The Climate Change Hoax

[Ray]

The big effort to clean up US coal fired power plants took place several decades ago.  During the 1970s it was noted that lakes and streams in the eastern part of the US were becoming rapidly acidified from rainfall that carried sulfur and nitrogen oxides from the power plants.  This was harm fish as well as trees since the pH of the soil was changing.  Scrubbers were mandated to control those pollutants and at least that part of the problem was solved.  Particulate matter is also controlled because of mandates.  From those perspectives, coal burning is much cleaner than it was.

Good! So perhaps the issue is, will Trump's new policies encourage the construction of even cleaner coal-fired power plants of the Ultra-Supercritical variety?

I'm all in favour of using the cleanest, most efficient and most reliable energy sources, but I do not consider CO2 to be a pollutant at the current levels. If using natural gas is a cleaner and cheaper option than coal (excluding CO2 as a pollutant, but taking everything else into consideration such as environmental damage during extraction and mining), then I wouldn't have any objections. I have no shares in the coal industry.

[kers]

ExxonMobil now has a very clear statement on climate change:  http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

But it is always a bit strange to hear that from those companies that are considered to be a mayor source of pollution.
You know in the end they ( their investors) want you to burn even more oil. This is pure marketing.

[Hans Kruse]

Hans,
There's been a lot of controversy recently in Australia about the issue of inadequate back-up power in states that rely heavily on solar and wind power, such as South Australia.

During recent heat waves there have been blackouts due to inadequate supplies to meet peak demand.

Yes, I know and I linked earlier on to the Tesla battery storage proposal. But I would think that the virtual power plant idea would be good as well to stabilize the grid.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

ExxonMobil now has a very clear statement on climate change:  http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

Yes, and the Shell oil company already in 1991 issued a documentary with a warning about Climate change:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/28/shell-knew-oil-giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger

Unfortunately, they didn't really act on it then, and are still not very active (but slowly improving). Shorter term shareholder satisfaction is more important than sustainable growth, alas.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Good! So perhaps the issue is, will Trump's new policies encourage the construction of even cleaner coal-fired power plants of the Ultra-Supercritical variety?

In general, nobody in his right mind would invest for the long term in Coal fueled centralized power generation. The whole idea of centralized production is questionable anyway, because that means that peak capacity has to be built for extreme events in the entire grid section, and those extremes will become more extreme. By switching to more distributed local production, in an intelligent grid, the risks can be distributed as well, and that includes the risk of cyber warfare. Yes, there is also a military component to climate change.

I'm not sure that the issues in South Australia that you mentioned were due to inadequate backup for renewable power, but rather a limited maximum production capacity. It's uneconomic to build capacity for those extremes and run on under-capacity for most of the year. Besides, with extreme heat, one could assume there is also a potential for plenty of Solar power being generated, if only available ... I have to assume that in Australia, like in large parts of the USA, most (peak) power is consumed for cooling, rather than heating. That makes the need for looking at solar power solutions a no-brainer, IMHO.

Also, Trump declares end to 'war on coal,' but utilities aren't listening:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-climate-power-idUSKBN1770D8

Cheers,
Bart

[jeremyrh]

But it is always a bit strange to hear that from those companies that are considered to be a mayor source of pollution.
You know in the end they ( their investors) want you to burn even more oil. This is pure marketing.

It's that they want coal use to be reduced so they sell more gas.

[Alan Klein]

Yes, and the Shell oil company already in 1991 issued a documentary with a warning about Climate change:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/28/shell-knew-oil-giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger

Unfortunately, they didn't really act on it then, and are still not very active (but slowly improving). Shorter term shareholder satisfaction is more important than sustainable growth, alas.

Cheers,
Bart

I don't have a problem with fuel companies defending their interests.  They have the same rights as everyone else.   Their interests include their stockholders and their employees.  They provide enormous wealth and jobs to the country in general, taxes, and provide the main energy to run our cars, trucks, commercial aviation, ships, and tanks, and power plants to produce electricity.  You don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

We should never listen to only one side anyway.   There's two sides in a debate.  How else do you learn?  Aren't we doing that right here?  The problem we have today is no one wants to hear the other side.  There's a constant attempt to shut people up.  It's politically incorrect to take a minority viewpoint.  That's not what freedom is all about.  In North Korea we only hear one side.  In America we appreciate open debate, or at least we use too.

[Ray]

I'm not sure that the issues in South Australia that you mentioned were due to inadequate backup for renewable power, but rather a limited maximum production capacity.

Cheers,
Bart

It was due to both factors, Bart. Here's the story.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/aemo-report-on-heatwave-rolling-blackouts-reveals-low-wind-power-inability-to-turn-on-gasfired-pelican-point-led-to-power-cuts/news-story/2c4d4257f53ab94e98a30b9937329f70

"The problem was predominantly due to demand for power reaching above expectation to near-record SA highs, and wind power dwindling to just over two per cent of total output.
At that point AEMO puts a notice out to market seeking extra generation, however sources said the operator should have known that all generators able to respond were already running.
They said AEMO should have made a call to Pelican Point’s operator Engie to find out if the mothballed station could be switched on."

It's uneconomic to build capacity for those extremes and run on under-capacity for most of the year.

Whatever is most economic is the best choice, taking all known factors into consideration rather than uncertain factors such as the possible harmful effects of CO2 emissions. It is a fact that electricity prices have risen quite significantly in recent years, in Australia, by a greater degree than the inflation rate.

[Ray]

In general, nobody in his right mind would invest for the long term in Coal fueled centralized power generation. The whole idea of centralized production is questionable anyway, because that means that peak capacity has to be built for extreme events in the entire grid section, and those extremes will become more extreme.

Bart,
It looks like Japan is leading the way, once again. They obviously think that coal is safer than nuclear, and presumably cheaper and more reliable than wind and solar. However, they do have a mix of various sources of energy and will continue to develop renewables.

The Japanese seem very sensible people to me.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-31/japan-coal-power-plants/8224302

"The Japanese government is moving ahead with its plans to build up to 45 new coal fired power stations."

And here's a list of all those proposed USC power plants in the following article.

http://in.reuters.com/article/japan-carbon-plant-idINL3N16X0RE

[Alan Klein]

Bart,
It looks like Japan is leading the way, once again. They obviously think that coal is safer than nuclear, and presumably cheaper and more reliable than wind and solar. However, they do have a mix of various sources of energy and will continue to develop renewables.

The Japanese seem very sensible people to me.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-31/japan-coal-power-plants/8224302

"The Japanese government is moving ahead with its plans to build up to 45 new coal fired power stations."

And here's a list of all those proposed USC power plants in the following article.

http://in.reuters.com/article/japan-carbon-plant-idINL3N16X0RE

Is America doing anything with HELE?  Does America produce black coal and is it shipped overseas? 

[Ray]

Is America doing anything with HELE?  Does America produce black coal and is it shipped overseas?

Alan,
I'm aware of only one USC or HELE coal-fired power plant in the USA. I believe the EPA regulations under Obama made it too difficult to build more such plants because the emissions of that clean and odourless gas, CO2, are still too high despite all the 'real' pollutants being reduced to acceptable and negligible levels.

"FIRST USC IN THE U.S.: JOHN W. TURK JR. POWER PLANT
The 600-MW John W. Turk Jr. power plant in Arkansas holds many distinctions. Completed in December 2012, it was the first USC plant built in the U.S. It also reigns as the country’s most efficient coal-fired power plant with an electrical efficiency of 40% HHV basis (~42% LHV basis).8 After the project was announced in 2006, American Electric Power’s (AEP) Southwestern Electric Power Co. (SWEPCO) spent several years trying to secure the necessary permits while fighting legal battles launched as part of national anti-coal campaigns. Under the legal settlement, SWEPCO agreed to retire an older 582-MW coal-fired unit in Texas, secure 400 MW of renewable power, and set aside US$10 million for land conservation and energy efficiency projects. At a final cost of US$1.8 billion to build the plant, the Turk plant also became the most expensive project ever built in Arkansas."


I imagine the US does mine the cleaner type of black coal, but I'm no expert. Here's a site describing the 'Black Thunder Thermal Coal Mine at Wyoming.

http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/thunder/

[LesPalenik]

The numbers are in. The year 2016, according to the Meteorological World Organization in Geneva, was the warmest since records began in 1880. The global average temperature was 1.1 degrees Celsius above the value of pre-industrial time.

Compared to the average of the years 1981 to 2010, Arctic ice was diminished in the surface area equivalent to four times of Germany. That will have direct conseqences for the northern and central Europe.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart,
It looks like Japan is leading the way, once again.

Leading? How?

From your linked article:
"But he said the move to more coal fired power was because coal was cheaper than LNG, and the energy security was priority for the government.

"Japan needs to import 95 per cent of all its energy sources," he said."

So it is mostly economically motivated. And the economy is a bit flawed:
"But Mr. O'Sullivan said Japan was yet to price carbon emissions."

Also, it will remain to be seen if they can achieve their other goals:
"Japan has ratified the Paris Climate Agreement and committed to a 26 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030."

So it's not leading in any way, it's just short-term politics, caused by the economic situation that Japan is in, and aggravated by their unfavorable geological situation (too many earthquakes) for using Nuclear power.

Your analysis stinks as bad as a coal-fueled power plant...

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The numbers are in. The year 2016, according to the Meteorological World Organization in Geneva, was the warmest since records began in 1880. The global average temperature was 1.1 degrees Celsius above the value of pre-industrial time.

Compared to the average of the years 1981 to 2010, Arctic ice was diminished in the surface area equivalent to four times of Germany. That will have direct consequences for the northern and central Europe.

Yes, although these are relatively short periods on the scale of climate change, we are indeed hitting new highs all the time. March 31st was the warmest ever recorded (breaking the record high from 2014) in my country (since the early 1900's, when official recording began), but it's more the upward trend since decades that is cause for concern.

The receding Arctic ice volume will have longer lasting effects on worldwide water circulation patterns, so not only the Northern hemisphere will suffer consequences.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Interesting article about the effects of, and requirements for, the mix of renewable energy sources and intermittent use of more traditional power generation as complement for swings in renewable production. It also shows that smaller traditional power generating plants make more sense than huge capacity centralized production for that purpose of complemental generators. Also the Hydro pumped storage is mentioned as a means of complementary energy backup.

Renewables won’t drive up cost of electricity from fossil fuel plants:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/renewables-wont-drive-up-cost-of-electricity-from-fossil-fuel-plants/

Cheers,
Bart

[Hans Kruse]

Interesting article about the effects of, and requirements for, the mix of renewable energy sources and intermittent use of more traditional power generation as complement for swings in renewable production. It also shows that smaller traditional power generating plants make more sense than huge capacity centralized production for that purpose of complemental generators. Also the Hydro pumped storage is mentioned as a means of complementary energy backup.

Renewables won’t drive up cost of electricity from fossil fuel plants:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/renewables-wont-drive-up-cost-of-electricity-from-fossil-fuel-plants/

Cheers,
Bart

Regarding pumped hydro storage this works in a number of places, e.g. Norway. Denmark is sending cheap wind power to Norway and buy back more expensive power when the wind is not generating enough power. See this article https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Norway-Could-Provide-20000-MW-of-Energy-Storage-to-Europe which also touches on the environmental concerns about such an approach. Really I don't see why Norway should be the green battery of Europe when there are plenty of mountains across all of Europe (or at least high enough elevantions) that could serve as hydro batteries.

[Hans Kruse]

It was due to both factors, Bart. Here's the story.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/aemo-report-on-heatwave-rolling-blackouts-reveals-low-wind-power-inability-to-turn-on-gasfired-pelican-point-led-to-power-cuts/news-story/2c4d4257f53ab94e98a30b9937329f70

"The problem was predominantly due to demand for power reaching above expectation to near-record SA highs, and wind power dwindling to just over two per cent of total output.
At that point AEMO puts a notice out to market seeking extra generation, however sources said the operator should have known that all generators able to respond were already running.
They said AEMO should have made a call to Pelican Point’s operator Engie to find out if the mothballed station could be switched on."

Whatever is most economic is the best choice, taking all known factors into consideration rather than uncertain factors such as the possible harmful effects of CO2 emissions. It is a fact that electricity prices have risen quite significantly in recent years, in Australia, by a greater degree than the inflation rate.

Some are working on getting solar and renewable energy to work better. One example is the virtual power plant I referred to in an earlier post and battery storage as shown in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OHstY_kKUY&t=0s by Robert Llewellyn. This Youtube channel has a lot of interesting stories about renewable energy and electrification of transport. The video shows an interesting way to use flow batteries which seem to be good for stationary storage and without the decrease in capacity over time as Litheon batteries have (although highly depending on the actual chemistry as seen in the battery video I linked to some time ago). Again like with the very early EV's mas production is needed for the price to go down on the flow batteries. So even if you believe CO2 is the greenest thin I believe that it is better not to carry out that experiment. In the long run it is much better to develop technology that relieves from the burdens of fossil fuels. The benefits should be so clear.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Downwind impacts of a coal fired power plant:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/03/wealth-didnt-matter-pollution-from-a-coal-fired-plant-carried-miles-by-wind-still-hurt-their-babies/?utm_term=.7221ce6e2235

[JNB_Rare]

Downwind impacts of a coal fired power plant:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/03/wealth-didnt-matter-pollution-from-a-coal-fired-plant-carried-miles-by-wind-still-hurt-their-babies/?utm_term=.7221ce6e2235

Not surprising, as air pollution from a wide variety of sources seems to produce similar effects. This includes exposure to second hand tobacco smoke (passive smoking).

[Ray]

The global average temperature was 1.1 degrees Celsius above the value of pre-industrial time.

Great! Thank God for that! The climate in pre-industrial times was awful in Northern Europe. The Vikings were driven out of Greenland due to excessively cold weather which made agriculture too difficult. The River Thames in London would freeze over almost every winter and many homeless people would die from excessive cold in the streets.

Further East, one of the most marvelous civilizations that has ever existed, the Khmer civilization in Cambodia, was brought to its knees by the same change to a cooler climate that drove the Vikings out of Greenland.

The year 2016, according to the Meteorological World Organization in Geneva, was the warmest since records began in 1880.

It wasn't the warmest year in Australia since records began, according to our Bureau of Meteorology. It was the fourth warmest.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/

"2016 was Australia's fourth-warmest year on record, while national rainfall was above average."