Coal & Climate Change

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444508504577591212039656948.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTSecondBucket

***************
"Always be on the lookout for ideas. Be completely indiscriminate as to the source ... It doesn't matter who thought of an idea." (Jeffrey J. Fox)
***************

Robert Bryce wrote an excellent article in the "City Journal" that was picked up by the editors of wsj.com. It's about "coal." Coal appears to be the "villain of the piece" today because the EPA believes that coal plants, "... by emitting carbon dioxide in profusion, contribute to global warming." I have the impression that the EPA would just as soon shut down all the coal plants in Texas. Since they (the EPA bureaucrats) wouldn't suffer the electricity shortages that would play havoc with air conditioning, refrigeration, etc, in Texas, they'd (the EPA) feel they'd done their duty in the fight against global warming without any discomfort to themselves. Sad.

Bryce went to the most prolific coal mine in North America to see what they do and discovered that they load one coal train per hour (roughly) so by noon in a single day, they had loaded 11 trains, each with 16,000 tons of coal. That particular mine is probably good for another 5 decades. It produces 3 tons of coal per second.

Nobody wants global warming and it looks like progress is being made with sequestering carbon dioxide during coal-fired electricity generation (see my prior post). So, why can't the EPA and the Department of Energy, which seems to be taking the "sequestration" process seriously, get together on what they're doing? The Texas Clean Energy Project might be a good way to do that. But, of course, all that is just too logical.

From Robert Bryce: "There's no denying that coal has earned its reputation as a relatively dirty fuel. But those concerned about CO2 emissions and climate change should realize that the administration's attack on coal is little more than a token gesture. The rest of the world will continue to burn coal, and lots of it. Reducing the domestic use of coal may force Americans to pay higher prices for electricity, but it will have nearly NO EFFECT ON GLOBAL EMISSIONS (my emphasis)."

Bryce again: "But even if the EPA and the Obama administration succeed in prohibiting new coal-fired electricity generation in the United States, they will leave global coal demand and CO2 emissions almost unchanged. Over the past decade or so, American coal consumption fell by 5%, but global coal consumption soared, growing by about the same amount as the growth in oil, natural gas, and nuclear combined. Coal now fuels about 40% of global electricity production. Coal's dominance helps explain why global CO2 emissions rose by 28.5% between 2001 and 2010, even as American CO2 emissions fell by 1.7%. Over the past decade, even if American emissions had dropped to zero, global emissions would still have increased."

Bryce points out that ExxonMobil's current energy forecast predicts that in 2030, the cheapest form of electricity production will remain coal-fired generation units. This means that, even at that point in time, electricity produced by coal would be cheaper than electricity produced by natural gas, nuclear, wind, or solar photovoltaic panels.

So, wouldn't it make sense to follow projects that seem to work with more and more investment in things like carbon dioxide sequestration during coal-fired energy generation? So, Japan and Germany, which are shutting down all of their nuclear reactors, have to look at coal. German utilities are already placing their bets on coal. Coal will be used. The question is, can the world come up with a way to deal the emissions question?

China, where CO2 emissions have gone up 123% between 2001 and 2010, is investing $1 billion in a Texas sequestering project, while the U.S. EPA is threatening to shut down Texas coal-fired power plants. How ironic!

                                                            *****

According to "wire reports" and the Dallas Morning News today (8/17/12), the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from "dirtier-burning" coal.

According to this report: "Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide ..."

Market Forces! What a concept!