UPDATE on “The end of coal, fossil fuels and the rise of unreliables – wind/solar.”
By Paul Homewood
China’s natural gas production surged to a record last month and coal output rebounded as economic growth accelerated power use in the world’s largest energy user.
View original post 350 more words
Meanwhile, China opens a new coal-fired power station every week. With 2,500 more in the pipe by 2030 (the exact year the Obama/China ‘Emission cap’ deal takes place).
Epic greenwashing propaganda by the Chinese. But all told, they are winning the propaganda green game with green activists the world over, including Greenpeace China, praising China for their “unreliable” energy (wind/solar) efforts!
Hilarious how far the West and eco-nuts are being taken for a ride.
Nice one China. You still got it ! (Propaganda wise that is!) 🇨🇳
Smog hangs over a construction site in Weifang city, Shandong province, Oct 16. 2015. Air quality went down in many parts of China since Oct 15 and most cities are shrounded by haze. [Photo/IC] Guest essay by Eric Worrall
China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, has just called the USA “selfish” for wanting to remain economically competitive.
Trump must be urged to save climate deal
Source:Global Times Published: 2017/3/30 0:13:40 Last Updated: 2017/3/30 7:14:23
Leaders from China and the US reached an agreement on climate change at the end of 2014, which paved the way for the signing of the Paris Agreement the next year. China and the US are the world’s two largest emitters of carbon dioxide. China is poised to reduce the emissions per unit of GDP by limiting the use of fossil fuels. However, what the US is doing undermines the other countries’ dedication…
View original post 217 more words
Coal-fired power is dead Update…
Good news for Australia’s flailing economy. It’s a pity that the hard-green lobby and climate elites have successfully demonised coal under the weight of “global warming” hysteria, shifting hard to green-energy madness mode, selling more coal than Australia uses, making energy prices skyrocket, pushing jobs, industry and ’emissions’ offshore.
By Paul Homewood
From the Daily Caller:
Environmental activists are fuming over Japan’s plans to build as many as 45 new coal-fired power stations in the coming years.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is still firmly behind plans to build coal plants, despite repeatedpressuresfromenvironmentalists to stop construction of the major new coal plants. Abe wants more new coal plants to make sure the island nation isn’t too reliant on any one source of electricity.
“Japan needs to import 95 per cent of all its energy sources,” Tom O’Sullivan, an energy analyst with Mathyos Global Advisory in Tokyo, told Australian Broadcasting Corporation. “So it’s trying to diversify its fuel sources and it doesn’t want to be too reliant on any one market.”
Most of the coal Japan plans to burn in these plants will be imported from the U.S. or Australia. The country is also building additional…
View original post 294 more words
“Incredible, to have green groups campaign to keep the poorest people poor. And to cost Australians money and jobs while doing so.”
No surprise, as Green groups are proud misanthropists who despise humans – except themselves of course.
By Andrew Bolt ~
India warns that green groups – backed with American money – are making investment in Australian mines too hard.
A highly orchestrated, secretly foreign-funded group of Australian environmental activists opposing the $16 billion Adani coalmine in Queensland has “dampened” Indian investment interest in Australia and received heated criticism from the federal Coalition and Queensland Labor governments.
Indian Power Minister Piyush Goyal told The Australian yesterday the years of legal challenges to the vast Carmichael coal project, now revealed to have been funded by multi-million-dollar foundations in the US, “will certainly dampen future investments” from India…
After meeting Mr Goyal, federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan, who has previously criticised the campaign to block the Indian project, said: “We need to be able to take advantage of the demand for coal in Asia.”…
View original post 274 more words
Meanwhile, the politically correct, climate-obsessed, eco-brainwashed West continues to destroy their economies, pursuing useless “unreliable” energy – wind and solar – that do not reduce global emissions, at all.
Such energy fantasies simply increase the cost of doing business, making industry uncompetitive, shifting jobs and ’emissions’ offshore to third-world countries where environmental regulations and working conditions are substandard, leading to real environmental and social issues, like forest destruction, air particulate pollution and sweat shops.
Draconian Climate policy, formulated by unelected global elites at Paris-like gabfests, really are “killing the planet to save it.”
By Paul Homewood
Tony Heller noted this juxtaposition of news from Indonesia this month.
So perhaps it is time to recall just what it was that Indonesia agreed to in the Paris Agreement.
My full analysis of Indonesia’s INDC, which the Carbon Tracker website rated as “Inadequate” from last November is here. But the gist of it is this:
The BAU case projects emissions of 2881 GtCO2e by 2030:
Therefore, a cut of 29% leaves a target of 2046 GtCO2e, still well above 2005 emissions of 1800 GtCO2e.
But this is not the whole story.
As the above makes clear, land use change accounts for 63% of all emissions, totally dwarfing the burning of fossil fuels. This figure reflects the enormous amount of forest that has been cut down, often to make room for palm oil and pulp wood plantations. On top of that,
View original post 319 more words
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
Border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Guess which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy?
Minor disclosure before posting Matt Ridley’s must read op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:
‘Climatism’ nor myself receive any funding from any fossil fuel company. All I receive from them is abundant, cheap, reliable, on-demand energy that enables me to heat myself in winter, cool myself in summer, get to work on time, drink clean water, bathe myself and use my computer, even when the wind stops blowing or the sun goes to sleep.
Fossil Fuels Will Save the World (Really)
There are problems with oil, gas and coal, but their benefits for people—and the planet—are beyond dispute
By Matt Ridley
The environmental movement has advanced three arguments in recent years for giving up fossil fuels: (1) that we will soon run out of them anyway; (2) that alternative sources of energy will price them out of the marketplace; and (3) that we cannot afford the climate consequences of burning them.
These days, not one of the three arguments is looking very healthy. In fact, a more realistic assessment of our energy and environmental situation suggests that, for decades to come, we will continue to rely overwhelmingly on the fossil fuels that have contributed so dramatically to the world’s prosperity and progress.
In 2013, about 87% of the energy that the world consumed came from fossil fuels, a figure that—remarkably—was unchanged from 10 years before. This roughly divides into three categories of fuel and three categories of use: oil used mainly for transport, gas used mainly for heating, and coal used mainly for electricity.
Over this period, the overall volume of fossil-fuel consumption has increased dramatically, but with an encouraging environmental trend: a diminishing amount of carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of energy produced. The biggest contribution to decarbonizing the energy system has been the switch from high-carbon coal to lower-carbon gas in electricity generation.
On a global level, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar have contributed hardly at all to the drop in carbon emissions, and their modest growth has merely made up for a decline in the fortunes of zero-carbon nuclear energy. (The reader should know that I have an indirect interest in coal through the ownership of land in Northern England on which it is mined, but I nonetheless applaud the displacement of coal by gas in recent years.)
The argument that fossil fuels will soon run out is dead, at least for a while. The collapse of the price of oil over the past six months is the result of abundance: an inevitable consequence of the high oil prices of recent years, which stimulated innovation in hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, seismology and information technology. The U.S.—the country with the oldest and most developed hydrocarbon fields—has found itself once again, surprisingly, at the top of the energy-producing league, rivaling Saudi Arabia in oil and Russia in gas.
The shale genie is now out of the bottle. Even if the current low price drives out some high-cost oil producers—in the North Sea, Canada, Russia, Iran and offshore, as well as in America—shale drillers can step back in whenever the price rebounds. As Mark Hill of Allegro Development Corporation argued last week, the frackers are currently experiencing their own version of Moore’s law: a rapid fall in the cost and time it takes to drill a well, along with a rapid rise in the volume of hydrocarbons they are able to extract.
And the shale revolution has yet to go global. When it does, oil and gas in tight rock formations will give the world ample supplies of hydrocarbons for decades, if not centuries. Lurking in the wings for later technological breakthroughs is methane hydrate, a seafloor source of gas that exceeds in quantity all the world’s coal, oil and gas put together.
So those who predict the imminent exhaustion of fossil fuels are merely repeating the mistakes of the U.S. presidential commission that opined in 1922 that “already the output of gas has begun to wane. Production of oil cannot long maintain its present rate.” Or President Jimmy Carter when he announced on television in 1977 that “we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.”
That fossil fuels are finite is a red herring. The Atlantic Ocean is finite, but that does not mean that you risk bumping into France if you row out of a harbor in Maine. The buffalo of the American West were infinite, in the sense that they could breed, yet they came close to extinction. It is an ironic truth that no nonrenewable resource has ever run dry, while renewable resources—whales, cod, forests, passenger pigeons—have frequently done so.
The second argument for giving up fossil fuels is that new rivals will shortly price them out of the market. But it is not happening. The great hope has long been nuclear energy, but even if there is a rush to build new nuclear power stations over the next few years, most will simply replace old ones due to close. The world’s nuclear output is down from 6% of world energy consumption in 2003 to 4% today. It is forecast to inch back up to just 6.7% by 2035, according the Energy Information Administration.
Nuclear’s problem is cost. In meeting the safety concerns of environmentalists, politicians and regulators added requirements for extra concrete, steel and pipework, and even more for extra lawyers, paperwork and time. The effect was to make nuclear plants into huge and lengthy boondoggles with no competition or experimentation to drive down costs. Nuclear is now able to compete with fossil fuels only when it is subsidized.
As for renewable energy, hydroelectric is the biggest and cheapest supplier, but it has the least capacity for expansion. Technologies that tap the energy of waves and tides remain unaffordable and impractical, and most experts think that this won’t change in a hurry. Geothermal is a minor player for now. And bioenergy—that is, wood, ethanol made from corn or sugar cane, or diesel made from palm oil—is proving an ecological disaster: It encourages deforestation and food-price hikes that cause devastation among the world’s poor, and per unit of energy produced, it creates even more carbon dioxide than coal.
Wind power, for all the public money spent on its expansion, has inched up to—wait for it—1% of world energy consumption in 2013. Solar, for all the hype, has not even managed that: If we round to the nearest whole number, it accounts for 0% of world energy consumption.
Both wind and solar are entirely reliant on subsidies for such economic viability as they have. World-wide, the subsidies given to renewable energy currently amount to roughly $10 per gigajoule: These sums are paid by consumers to producers, so they tend to go from the poor to the rich, often to landowners (I am a landowner and can testify that I receive and refuse many offers of risk-free wind and solar subsidies).
It is true that some countries subsidize the use of fossil fuels, but they do so at a much lower rate—the world average is about $1.20 per gigajoule—and these are mostly subsidies for consumers (not producers), so they tend to help the poor, for whom energy costs are a disproportionate share of spending.
The costs of renewable energy are coming down, especially in the case of solar. But even if solar panels were free, the power they produce would still struggle to compete with fossil fuel—except in some very sunny locations—because of all the capital equipment required to concentrate and deliver the energy. This is to say nothing of the great expanses of land on which solar facilities must be built and the cost of retaining sufficient conventional generator capacity to guarantee supply on a dark, cold, windless evening.
The two fundamental problems that renewables face are that they take up too much space and produce too little energy. Consider Solar Impulse, the solar-powered airplane now flying around the world. Despite its huge wingspan (similar to a 747), slow speed and frequent stops, the only cargo that it can carry is the pilots themselves. That is a good metaphor for the limitations of renewables.
To run the U.S. economy entirely on wind would require a wind farm the size of Texas, California and New Mexico combined—backed up by gas on windless days. To power it on wood would require a forest covering two-thirds of the U.S., heavily and continually harvested.
John Constable, who will head a new Energy Institute at the University of Buckingham in Britain, points out that the trickle of energy that human beings managed to extract from wind, water and wood before the Industrial Revolution placed a great limit on development and progress. The incessant toil of farm laborers generated so little surplus energy in the form of food for men and draft animals that the accumulation of capital, such as machinery, was painfully slow. Even as late as the 18th century, this energy-deprived economy was sufficient to enrich daily life for only a fraction of the population.
Our old enemy, the second law of thermodynamics, is the problem here. As a teenager’s bedroom generally illustrates, left to its own devices, everything in the world becomes less ordered, more chaotic, tending toward “entropy,” or thermodynamic equilibrium. To reverse this tendency and make something complex, ordered and functional requires work. It requires energy.
The more energy you have, the more intricate, powerful and complex you can make a system. Just as human bodies need energy to be ordered and functional, so do societies. In that sense, fossil fuels were a unique advance because they allowed human beings to create extraordinary patterns of order and complexity—machines and buildings—with which to improve their lives.
The result of this great boost in energy is what the economic historian and philosopher Deirdre McCloskey calls the Great Enrichment. In the case of the U.S., there has been a roughly 9,000% increase in the value of goods and services available to the average American since 1800, almost all of which are made with, made of, powered by or propelled by fossil fuels.
Still, more than a billion people on the planet have yet to get access to electricity and to experience the leap in living standards that abundant energy brings. This is not just an inconvenience for them: Indoor air pollution from wood fires kills four million people a year. The next time that somebody at a rally against fossil fuels lectures you about her concern for the fate of her grandchildren, show her a picture of an African child dying today from inhaling the dense muck of a smoky fire.
Notice, too, the ways in which fossil fuels have contributed to preserving the planet. As the American author and fossil-fuels advocate Alex Epstein points out in a bravely unfashionable book, “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” the use of coal halted and then reversed the deforestation of Europe and North America. The turn to oil halted the slaughter of the world’s whales and seals for their blubber. Fertilizer manufactured with gas halved the amount of land needed to produce a given amount of food, thus feeding a growing population while sparing land for wild nature.
To throw away these immense economic, environmental and moral benefits, you would have to have a very good reason. The one most often invoked today is that we are wrecking the planet’s climate. But are we?
Although the world has certainly warmed since the 19th century, the rate of warming has been slow and erratic. There has been no increase in the frequency or severity of storms or droughts, no acceleration of sea-level rise. Arctic sea ice has decreased, but Antarctic sea ice has increased. At the same time, scientists are agreed that the extra carbon dioxide in the air has contributed to an improvement in crop yields and a roughly 14% increase in the amount of all types of green vegetation on the planet since 1980.
That carbon-dioxide emissions should cause warming is not a new idea. In 1938, the British scientist Guy Callender thought that he could already detect warming as a result of carbon-dioxide emissions. He reckoned, however, that this was “likely to prove beneficial to mankind” by shifting northward the climate where cultivation was possible.
Only in the 1970s and 1980s did scientists begin to say that the mild warming expected as a direct result of burning fossil fuels—roughly a degree Celsius per doubling of carbon-dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere—might be greatly amplified by water vapor and result in dangerous warming of two to four degrees a century or more. That “feedback” assumption of high “sensitivity” remains in virtually all of the mathematical models used to this day by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.
And yet it is increasingly possible that it is wrong. As Patrick Michaels of the libertarian Cato Institute has written, since 2000, 14 peer-reviewed papers, published by 42 authors, many of whom are key contributors to the reports of the IPCC, have concluded that climate sensitivity is low because net feedbacks are modest. They arrive at this conclusion based on observed temperature changes, ocean-heat uptake and the balance between warming and cooling emissions (mainly sulfate aerosols). On average, they find sensitivity to be 40% lower than the models on which the IPCC relies.
If these conclusions are right, they would explain the failure of the Earth’s surface to warm nearly as fast as predicted over the past 35 years, a time when—despite carbon-dioxide levels rising faster than expected—the warming rate has never reached even two-tenths of a degree per decade and has slowed down to virtually nothing in the past 15 to 20 years. This is one reason the latest IPCC report did not give a “best estimate” of sensitivity and why it lowered its estimate of near-term warming.
Most climate scientists remain reluctant to abandon the models and take the view that the current “hiatus” has merely delayed rapid warming. A turning point to dangerously rapid warming could be around the corner, even though it should have shown up by now. So it would be wise to do something to cut our emissions, so long as that something does not hurt the poor and those struggling to reach a modern standard of living.
We should encourage the switch from coal to gas in the generation of electricity, provide incentives for energy efficiency, get nuclear power back on track and keep developing solar power and electricity storage. We should also invest in research on ways to absorb carbon dioxide from the air, by fertilizing the ocean or fixing it through carbon capture and storage. Those measures all make sense. And there is every reason to promote open-ended research to find some unexpected new energy technology.
The one thing that will not work is the one thing that the environmental movement insists upon: subsidizing wealthy crony capitalists to build low-density, low-output, capital-intensive, land-hungry renewable energy schemes, while telling the poor to give up the dream of getting richer through fossil fuels.
Mr. Ridley is the author of “The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves” and a member of the British House of Lords.
Must read Alex Epstein :
See also :
- Shock news : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity | Climatism
- Peer-Review : Lack of access to fossil fuels causing millions of premature deaths amongst the poorest of the planet (The Hockey-Schtick)
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
Energy related :
- Godfather Of Global Warming Alarmism James Hansen Admits Renewable Energy Is A ‘Nice Idea’ Though Useless | Climatism
- Shock News : Green Energy Not Fit for the Grid | Climatism
Wind / Solar (Unreliables) related :
- Shock News : Industrial Wind Is A Fraud Of Enormous Consequence | Climatism
- Shock News : Policy To Increase Wind Farms Across East Australian Grid “A Dangerous Strategy” | Climatism
- Europe’s Green Energy Basket Case Is Tim Flannery’s Dream | Climatism
- A Token Gesture To The Folly Of Green Madness | Climatism
- Most modern or upgraded coal-fire plants, mainly from the west, are required under strict regulations to remove 99% of particulates known as fly-ash. This is why the air in modern cities like Melbourne, Sydney, America and Europe have some of the cleanest air in the world. Compared with the chronically polluted cities of China, SE Asia and the sub-continent, who aren’t required to adhere to strict ‘particulate’ emission standards.
- Most underdeveloped countries simply cannot afford to retro-fit their existing plants to make them clean or simply do without to keep costs down.
- Another example of why the greatest driver of environmental health is economic prosperity. If you want a healthy environment, you need a healthy economy. Draconian climate policy threatens the wealth and prosperity of western economies. Potentially limiting the ability to divert excess capital to innovate and keep improving the overall environment.
One of my pet peeves is the way the media always use images of power stations shot from an angle at a time of day when the steam condensate coming out of cooling towers is made to look like smoke. I mentioned it quite recently as being at the top of my list of annoyances about the way climate and energy issues are reported. Now the Galileo Movement in Australia has made a nice short (2min) video to alert the public to the way they are being lied to, manipulated and deceived.