals continue to outpace cancellations. In the first half of 2024, over 60GW of coal capacity was newly proposed or revived, compared to the 34GW that was shelved or cancelled over the same period. China plans for 1.3 Bln annual tons of new coal mine capacity. So, coal is expanding! Despite this many governments and organizations predict peak coal by end of this decade… we shall see.
Gas is expanding even faster. Coal and gas have been “competing” for decades and gas is still favored by many governments. The gas industry, closely linked to the oil industry, is generally better funded for industrial policy and lobbying than coal. The gas industry has also specifically targeted coal in some of its advertising (Figure 4).
- In the pre-Russia energy communication in October 2021, the EU President van der Leyen said “Wind energy is very volatile… Alongside this, we need a stable source, nuclear, and during the transition, of course, natural gas”.
- As recent as September 2024, the European Commission [17, p26] writes that “Develop a comprehensive strategy at the EU level, coordinate with Member States on how to manage natural gas during the transition and on how to secure natural gas (from where, volumes and conditions) for the next 20 years.”
There appears to be two fundamental misunderstandings in the general media, among the population, and many political and industrial leaders, about coal and gas, namely:
- Misunderstanding 1: Coal and gas are interchangeable when it comes to energy and raw material resources, they clearly are not always.
- Misunderstanding 2: Gas is “better for the climate” than coal making it better suited as a “transition fuel”, see next section.
The interesting point is that sometimes gas is favored because there is a belief that Hydrogen will be the sustainable solution to long-duration energy storage, and gas power plants and transmission infrastructure may be more easily converted to hydrogen power plants than what coal power plant would. “The Hydrogen future” and gas’ role is a 3rd significant misunderstanding well summarized in the book “The Hydrogen Illusion” by Prof Furfari [4]. The fundamental misunderstanding is around the belief that hydrogen is sustainable, safe, and cost effective.
Figure 3: Coal and gas growth as% of global electricity production
Source: Schernikau based on BP, Our World in Data, Global Electricity Review
One simple point I would like to make here is that since solar and wind cannot be zero CO2, neither can hydrogen derived from excess or unutilized wind and solar. The value chain of hydrogen for storage includes “making” H2, storing H2, transporting H2 and then repowering H2. In all these steps about 65-80% of the input energy gets lost and dissipates in the form of low value, high entropy heat into the atmosphere (Figure 5). Thus, the CO2 footprint of wind and solar, when using H2 for storage, would multiply by a factor of 3 or 4! In addition, hydrogen is highly explosive, permeates practically everything including steel, and is thus a dangerous product to handle.
- for example, our yet unpublished research shows that the CO2 footprint is likely at the higher end or above of the IPCC AR6 range of 9-250 gCO2/kWh for solar power
- assuming 250 gCO2/kWh was correct, then a 4x increase due to hydrogen storage value chain’s energy “losses” would make solar power + H2 with 750 to 1.000 gCO2/kWh on par with “unabated” coal power plants
Even if H2 was a viable solution, which it is not, the development of a so called “hydrogen economy” does not initially require H2-ready gas power plants. Because (1) such H2-ready gas plants cannot yet be connected to the non-existing hydrogen grid, and (2) hydrogen sprinter and hybrid power plants would be well suited as well, not requiring gas [7].
- Interestingly, the cost of producing hydrogen from coal with CCUS (Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage) would be about three times less expensive than producing low-carbon hydrogen through water electrolysis [17]
In addition, to safeguard the fluctuating feed-in of renewable energy sources, consideration must also be given to the continuation of alternative technological developments such as large-scale storage systems. Until these are available, coal-fired power plants can easily take, and sometimes already do take the place of H2-ready gas turbines in securing the fluctuating feed-in of renewable energy sources [8]. Also, ammonia could be co-fired in coal-fired power plants as an H2 carrier [based on IEA].
Fyi, China or India are not building gas-fired power stations but continue to build coal instead, I wonder why. It appears coal can very well be used as backup for solar?
Figure 3: Coal and gas growth as% of global electricity production
Source: Schernikau based on BP, Our World in Data, Global Electricity Review
Figure 4: Hydrogen’s “energy” inefficiency, Michael Sura
Figure 5: misguided advertising for gas, dismissing methane and natural CO2 uptake
Lifecycle GHG emissions
Many discussions in the media and press have been about the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of gas, especially LNG. Not too long ago, The New Yorker [5] summarized it to the point “A new analysis suggests that LNG exports may well be worse for the environment than burning coal.” The peer-reviewed research referenced is from Howarth 2023 [6].
The well-established fact is that, assuming the IPCC is correct about methane’s global warming potential GWP, the relatively higher methane emissions throughout the life cycle of natural gas and LNG – from production and transportation to usage (including leaks), often offset, and in many cases exceed, the CO2 emissions advantage that gas has over coal. If one is worried about imminent human greenhouse gas induced catastrophic warming then CO2 doesn’t matter but CO2-equivalent (CO2eq) matters… over the next 20 years. This metric the IPCC measures with its 20-year Global Warming Potential GWP20.
For the record, I do not doubt that CO2 or CH4 (methane) are greenhouse gases. However, there remains scientific uncertainty and debate about the global warming potential and climate sensitivity of greenhouse gases. My detailed objection to IPCC’s GWP as well as the scientific debate and uncertainty on GWP cannot be detailed on this platform (see also [14]). For instance, Wijngaarden/Happer 2020 have analyzed GHG forcing in detail and conclude significantly lower climate sensitivities than those used by the IPCC.
In our own peer-reviewed research Schernikau/Smith 2022 “Climate Impacts’ of Fossil Fuels in Today’s Energy Systems” [7] we come to the same conclusion of gas not being “better for the climate” than coal, using data solely from the International Energy Agency (IEA in Paris) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC in Geneva).
The main “novelty” is that we included the fact that only half the CO2 emissions from any source can contribute to warming of the planet. This is a fact that is confirmed by the IPCC, but forgotten by most, because more than half of CO2 is taken up by nature such as plant life and oceans, contributing to greening of the Earth. The global warming potential of CO2 is for molecules remaining in the atmosphere acting as “greenhouse gases”, not for those taken up by nature.
Another noteworthy study confirming that LNG is “not better for the climate” than coal was published by Prof Wodopia of Germany in 2023 [8]. He concluded “the net lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the USA or Qatar are compared with those of coal, taking sulphur dioxide emissions into account. When used in a simple-cycle gas turbine, they are higher than those of coal. In part-load operation, the results shift further in favor of coal.
Countless additional studies make similar points, here some more examples:
- [9] Rosselot et al 2021: Comparing Greenhouse Gas Impacts from Domestic Coal and Imported Natural Gas Electricity Generation in China,
- [10] Mar et al 2022: Beyond CO2 Equivalence: The Impacts of Methane on Climate, Ecosystems, and Health,
- [11] Kemfert et al 2022: The Expansion of Natural Gas Infrastructure Puts Energy Transitions at Risk,
- [12] Nature 2022: Scientists Raise Alarm over ‘Dangerously Fast’ Growth in Atmospheric Methane,
- [13] IEEFA 2020, The Australian LNG Industry’s Growth – and the Decline in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards,”
- [14] Alvarez et al 2018, Assessment of Methane Emissions from the U.S. Oil and Gas Supply Chain.
- [15] Howarth, Robert W. “Howarth 2024: The Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Exported from the United States.” Energy Science & Engineering n/a, no. n/a (October 2024)
When “the science” is clear on this fact, then why does the EU support gas, but not coal? What am I missing? Why is the public being misled? Why do we continue to spend billions on replacing coal with imported LNG? Why are banks reluctant to fund coal, but not gas?
I repeat, we need more of both coal and gas, but isn’t it time to be honest with ourselves about its impact and consequences for economies and the environment?
Economic future for coal and gas
Understanding more about gas and coal, their importance for our energy needs and daily products used, but also their environmental impact, helps us make smarter energy policy decisions. I see that it is undisputed that coal and gas are on par when it comes to “the climate”. My opinion on the fallacy of measuring everything with CO2 is published here “The Dilemma of pricing CO2“.
The future of coal and gas appears to look bright, because (1) the demand for carbon and hydrogen sourced from coal and gas cannot be easily replaced when it comes to the production of our day-to-day products, and (2) because alternative ways of producing grid-ready power are either significantly more expensive and/or have a much worse impact on the environment.
For more details on energy costs please refer to my article “The Energy Trilemma” from earlier this year.
The fact that we need to continue investing in our coal and gas supply chains, power plants, and material use infrastructure, appears to be obvious.
Consider this – assuming coal and gas have a 40% power plant efficiency on average, then a global 1% efficiency improvement results in 2.5% (1/40%) less raw material used and less environmental impact. Isn’t this worth the investment? Remember that coal and gas make up almost two thirds of the world’s power generation!
Investments especially for coal but also for gas are not keeping up with demand and this will logically lead to power shortages and inflated prices. That in turn will lead to energy poverty and less GDP growth. Has anyone counted the cost to humanity from such personal and economic losses? I fear not.
Original published at www.unpopular-truth.com/blog
Links and Resources
[1] Reuters: Bangladesh’s Worst Electricity Crisis in a Decade, June 2023, sec. Asia Pacific. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/bangladeshs-worst-electricity-crisis-decade-2023-06-07/.
[2] Reuters: Bangladesh Plunged into Darkness by National Grid Failure, October 2022, sec. Asia Pacific. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/large-parts-bangladesh-without-power-after-national-grid-failure-daily-star-2022-10-04/.
[3] Reuters: Pakistan Suffers Big Power Outage after Second Grid Failure in Three Months, January 2023, sec. Asia Pacific. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/pakistan-suffers-major-power-outage-after-grid-failure-2023-01-23/.
[4] Prof Furfari, book “The Hydrogen Illusion” 2022, https://www.amazon.com/hydrogen-illusion-Samuel-Furfari/dp/B08KHGDZNS
[5] New Yorker: On Methane – A Smoking Gun for Biden’s Big Climate Decision, November 2023. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-smoking-gun-for-bidens-big-climate-decision
[6] Howarth 2023: The Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Exported from the United States,” October 2023,
[7] Schernikau and Smith 2022 ‘Climate Impacts’ of Fossil Fuels in Today’s Energy Systems’, SSRN Electronic Journal, March 2022. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3968359
[8] Wodopia 2024: Lifecycle Emissions From Gas and Coal Do Not Support a Coal-to-Gas Shift.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY, January 2024. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4674204
[9] Rosselot et al 2021: Comparing Greenhouse Gas Impacts from Domestic Coal and Imported Natural Gas Electricity Generation in China.” ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 9, no. 26 (July 2021): 8759–69. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c01517
[10] Mar et al 2022: Beyond CO2 Equivalence: The Impacts of Methane on Climate, Ecosystems, and Health, Environmental Science & Policy 134 (April 2022): 127–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.03.027.
[11] Kemfert et al 2022: The Expansion of Natural Gas Infrastructure Puts Energy Transitions at Risk, Nature Energy, July 2022, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01060-3
[12] Nature: Scientists Raise Alarm over ‘Dangerously Fast’ Growth in Atmospheric Methane, Nature, February 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00312-2
[13] IEEFA 2020, Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis, “IEEFA Brief: The Australian LNG Industry’s Growth – and the Decline in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards,” April 2020. http://ieefa.org/ieefa-brief-the-australian-lng-industrys-growth-and-the-decline-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards/.
[14] Alvarez et al 2018, Assessment of Methane Emissions from the U.S. Oil and Gas Supply Chain.” Science 361, no. 6398 (July 2018): 186–88. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7204.
[15] Howarth, Robert W. “Howarth 2024: The Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Exported from the United States.” Energy Science & Engineering n/a, no. n/a (October 2024)
[16] Wijngaarden/Happer 2020: Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases.” arXiv:2006.03098 [Physics], June 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098.
[17] based on IEA and other data, summarized by FutureCoal https://www.futurecoal.org/coal-facts/
[18] The Future of European Competitiveness, European Union, Sep 2024, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/ec1409c1-d4b4-4882-8bdd-3519f86bbb92_en?filename=The%20future%20of%20European%20competitiveness_%20In-depth%20analysis%20and%20recommendations_0.pdf
[19] BGR 2024, Energiestudie – Daten und Entwicklungen der deutschen und globalen Energieversorgung”, 2024, https://doi.org/10.25928/ES-2023.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This was the last of 12 articles I read this morning on climate and energy and was the best
Another article by the same author from earlier this year:
The Role of Nuclear in the Global World of Energy – CO2 Coalition
thank you, that is very kind of you
more articles and our book are here: Blog – The Unpopular Truth
Do we have a choice?
With Edstone Miliband… no.
Peanut butter or chocolate?
With government forced renewables the choices are more like
Arsenic or Cyanide
Couple of additional points.
Supercritical coal is about 41-45% efficient, CCGT is 61% at full load so emits about 40% the CO2 of SCC (if one is concerned about that). Coal takes 4-5 years to build, CCGT is at most 3, so more capital efficient. In the US, at any price lower than about $8/mmbtu CCGT is overall less expensive. But US has pipeline nat gas; China and India don’t so coal is preferred. LNG is a more expensive alternative for countries like Japan that have neither.
The long run solution for electricity is 4th Gen nuclear fission of some sort. That saves the nat gas for other uses like residential heating and cooking, and plastics. Saves the coal for the eventual future need to turn it into higher value liquid hydrocarbons (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel) as crude oil stocks slowly deplete. But we have decades to sort out best 4Gen nuclear.
“But we have decades to sort out best 4Gen nuclear.”
<p>China’s demonstration HTR-PM enters commercial operation</p> – World Nuclear News
Only a small unit, 2 x 200MWt, but they now have the plans of a working commercial pebble bed nuclear power plant, so can accelerate installation easily from there.
The hard part is believing what the Chinese say about it. Any outside info?
I believe it about as much as I believe their Covid death numbers.
Have not kept up on China pebble beds. But those are not new. The fact that it is also small and modular is what would be new.
I know for a fact that the Chinese also invested in a pilot scale molten salt reactor at about 15MWt. It has been in operation for several years already, if memory serves. Maybe the new modular pebble bed says molton salt reactors have commercialization or cost problems. A speculation on which I will do some research and maybe write a post if the results are interesting.
Seems translated.
Someone knowledgeable enough to push through the translation barrier will want to rewrite it.
Someone not knowledgeable enough to push through the translation barrier will not understand the charts.
e.g. working with these two data points in the same context takes careful explaining:
“Coal and Gas make up 60% of global electricity and 50% of global primary energy.”
“Power generation (about 35% of global power comes from coal)”
… because correct understanding requires reader to know the difference between energy, power and electricity measurements.
Electrical power is Volts* Amps
What discussion of global electricity amount or % isn’t a measure of electrical power?
thank you Kevin, well noted
“The Russian attack on the Ukraine”
It’s just Ukraine, not “the” Ukraine.
Thank you.
Also, the attack on Ukraine was not any cause of a shortage of natural gas for Europe, it was only a political excuse.
For Putin, it’s “the dam Ukraine, a hotbed of N*zis”.
thank you Jeff, noted
Very nice. Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators, build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators, remove wind and solar from the grid. It is time to move on CAGW is a lie, Net Zero is completely unnecessary, EVs should only be considered as toys and dangerous toys at that. Let us begin by getting the government out of the energy business, they have caused untold damage. Time for it to stop.
Yup. Biden is cognitively impaired, Harris is dumb, and Granholm remains a ditz first demonstrated as Michigan governor. Not confidence inspiring.
get government out of most businesses!
Given the ignorance and shallowness of decision-makers it’s probably as facile as the optics as seen in the photo montage above: you can’t get ‘clean energy’ from dirty coal.
Article says:” It is believed that both oil and natural gas originated from the remains of ancient marine organisms.”
Methane is found on the outer planets and moons. It is produced by rotting matter in swamps as was called swamp gas years ago. There is no reason to think the only place it comes from is “ancient marine organisms”.
with very few extraordinary geology counter examples. Methane can be proven of earthly biological origins by its 12C/13C differing with time ratio. Not abiotic despite the methane rich universe.
The problem is inherent in the formation of (earthly) inner rocky planets, not the gaseous outer planets—none of which have yet been sampled for 12C/13C ratios, which we infer should be constant, not changing with time, from first principles of stellar C formation.
Post says:” Methane can be proven of earthly biological origins by its 12C/13C differing with time ratio.”
This seems to be an extraordinary claim that the methane in our solar system came from earth. I have never encountered this before.
I will look into this further, but I admit skeptical of this claim.
Sigh. Rud means “Earthly methane can be proven…”
Earthly methane and petroleum that we recover is from the decomposition of ancient marine organisms, just like “swamp gas.” The difference being that they were geologically trapped before decomposing.
Methane can be formed by combining H20 can C02 with sufficient energy. Lots of places in the solar system, in the universe have energy in quantity. Just need to bring them together and hit them with the activation energy.
This is ass about.
Additional CO2 in the atmosphere increases biomass productivity. Land based biomass contributes to moisture retention over land and tempers the temperature range. Warmer winters and cooler summers – on average warmer. Amazon the best example of moisture retention by biomass.
CO2 has no direct influence in the radiation balance. Its is a very minor contribution to surface temperature increase through its added mass in the atmosphere.
CERES data has given us the information to prove warming this century is due to cloud reduction. Reflected sunlight has reduced at all latitudes apart from a small region in Antacttica and just north of the Equator. OLR has increased at all latitudes except where SWR has increased. The imbalance is net increase in retained energy.
?ssl=1
The “greenhouse gas” fairy tail states that OLR will be reduced by the addition of CO2 but the opposite is happening.
So to sustain any argument that CO2 has direct influence on the energy balance, you have to be able to prove why it has changed cloud formation and why a few latitudes over Antarctica and just north of the Equator are doing the reverse to all other latitudes.
“The “greenhouse gas” fairy tail states that OLR will be reduced by the addition of CO2 but the opposite is happening.”
Where does it say that in the scientific literature? You don’t understand the climate heating mechanism. I also don’t know where the graph comes from. CERES shows increasing OLR (and increasing energy imbalance) First two graphs at: https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2023-05/15_Loeb_Contributed_Science_Presentation_2023.pdf
You asked:
There are thousands of scientific papers written on the “heat trapping” basis for the fairy tale. I will quote from one;
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Zhong-Haigh-2013.pdf
The well known Hansen BS.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/25/temporal-spatial-thermal-response-to-heat-input-transfer-retention-in-the-climate-system/
It comes directly from CERES data. Anyone can reproduce it.
Correct as my chart does as well. But the increases in OLR is not universal across latitudes as my chart points out. The latest climate papers have realised that cloud reduction is causing the imbalance so are now busily explaining how CO2 causes reduced clouds. But the clouds have not reduced at all latitudes so they have to wrangle their BS around that as well. Climate models are increasingly resembling the Ptolemaic model of the universe; becoming increasingly complex to explain the observations that they did not predict. The climate modellers will never admit their basic premise is a fairy tale.
There’s no point discussing local responses at different latitudes if the overall global effect of how GHGs work is not understood. Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8 – it’s by a physicist who admits at first she didn’t understand it properly – easily done.
Quote from the paper you linked: “A basic definition of instantaneous Radiative Forcing (RF) is the (hypothetical) change in the net downward radiative flux at the tropopause in response to an perturbing factor before the atmosphere has adjusted to the forcing. Thus our calculations assume no change in the surface or atmosphere, do not consider the climate response to the RF, or any issues related to
climate sensitivity, but focus on variations in the radiative balance introduced by vary-
ing concentrations of CO2 .” This is how science deals with GHG forcings. It calculates the decrease in outgoing energy instantaneously (everything else including temperature stays the same). This provides the amount of the energy imbalance that forces the atmosphere to heat up to increase outgoing energy flux so balance is achieved again. So it is quoted that GHGs reduce OLR but in the real world OLR increases over time. Please actually read what you are quoting.
“So to sustain any argument that CO2 has direct influence on the energy balance, you have to be able to prove why it has changed cloud formation and why a few latitudes over Antarctica and just north of the Equator are doing the reverse to all other latitudes.”
Place a pot of water on a heat source. Is it required to describe every single eddy and location of every rising bubble to prove that the water will boil and the cause is the heat source underneath it? No.
You are now changing the subject. I showed you the basis of the fairy tale. You are now trying to complicate the picture as the modellers are by making ever more complex models trying to produce what its being observed when they have no clue.,.
None of the climate models work because they parameterise clouds. Clouds are the result of physical processes in response to surface temperature. Without the physics of that linkage the models are useless.
Climate is the result of complex interplay of energy flows driven by the sun. If you want to understand it you need to understand the physical processes. The case of water boiling is a good point and highly relevant to the climate because the energy flows in the climate are primarily controlled by the phase change of water and buoyancy of water vapour. Similar process observable with water boiling. If you cannot explain the process then you have no hope of modelling it correctly.
When you can explain why oceans cannot sustain 30C surface temperature over an annual cycle you might begin to understand why the GHE is pure crap.
All models, except the Russian INM model, show ocean surface sustaining more than 30C. This is not possible with the present atmospheric mass.
thank you Rick
i fully agree that CO2 contributes to greening of the Earth. I am also not concerned about slight warming of the atmosphere, more details on my view about CO2 you can see in this short article
https://unpopular-truth.com/2024/06/07/the-dilemma-of-pricing-co2/
I believe in the future there will be micro-nuclear power. That is, you can power your own home or business or small communities with a micro-reactor and grid. A new industry and supporting infrastructure and personnel emerges to maintain this energy structure.
Industrial scale generation and national / interstate transmission / grids may be completely de-constructed and replaced with ‘on-site’ nuclear generation for electrical applications.
Oil and gas continue. Wind and solar is halted, finally recognized what it truly is, an anachronism, demolished & recycled to the extent possible.
i fully agree that Nuclear will play an important part in the future of our energy systems
the potential of nuclear i summarized in this short Oxford Institute article
https://unpopular-truth.com/2024/02/22/advantages-of-nuclear-energy/
I get a number of hits on a search for
but none of those make the slightest attempt to say what kind if animal this is. Does anyone know?
thank you, referenced here at Wodopia 2023, it might be a bad translation
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4674204
in German Wasserstoff-Sprinter-Kraftwerke und Wasserstoff-Hybrid-Kraftwerke
referenced in here, if you use google translate it may help?
Wasserstoffkraftwerke: Drei Maßnahmen sollen 23,8 GW bis 2035 ermöglichen – H2-news.de
sorry about it
thanks, Lars
I see CTLs (Fischer Tropsch) in our future for liquid fuels. Cheers –
I enjoy reading Lars’ blogs and this is no exception. I always find references of interest and diagrams such as the end member diagram, I had not seen before.
Aside from describing my pleasure in reading his discussion, why am I writing now?
Coal and NG are complementary, as Lars writes. The amount CO2 emitted by either is irrelevant – we need both fuels. The climate issues were succinctly pigeon-holed by Lovelock in 2013 (his ABC interview) when he dismissed it all saying -‘nothing much is happening’ and that is as true today as a decade ago.
Some persons believe we are a very short leash – a few years even – concerning the peak of fossil fuels. My answer to that is: We have been on a short leash since Hubbert’s prediction, (correctly) of the shortage in 1973. But that prediction was for ONLY conventional oil. Technology has made every subsequent prediction fail. Even with the Biden Regime trying to limit fossil fuels in every way possible, last year the US produced more oil than ever. Now, irony of ironies, the BR is crediting itself for the new oil record!
Lars’ referenced coal estimate is reassuring. Making electricity is easy with coal and coal is key in steel production. Arc furnaces are a distant fourth. Making liquid fuels is not so easy, but with coal that too is possible(see below).
Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) are running into headwinds AND are ramping up electricity demands rapidly. Norway, a leader in BEV mandates, uses as much electricity as Sweden, but has one-half the population (but nearly the same climate). BEVs are responsible, at only a roughly 25% penetration. Norway’s hydro-power is nearly topped out. Europe wants Norway as its battery, but the number do not even nearly add up.
Modular nuclear plants, mentioned in the comments, are the new toys of the super-rich. Let’s hope that Musk, not Bezos nor Gates designs them. However, 1 GWe plants are needed to replace fossil fuels in electricity generation for the usual public. If you are concerned with thermal efficiency, the ‘waste’ heat is available for co-production in Gen III. Gen IV does not exist yet (I have this on the authority of GROK). LCOE, levelized cost of electricity, will favor nuclear for base power when the playing field is leveled. Now, it is skewed by regulation and senseless obstruction. Base electrical power from Gen III passive cool-down reactors, about 4000 of them globally, using NG turbines to load follow, can guarantee the future of our civilization. If coal is used as a source of carbon, not a source of hydrogen, then we can make liquid fuels for a few centuries while learning a better way.
The problem we face is NOT a shortage of electrical power, but a shortage of political power. The carrots are in charge.
If they get small modular production both reliable and affordable the 200MW units mentioned only require 5 units at a single facility to equal 1GW. The trick is to produce the SMR with a 200MW nameplate at 1/5 the cost of a single 1GW reactor unit
thank you Bill
‘Case in point of course, Germany. Germany’s energy policy towards so called “net-zero” relied on Russian gas to provide the “bridge” towards the desired “zero-emission future”. The Russian attack on the Ukraine put a forceful stop to that policy.’
No, it did NOT.
What put a forceful stop to that policy was the covert declaration of war on the continent of Europe by the USA. It actively promoted coup d’etat in Ukraine, with the installation of a racist, anti-Russian government which discriminated against ethnic Russians in Ukraine just the same way that Europeans in the USA discriminated against negros. Their language was nixed in all official channels. No Russian allowed.
Attempts at ethnic cleansing entirely equivalent to Gaza were foiled by local militias, which led to the declaration of autonomy by both Donetsk and Luhansk. Russia did not seek to colonise either colony, supported the ethnically Russian people in their struggle against racists in Kyiv and actively pushed the Minsk II protocol to preserve peace in Ukraine. The USA did all in its powers to ensure that Minsk II was not activated.
The USA continued to push NATO right onto Russia’s borders, entirely equivalent to Russia signing up Mexico and Canada as nations hostile to the USA and planting medium-range nuclear missile systems pointed straight at LA, Seattle, Chicago, NYC, Boston, Baltimore, Washington DC and more. Somehow in the deranged minds of US lunatics, this is not a threat to Russian Security.
Putin did not want to go into military conflict with Ukraine, it was a last resort for him.
The US used this to destroy European-Russian energy relations, organising the destruction of Nordstream II as an act of international terrorism. Any American that tries to say otherwise should be considered a terrorist, and liable for extrajudicial execution should they ever set foot on the continent of Europe. This includes the warmongering psychopath that postures as the US Ambassador in Poland, not to mention the US prostitutes psoturing as government officials in Warsaw.
Europe’s energy supplies have been largely destroyed by an enemy called the USA, whose long term relationships with Europe outside of Ukraine and Poland are now largely dead, outwith the prostitutes they have bunged to serve their interests in satrapy governments. The peoples of Europe know now that the USA is their enemy and that the NATO postwar framework is a farce.
London does not represent the UK peoples, never has done, never will do. It is populated with globalist psychopaths that think that warmongering for imperial conquest shows ‘superiority’. It just shows criminality. It lets the US asset strip its industry across the UK, turn it into an economic vassal. And yet it thinks it can continue to act independently in political terms. What a load of moronic rubbish!
If the US PEOPLE want to retain any form of harmonious ‘relationship’ with the peoples of Europe, then they are going to have to invoke their Constitution, overthrow the criminals of the Deep State and return to a land of small government, not seeking global hegemony.
Otherwise, they are going to be increasingly on their own, being treated like concentration camp Jews increasingly finding that those work camps will turn into extermination camps. And the people doing that to the US people? Their own traitorous Deep State……quite possibly in cahoots with the Zionist psychopaths currently committing genocide in the Middle East…..
“Putin did not want to go into military conflict with Ukraine, it was a last resort for him. ”
He wanted to dominate it in every way without war if possible- the way he dominates Belorussia- which he hopes to slowly digest into the new Russian Empire. Decades ago he said the worst thing to happen in the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many Russian brigades in Ukraine use the old Soviet flag. They wouldn’t do that without approval from the top. A few years ago Putin lauded Peter the Great- for his wonderful imperialist work. Anyone thinking kindly of Russia under Putin hasn’t read their history.
Your propaganda is wrong on so many points.
I choose to ignore you.