Here’s a puzzle for you. How will the world meet the not-particularly-ambitious goals for carbon emissions agreed to in the recent Paris meeting when, as indicated by the graphic above, Chinese plan to increase their number of coal-fired power stations by more than the number that we have and the Indians plan to build nearly as many?
Here’s the money quote from the article at the Daily Caller from which I sampled that graphic:
“No matter how the Obama administration or the United Nations tries to spin it, there is nothing historic or monumental about the Paris climate agreement. It is non-binding, underfunded, and unenforceable,†Chris Warren, a spokesperson for the Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Developing nations like China and India will continue to increase their coal use because they recognize that it is the best generation source to help grow their economies and lift people out of poverty. Wind and solar just don’t cut it.â€
You know as well as I do that the Paris accords aren’t designed to accomplish anything worthwhile. They’re designed so that some people can act morally superior to the rest of us.
I only wish it was as benign as seeking perceived moral standing, ice. That’s only for the environmental religionists. For the pols, it’s about wealth transfer and control. After softening the masses to it, a carbon tax cloaked in the legitimate form of a Pigouvian tax, it’s just a major consumption tax…………to be spent as current revenue sources run dry.
After passage, the drowning polar bears will soon be forgotten.
China is also facing major air quality issues. If they want to breathe, they will have to address that also. Fortunately wind is already close to parity with coal, and solar should be before long. Flow batteries may be the right answer for large scale electricity, or maybe compressed air.
Steve
Now you can guess why professional climate scientists spend so much time feeling unhappy.
Wind and solar energy are only at or close to coal or any carbon based fuel because the cost of coal has been artificially increased. They cannot compete on a level field cost or energy wise. Nuclear can compete, but it is not as cheap. It has gotten cheaper.
There is a reason the Chinese are building coal and nuclear power plants. It is because they are cost effective.
If all the contestants had their legs broken, I could be an Olympic track star, but an old fat man beating the world’s best track athletes who were deliberately crippled would not be fooling anybody.
Nope. The cost of coal has been artificially lowered. Sooner or later someone has to pay for the days of lost productivity from pulmonary disease, heart disease, and not being able to work outdoors because conditions are so poor. The Chinese are already facing that issue.
Steve
You guys are missing several big points. Cost parity, or near cost parity, may be achieved. But wind and solar have limited geographic applicability. Further, most of the worlds new generation capacity will go to areas that most assuredly will use coal or natural gas. And we aren’t even talking transportation.
Don’t expect anything but 50 yrs+ of rising fossil fuel usage. Get used to it.
That’s the critical point and one of the main points of the post. It’s also why I hope that the Indians’ interest in small scale, mass produceable nuclear power continues.
It’s also why I hope that the Indians’ interest in small scale, mass produceable nuclear power continues.
Is India really a country you would want to have lots of nuclear reactors scattered all over the place? The Americans and Japanese have had problems managing their own nuclear reactors, and they’re both peoples far more organized, with their acts much more “together”, than the Indians.
I presumed it was assumed that the comment was aimed at useless academic arguments over falsely precise cost measurements……..or ginormous compressed air machines or something.
India now has nearly 3% of its electricity (about 23,000 MW) coming from wind power. It could supply 20%-30% of all its power with the new 100-120 meter towers. Solar is increasing very rapidly and the have lots of sunny days. They will need a real grid system to make it work. They will still need fossil fuels and nuclear for a long time, but it looks as though most of their needs could be met with these two sources.
Steve
“ginormous compressed air machines ”
Caverns. They are using whole caverns. Need to resolve the heat issue.
Steve
Steve,
Wind and solar may be, watt for watt, priced competitively, but the problem is they can’t reliably deliver the required number of watts when they are needed and that matters as much (or more) than a simple per-watt cost comparison. Wind and Solar don’t have the flexibility of nuclear, fossil fuels or hydro which can match power production to the immediate demand. Obviously the power production for wind and solar depend on weather conditions and not current energy demands. Therefore, for solar and wind to actually work as alternatives they need:
– A large excess production capacity plus a storage system (batteries, flywheels or some alternative). They need excess capacity to generate power when the sun is shining and the wind blowing in order to meet immediate demand, plus enough to put into storage for when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.
– Or you need a secondary, reliable baseload power source (aka, fossil, nuclear or hydro) to cover the production gaps and it must be enough to provide power for extended troughs in wind and solar production.
– Or you need both. Actual solar and wind systems used at remote sites or in recreational vehicles typically have all three – the solar panels, a large battery bank and a generator. Solar may appear cheap if you only look at the price of panels without looking at the other needed parts of the system that actually make it a viable alternative.