Category — Coal

Is the proliferation of electronic devices in homes and offices causing a net increase or decrease in electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions?

This question has been a topic of heated controversy ever since 1999, when technology analyst Mark P. Mills published a study provocatively titled “The Internet Begins with Coal,” and co-authored with Peter Huber a Forbes column titled ”Dig more coal – the PCs are coming.”

Others–notably Joe Romm and researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory–argued that the Internet was a minor contributor to electricity demand and potentially a major contributor to energy savings in such areas as supply chain management, telecommuting, and online purchasing.

Mills and Huber argued that digital networks, server farms, chip manufacture, and information technology had become  a new key driver of electricity demand. And, they said, as the digital economy grows, so does demand for super-reliable power–the kind you can’t get from intermittent sources like wind turbines and solar panels. [Read more →]

[Editor's Note: Projected emissions from China will more than cancel the effects of Waxman-Markey in the year 2050 when the proposed law's 83% cut in U.S. emissions would be fully imposed. This finding, calculated with the assistance of Chip Knappenberger and the MAGICC model, is part of a wide-ranging analysis below. Discussion, comments, and questions are invited by the author.]

The Waxman-Markey climate bill–characterized as a “648 page cap-and-trade monstrosity” by Al Gore’s mentor, James Hansen–is intended to bring the U.S. into line with Europe and Japan on CO₂ policy. But as I have explained previously, the current U.S. policy discouraging new coal and new nuclear capacity will:

1. Make the U.S. more dependent on energy imports,
2. Drive up generation costs,
3. Artificially incite demand for fickle natural gas, and related infrastructure such as LNG regasification facilities, and
4. Increase reliance on old coal and old nuclear for baseload power, resulting in less efficient, less clean, and less reliable electricity.

Such government intervention will block self-interested private investors who would otherwise provide America with more domestic, lower-cost energy, and more modern infrastructure for better reliability. And ironically, our more expensive, imported and unreliable electricity system will hardly make a difference in worldwide CO₂ levels and associated global climate change. [Read more →]

Cambridge University economist Dr. Terry Barker told delegates at the recent Copenhagen climate conference that if the current economic downturn persists for several years, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions worldwide could drop by 40% to 50%, the Irish Times reports. 

Dr. Barker, who is director of the Cambridge Center for Climate Research, said the Great Depression of the 1930s reduced global emissions by 35% because so many factories shut down, especially in the United States. He adds: [Read more →]

[Note: Sunday posts at MasterResource will include best-of reposts from this blog, best-of posts or op-ed's from other writers, and other general material.]

Robert Bryce is a straight shooter and exactly the type intellectual that is needed as a rethink slowly emerges from the current politicized energy fare.  He himself has changed his mind on vital issues, just as Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomborg did before him. Indeed, as Bryce mentions in the op-ed to follow: [Read more →]

Last week (February 25, 2009), Dr. James Hansen, the most influential scientist in the alarmist camp, testified before the House Ways & Means Committee on “Scientific Objectives for Climate Change Legislation.” In oral remarks, Hansen, who spoke as a faculty member of Columbia University’s Earth Institute rather than as an employee of NASA, said the scientific objective of climate policy should be to lower atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) from 385 parts per million (ppm) to 350 ppm or less. This, as he surely knows, is an impossible goal barring radical breakthroughs not just in energy production but also in air capture of CO2.

Even if by 2050, the United States, Europe, Canada, Japan, and former Soviet Union achieve zero net emissions and developing countries reduce their carbon intensity to 62% below 2005 levels, this would only be enough to [Read more →]

You might not think so, judging from climate doomsters’ oft-repeated claims that Kyoto-style policies will spur innovation, efficiency, and green-job creation, making us more competitive. Such claims imply that if anyone needs protection, it’s those benighted countries that refuse to embrace the hard-cap, soft-energy-path to a low-carbon future. [Read more →]

In 2007, U.S. electric power generators had roughly 1 million MW of installed capacity. Almost one third of that capacity was spread over 1,400 coal-fired plants, which in turn generated about half of our electricity.[1] More than 100,000 MW of these coal plants are greater than 30 years old.[2] These plants use about 20–25 percent more fuel and emit even more of the undesirable by-products of coal – sulphur, nitrogen, particulates – than do new plants with state of the art combustion technology and emission control.[3] Replacing these older plants as they are retired from service with newer coal-fired power plants represents the quickest and lowest-cost way to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of current coal-fired power generation. And it does so without government subsidies or any deterioration in the quality of electricity service. [Read more →]

The top agenda item for many climate activists (James Hansen, for example) is stopping the construction of new coal-fired power plants. Coal is the most carbon-intensive fuel, and the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new coal plants at various planning stages could swamp by as much as 5 to 1 all the emissions reductions the European Union, Russia, and Japan might achieve under the Kyoto Protocol. Either climate activists kill coal, or coal will bury Kyoto. [Read more →]

As a fuel source, coal is a different product from what it was in past decades. Specifically, it is much cleaner. Yet, as always, it is much cheaper and more reliable than renewables such as wind and solar. In the generation of electricity, its real competition is natural gas.

In short, coal looks to remain a mainstay in the domestic energy mix and bodes to help defeat the Malthusian anti-energy crusade.

In a recent edition of EnergyBiz Magazine, Lee Buchsbaum reports on a 1,600 megawatt plant now being built in Illinois by Peabody Energy, the world’s largest publicly traded coal-mining company. When completed in 2012, the project will satisfy the power needs of as many as 2.4 million homes in nine or more states. The giant greenfield plant is a real stimulus plan that helps consumers and injects taxes rather than uses taxes. Reports Buchsbaum: [Read more →]

It’s easy to bash coal. There’s no romance in the black rocks that provide about half of the electricity in the United States and about 28.6 percent of the world’s total primary energy. And that bashing has become easier still in recent weeks. A few days before Christmas, at a power plant operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority, a huge holding pond failed, spilling coal ash contaminated with a variety of heavy metals including arsenic, lead, barium, chromium and manganese over several hundred acres.[1] On December 29, James Hansen, the high-profile NASA scientist who is closely aligned with former vice president Al Gore on the issue of global warming, sent an open letter to President-elect Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, in which he called coal-fired power plants “factories of death.”[2]

Add in coal’s other environmental problems—mining by mountain-top removal, air pollution in the form of sulfur dioxide and heavy metals, and heavy loads of particulate—and coal looks pretty bad.

But here’s the problem: some of the world’s biggest economies—and that includes America’s—are heavily dependent on coal. [Read more →]