From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2024
According to the latest IEA report, consumption of coal is set to hit a record high this year, and continue to grow till 2027. No forecasts are made for years after.
https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2024
There still appears to be some naive puzzlement at the IES, that renewable energy is not replacing coal.
They still have not worked out that countries like China and India know that they cannot run their economies on the vagaries of wind and solar power.
Millivolt is not interested, he will blindly carry on despite all the evidence telling him he is going to destroy the UK economy on a false pretence. Latest one is to burn hydrogen in a gas plant, as all the wind farms have guaranteed CFD prices it can only put up costs.
From the Telegraph comments.
“Hydrogen loses about 20% of the Energy” is not correct. Current electrolysis is about 70% energy efficient on a HHV basis (141 MJ/kg H2 HHV), but in any conversion of H2 to useful energy, you only get the LHV of H2 (120 MJ/kg), so in actuality, the best you can get is 60% efficiency no including compression or liquifaction costs and transportation losses. Delivering H2 to an end user will probably net 50% energy efficiency, and then there is the conversion of H2 into useful power or products which have their own efficiency. Making Electricity into Fuels (e-Fuels) is about 20-25% efficient. With all the other demands for power, making H2 is definitely not a good choice.
According to Ed Miliband, Britain must set an example to the rest of the world. Unfortunately for him, nobody in their right mind wants to follow British policies which have given us the highest electricity prices in the world.
Are they higher than Germany?
The UK and Germany are about the same. We’re right up there but we’re neither of us “the highest in the world”.
Whether we are the highest of very nearly the highest, our electricity prices are nothing to to be proud of.
Not sure about the cost of electricity but Blackout Bowen and Upgrade Albo here in Australia seem to be following the UK very well if not better.
I am waiting for the real 5 day heat wave to hit this summer.. It will be fun..
British policies? It isn’t just electricity, Muhammed. It seems British policy is to eliminate all things British.
OT, but I see that Muhammed is now the most popular new-born boy’s name in the UK.
_______________________________________________________________________________
IES could be:
Industrial Energy Solutions
Institution of Engineers in Scotland
The Institute of Environmental Sciences
Integrated Extraction Simulator (IES)
Oops looks like typo and it’s really the IEA
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Or maybe not as the above LINK doesn’t tell you what IEA stands for either.
Still moaning about acronyms, Steve?
Don’t visit the Nasa website….
IES is a typo. Get over it.
IEA = International Energy Agency.
Just clink the link, scroll to the bottom, and look to the right side of the page.
“They still have not worked out that countries like China and India know that they cannot run their economies on the vagaries of wind and solar power.”
Not true. Here is the same IEA on renewables, comparing the last six years with the next six. China is more than the rest of the world combined, but expected to treble that in the next six years:
Capacity… Renewables…. is a meaningless usage of words.
Do you still fall for that nonsense, Nick ??? really !!
….. and out to 2030.. roflmao.
Now China has a working modular pebble bed nuclear facility.. wind and solar will die a natural death.
They really are in the WHY BOTHER category. !
They also have a lot of tea.
There’s an awful lot of coffee in Brazil too ..
Nick, are you determined to fiddle while Rome burns?
Paul Homewood says:
“There still appears to be some naive puzzlement at the IES, that renewable energy is not replacing coal.”
I can’t find any evidence of puzzlement in the extracts quoted in Paul Homewood’s article.
Now for Nick’s comment.
He objects to Paul Homewood stating that “countries like China and India know that they cannot run their economies on the vagaries of wind and solar power” and gives a chart showing the growth in renewable capacity in a number of countries between 2017 and 2030. Some of this growth is obviously subject to speculation as there are still four years to go before we get to 2030. However, the figures show that these countries are investing more in renewables. (One plus point for Nick, one minus point for Paul Homewood.) However, the figures show that “countries like China and India” are not investing sufficiently in renewables to totally depend on them. (One plus point to Paul Homewood and one minus point to Nick.)
“
Nick appears to be
A faithful employee of sorts
An automaton
An algorithm
Investment in renewables is eye candy, in my opinion.
He effectively and reliably converts his capacity for bullshit into actual bullshit.
Isn’t he a QC in Oz?
The chart is “growth”, including growth that has not yet happened. Not a meaningful metric.
Comparing six years of reality with six years of projected fantasy? I wish i had your crystal ball or set of tarot cards (or tea leaves in a tea cup). I could make myself rich in the stock market.
Paul’s article is about the IEA prediction for coal. But anyway, it shows the extent of present Chinese investment.
Because of their ideological bent, IEA prediction for coal is probably very much on the low side.
And their prediction for renewables is pure fantasy.
China’s is even more opaque than is the Biden administration, and their numbers are even less reliable.
The chart really does not show the extent of present Chinese investment. If capacity started at zero, then a high percentage matters little. If capacity started at a big number, then a high percentage matters a lot.
Why not give the proportion of Ruinables in the overall energy mix? Or would that not look good for you?
In December 2023 China had 441GW of wind and 609GW of solar compared to 1390GW of coal
During that year solar provided just 3% of China’s electricity, wind 9%, coal 70%. So the 1050GW of unreliables provided only 12% of the country’s electricity.
.Much of the solar in particular seems to be doing nothing but fulfilling plans or waiting for the ghost cities to magic up some inhabitants.
“provided only 12% of the country’s electricity”
according to this.it was 16% of actual generation.
Still totally PATHETIC compared to the installed capacity, isn’t it thick-Nick !
Even if true, it’s still only 16%.
Stokes is credulous enough to believe CCP statistics.
12% and 16% are both small numbers
but they are growing year on year.
Yes, but growing extremely slowly from a tiny base. Coal is also growing rapidly.
Take a look at the graphs Stokes has posted below. On that trajectory it will be centuries before Ruinables constitute more than 50% of the total energy mix in China.
So is coal. ! A small extra on top of a small amount can give a big percentage.
Ooops. basic junior maths, beyond Izzy-dumb’s ability to understand.
The numbers I provided were from Climate Energy Finance ‘2023 China Electricity Mix Yearly Review’ (30th Jan 2024).
They are an Australian outfit.
The problem is that, when wind drops off to near zero due to a Blocking High Pressure Zone covering most of China (like it does in Australia for weeks at a stretch), suddenly China is short some 3200GW of needed energy production…that they WILL back up with reliable coal.
China isn’t adding any quantity of Wind/Solar (WHIM Energy) that isn’t backed by an equal quantity of RELIABLE coal/gas fired generation.
Does anyone have any valid reason to trust anything IEA publishes?
It’s WUWT’s source here.
Irrelevant.
China also has ghost cities that no one lives in. You are like a dog with a Frisbee.
Nick, China is building huge amounts of solar every year. In 2023 solar provided only 3% of China’s electricity. Like China’s ghost cities most of the solar is doing nothing but aging.
The question is not how much wind or solar they are installing. The question is what percentage of their generating capacity is wind and solar, and is this percentage increasing, and where is it likely to end up.
China will still be the world’s largest CO2 emitter in 2035 or 2045. It will still be mining and burning more coal than the rest of the world put together.
Any idea that China is following policies based on a desire to control emissions and help take the world to net zero is delusion. It is quite obvious that the ruling elite don’t believe a word of it.
“The question is what percentage of their generating capacity is wind and solar, and is this percentage increasing, and where is it likely to end up.”
And yes, it is increasing rapidly.
And Nick puts forward graph that shows..
a.. solar and wind are very small contributors to electricity supply
b… COAL fired electricity generation increasing faster than either wind or solar.
c… a graph showing how much totally beneficial plant-life food is being created.
Thanks thick-Nick !
Since Nick is producing graphs from 2000-2023, lets look at the actual increases in supply from wind, solar and coal over that period.
Wind… 2300 TWh
Solar… 1517 TWh
COAL… 17327 TWh.
(data from Our World Data)
Stokes, you addressed the topic “percentage of their generating capacity” with charts that did not include “percentage of their generating capacity“.
“percentage of their generating capacity” can be calculated with that data, but that’s not what the data is.
I’m sure if I quoted capacity, that would be criticised. Percentage actually generated is more meaningful.
Which remains minimal.
Especially compared to the money wasted on installations.
What is your point !?
All you have managed to show is the abject uselessness of wind and solar.
Was that your intent ?
China’s energy sources are 1. Coal, 2. Oil, 3. Gas, 4. Hydro. That super-impressive graph showing China using so much more wind and solar in 2030 doesn’t look quite so super-impressive once you relate it to the real world.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?country=~CHN
I predict the EU economy will collapse in the next 5 years. If they want to safe something of it they need to ditch the green deal. And mostly start building gas and coal powerplants. Yes, coal, it’s one energy resource that can be mined within the EU and will lower energy costs which is desperately needed. But we all know how it will go. Instead you have 22 billion of your money squandered to an useless project that will end costing 50 billion. When did people became so docile? I’ve never seen such destruction and people just don’t care.
Bread and circuses.
Certainly in the UK [and I guess it’s broadly similar in much of the rest of Europe, save perhaps only countries with a land border with Poisoner Putin], the burning subject of conversation is the soaps, football [soccer for N. Americans], and ‘Strictly’ [a dancing competition].
There are whinges over prices, but the MSM [carefully] don’t link prices to energy input prices – that might give the game away.
Is Mr Miliband [described as the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (honestly!)] aware of the threat? Well, he is supposedly intelligent, so – if so – he must therefore be acting on an undeclared objective [probably the ruination of the UK].
But as long as some new bleeding heart case wins ‘Strictly’ [or the Jungle, or the Voice . . . ] the populace is quiescent – and Whitehall and Westminster achieve their aims.
I wonder if, in that Great Gulag in the Sky, Mr Brezhnev is grinning?
Auto
Story tip
Perhaps reality is beginning to set in:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/net-zero-electricity-climate-canada-1.7412874
It’s a shift of an inch (0r 2.5 cm) only.
“The federal government is backing away from its former goal of achieving net-zero in the national electricity grid by 2035 — but it is promising deeper emissions reductions in the energy sector after 2050.”
2050? Isn’t that halfway to apocalypse?
2050, in other words, long after everyone currently in office is safely retired.
IEA Coal Outlook Bad News For Miliband.
This is a complete failure to understand the mentality of the man. He does not think like you or I. He is a firm believer and he firmly believes it is his calling – pied piper fashion – to lead the world by “example”. To show everybody how it is done. He’s been banging this drum for some time – obviously:
“COP21 – the UK must lead to world to ‘net zero’ emissions
Ed Miliband | 23rd November 2015″
https://theecologist.org/2015/nov/23/cop21-uk-must-lead-world-net-zero-emissions
So, what the rest of the world does matters not, what does matter is how he sets our [global] example…
“So how can it be done in the UK? It is about a 100% clean energy supply. It is about making our energy system more efficient and productive. It is about the right infrastructure. And, to cancel out residual emissions from agriculture and industry”
Starmer put this lunatic and his coterie of fellow loony advisors in a job. I, myself, would put our Flywheel in a padded cell.
So how can it be done in the UK? It is about a 100% clean energy supply.
Well that’s now come down to 95% so at least he’s moving in the right direction. That’s in a space of 5 months. So in the space of two years it could easily be down to 70%. Starmer’s already reneged on Labour’s promises to the WASPI women on the grounds that he’s now discovered a huge black hole in Labour’s promises. Who knows what he might do on energy. This man is the opposite of Mrs T: he’s definitely for turning.
“at least he’s moving in the right direction”
That reminded me of an episode of Red Dwarf (Lemons, season 10, #3)
Rimmer: “A potato, a copper coin and an iron nail. We can make a one-volt battery.
Make eight, connect them up, we’ve got eight volts and can return home.”
Kryten: “Britain in 23 AD, sir, doesn’t have any potatoes and won’t get them until the 16th century.”
Rimmer: “Lemons! The exact same battery but with lemons.”
Kryten: “Britain in 23 AD, sir, doesn’t have any lemons either. They won’t get those until the 14th century.”
Cat: “He’s getting closer.”
Smeg! What the smeggin’ smeg’s he smeggin’ done?
Don’t go all wobbly on us.
I blame his father. He obviously knew Ed was an idiot, constantly told him he was an idiot and Ed is valiantly trying to prove his Dad was right 🙂
So far so good
I suspect that when the real data comes in coal may have crossed the 9 Billion tonne mark in 2024.
The reality of coal use and hence CO2 emissions from it, have yet to be accepted by the new Labour government here in the UK.
The Net Zero minister Ed Miliband has been given permission to throw £22 billion at carbon capture technologies not yet developed or in use anywhere. The significance of that figure £22 billion to be spent on literally a pipe dream, in not lost on anyone as we are reminded every week at Parliamentary Question Time by Keir Starmer that he inherited a £22bilion black hole from the past Tory government. WE have heard this trite unsupported statement every week since July. Now we realise, he is not referring to the legacy he inherited from the past government, he is actually stating his preferred spending policy of throwing £22 billion down the black hole of carbon capture as required by Net Zero lunacy which is a Tory government/international initiative.
Let’s not forget the millions of destitute cold pensioners that Starmer has robbed taking their winter fuel allowance off them to help fund this lunacy.
The rewriting of “It will be cold this Christmas” is destined to be number one download this year though the BBC are trying every way they can to avoid recognising it, or playing it.
“ the BBC are trying every way they can to avoid recognising it, or playing it.”
Goebbels would have come up with a replacement ditty… these people are amateurs.
“A BBC spokesperson said music track decisions are made “with the relevant audiences and context in mind”
https://order-order.com/2024/12/18/bbc-feeling-the-heat-to-play-starmer-parody-song/
They give the game away.
Antonius Diogenes was very clever predicting that at least one idiot like Miliband would appear in every human generation and despite living in cloud cuckoo land would manage to find a stage from which to shout out their stupidity for all to hear.
We do have clean and green nuclear power but numbskulls like Miliband want to virtue signal rather than use whatever grey matter they may have which is why we haven’t used nuclear to maximum effect in the past and may never do do in the foreseeable future either.
What’s the future going to bring to 2050? Miliband hasn’t a clue since absolutely nothing of use goes on in his skull or ever has done.
That’s just a more delicate way to state…
China, which is responsible for 65% of global annual coal consumption and, by extension is responsible for 65% of Coal based emissions
Go protest Coal usage in China, where you might make a difference
No chance. Starmer is trying to give the Chinese a leg up…
Keir Starmer’s proposed deal with Mauritius to hand over the Chagos Islands would not prevent China from building a rival base in another part of the archipelago, according to a written ministerial answer.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chagos-islands-china-diego-garcia-airbase-b2665984.html
Chart is wrong, coal consumption in both China and India will increase from 2025-27, not remain flat.
Oops, spoke too soon, the chart does show a slight increase. I should know better than to comment before my morning coffee.
MEDIA BIAS FACT CHECK:
Detailed ReportBias Rating: CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Oh my, another group of socialists declaring that anyone who disagrees with the party is a liar.
By citing such weak claims, all you are doing is declaring for all to see that you are incapable of thinking for yourself and are unwilling to actually form and support any valid arguments.
Be a good little troll and just run along, I’m sure there must be someplace in this world where your talents are appreciated.
Do you accept the findings of peer reviewed science?
“Do you accept the findings of peer reviewed science?”
You haven’t presented any.!
Question is .. DO YOU. !!
8 Taiwanese Engineers Determine The Climate Sensitivity To A 300 ppm CO2 Increase Is ‘Negligibly Small’
You have FAILED COMPLETELY to produce any empirical scientific evidence of any warming by atmospheric CO2.
Please stop. It’s getting painful.
So far WUWT denizens have an unbroken record of answering “NO”. You are now added to my list.
So far the beetroot has FAILED COMPLETELY to do anything except make plaintive yapping sounds.
Has strenuously avoided presenting one single bit of peer-reviewed literature to support anything.
There is a piece of peer-reviewed literature just above.
Are you capable of reading it and understanding it ?
… or do you need to get your 10-year-old boyfriend to help you.
—
“Do you accept the findings of peer reviewed science?”
Will you add yourself to your petty little list ??
Uh oh, he’s got a list! Run!
SCARY, hey ! 😉
It really is cute how you actually believe that peer review means the science must be correct and can no longer be questioned.
Of course the real world has shown that “peer review” is not the magic bullet that poor Warren so desperately wants it to be.
Warren believes in magic. In his world uttering the magic words, “peer reviewed”, makes any claim unquestionable.
Peer-review just means “accepted for journal publication”.
I accept the findings of independently replicated science.
Do you automatically agree with every study that is published? Most of them are wrong, you know, in every field.
Yes, you are on my list
SCARY. !
Although a list of people who know FAR MORE than you are ever capable of…..
…. would be basically infinite.
Are you a low IQ 10-year-old ??
You sound like one.
So you prefer unreplicated studies?? Please explain how they are better.
never said that.
You haven’t said anything… your comments are empty garbage.
Don’t tell him Pike.
I accept science. The peer reviewed isn’t relevant.
And you’re still on my list — because youre accepting the crap that’s posted on WUWT.
You are near the top on my “these guys are MORONS” list.
I’m am genuinely amazed that you show no embarrassment whatsoever in posting this transparent garbage.
I think it’s time for the mods to stop this spamming in every thread, sometimes multiple times per thread. Other sites would have shot it down right away.
Thanks for the laugh!
Leftist weaklings like Mrs Beeton are unable to point out à single false assertion from WUWT, but instead run to “fact checkers” like this one to attack.
You’re not paying attention. I’ve debunked several lies posted on WUWT
You may have tried, but each time your lies have been thrown back in your face.
Nope. The liars just kept lying.
Whining about how all the scientists that agree with you also agree with each other is not proof.
“The liars just kept lying.”
Yep, you do.
You are a scientific NON-ENTITY.
A mouth without a brain.
Ok Beef Supreme.
Not even close to being correct, but as long as you are collecting your paycheck, I guess it doesn’t matter to you.
You haven’t debunked ANYTHING
You remain an EVIDENCE-FREE non-entity.
Where does all the energy required to build renewable energy come from? COAL.
The more renewable energy you build the more coal will be burned. It will take 200 years of coal to build enough renewable energy to replace fossil fuels.
One minor correction: Change coal to slave labor coal
“enough renewable energy to replace fossil fuels”
Sorry.. that will NEVER happen. !
Very nice Paul, well done.
The reason that the IEA is experiencing “naive puzzlement” that renewables aren’t replacing coal is that there are too many impractical dreamers at that organization. Instead of facing the reality that fossil fuels in general still provide 82% of the world’s primary energy supply, they keep deluding themselves and others into believing wind and solar in particular are ready to take over this supply at a moment’s notice. Because of this false belief, they can’t or won’t recognize that such an energy shift won’t happen until well past mid-century and maybe as far ahead as 2100.
The shift will NOT be to wind and solar… they are a “sunset” technology with no wind behind them.
It will almost certainly be towards nuclear.
But coal, gas, oil will still remain a significant portion of global energy supply.