Coal powered the Industrial Revolution, transforming societies and raising living standards from the endemic poverty that was humanity’s lot since time immemorial.
135,000 years ago, during the last inter-glacial all over our lovely Planet, the Earth’s temperature was warmer than any time during this inter-glacial, the Holocene. The CO2 concentration was 280 ppm. The ocean was 5m higher than now!
Tikak, can’t we collectively sue the EU Commission and its and our lying and scientifically ignorant, if democratically elected Governments for the absurd costs that they are forcing on all European tax payers, our children and grandchildren?
Net zero energy policies are impoverishing the whole of Europe!
Lovely article, and I agree with your conclusions. But you might want to check that citation of 43.56% thermal efficiency (corresponds to a heat rate of 7833 Btu/kWh), which I think you are saying is for a subcritical coal unit. That seems incredibly low for a subcritical steam-electric coal unit, especially if it has scrubbers for sulfur emissions, baghouse for particulates, etc. as implied by your comment that it has "ultra-low emissions".
Tilak, just a superb article! Many thanks for explicitly stating there will be no energy transition. Even if some energy source comes along which is comparable, or even superior, to hydrocarbon energies, the new energy will simply get added onto mankind's need for ever increasing energy consumption in order for ever increasing human flourishing. And the Climate Cult never addresses the absolutely necessary-to-a-modern-society products which hydrocarbons provide—plastics, petrochemicals, fertilizers, etc.
In no significant way will wind and solar junk energies be a part of the world's energy future. These parasites have only gone, whenever they have gone, by government subsidies, government mandates, and government requirements. The Ruinables of grid wind and grid solar are as much of an indication of government corruption, agency capture, the corruption of "The Science", crony capitalism, and massive propaganda, as anything else.
The real world is demonstrating, to the terrible dismay of the Climate Cult, just how unworkable, just how impoverishing, and how expensive, these junk, dilute, weather dependent Ruinables are. Expect even more shrill cries for society to "cut back", consume less, and be impoverished to "save the planet".
As governments and societies finally wake up to the con, the scam, the fairy tale, that they have been fed, the parasites of grid wind and solar will lose the political tailwinds which forced subsidies and mandates onto societies. It will be the "Green Energies" that become the "stranded assets".
Modern societies were built with, are operated by, and are sustained by, the products and energies of the wonderful, and wondrous, hydrocarbons. The need for plastics, petrochemicals, fertilizers, and energy from hydrocarbons will be even greater a hundred years from now than now. Consumption of natural gas, oil, and coal, will be greater a hundred years from now than now.
And the world really hasn't even scratched the harvesting of methane hydrates, which reserves dwarf all of the natural gas, oil, and coal reserves combined.
Thanks again, Tilak! I am not so sure that this very noisy, if "fast expanding" thing called "Substack", should be where your first-class analysis and obvious experience of the real World that we are living in, is a suitable place, any more, to be looking for financial rewards. Forbes, yes!
As regards the main point that Robert Hargraves seems to be most concerned about, he needs to understand why, whatever Biden/Obama and Europe may have "preached", renewably generated electricity is simply too costly for the World's fast-growing population to afford and hideously un friendly to the environment because of its grotesquely enormous demand for metals and the impossibility of recycling so many of these short lived, "green" electricity generators and lithium ion batteries.
Forbes? I was cancelled there if you are not aware. I agree that so-called renewable energy is too costly, and not renewable in any real sense of the word.
You compiled many good points, here, such as the 43% efficiency of ultra supercritical coal fired plants. However "CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a vital gas for photosynthesis, driving global greening as NASA satellite data confirm." is irrelevant to the problem of global warming. Yes, CO2 provides the carbon for photosynthesis Yes, CO2 intercepts IR and insulates Earth's heat emissions, raising temperatures.
No it is not irrelevant. If CO2 is GHG, its warming effects need to be assessed I agree, as much as its greening effects. If as William Happer suggests that the warming impact of CO2 is a logistics curve, further additions of CO2 will not raise temperatures much, while its greening effects are positive for human welfare.
135,000 years ago, during the last inter-glacial all over our lovely Planet, the Earth’s temperature was warmer than any time during this inter-glacial, the Holocene. The CO2 concentration was 280 ppm. The ocean was 5m higher than now!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Interglacial
Tikak, can’t we collectively sue the EU Commission and its and our lying and scientifically ignorant, if democratically elected Governments for the absurd costs that they are forcing on all European tax payers, our children and grandchildren?
Net zero energy policies are impoverishing the whole of Europe!
Lovely article, and I agree with your conclusions. But you might want to check that citation of 43.56% thermal efficiency (corresponds to a heat rate of 7833 Btu/kWh), which I think you are saying is for a subcritical coal unit. That seems incredibly low for a subcritical steam-electric coal unit, especially if it has scrubbers for sulfur emissions, baghouse for particulates, etc. as implied by your comment that it has "ultra-low emissions".
Tilak, just a superb article! Many thanks for explicitly stating there will be no energy transition. Even if some energy source comes along which is comparable, or even superior, to hydrocarbon energies, the new energy will simply get added onto mankind's need for ever increasing energy consumption in order for ever increasing human flourishing. And the Climate Cult never addresses the absolutely necessary-to-a-modern-society products which hydrocarbons provide—plastics, petrochemicals, fertilizers, etc.
In no significant way will wind and solar junk energies be a part of the world's energy future. These parasites have only gone, whenever they have gone, by government subsidies, government mandates, and government requirements. The Ruinables of grid wind and grid solar are as much of an indication of government corruption, agency capture, the corruption of "The Science", crony capitalism, and massive propaganda, as anything else.
The real world is demonstrating, to the terrible dismay of the Climate Cult, just how unworkable, just how impoverishing, and how expensive, these junk, dilute, weather dependent Ruinables are. Expect even more shrill cries for society to "cut back", consume less, and be impoverished to "save the planet".
As governments and societies finally wake up to the con, the scam, the fairy tale, that they have been fed, the parasites of grid wind and solar will lose the political tailwinds which forced subsidies and mandates onto societies. It will be the "Green Energies" that become the "stranded assets".
Modern societies were built with, are operated by, and are sustained by, the products and energies of the wonderful, and wondrous, hydrocarbons. The need for plastics, petrochemicals, fertilizers, and energy from hydrocarbons will be even greater a hundred years from now than now. Consumption of natural gas, oil, and coal, will be greater a hundred years from now than now.
And the world really hasn't even scratched the harvesting of methane hydrates, which reserves dwarf all of the natural gas, oil, and coal reserves combined.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-scale-of-global-fossil-fuel-production/
Thanks again, Tilak! I am not so sure that this very noisy, if "fast expanding" thing called "Substack", should be where your first-class analysis and obvious experience of the real World that we are living in, is a suitable place, any more, to be looking for financial rewards. Forbes, yes!
As regards the main point that Robert Hargraves seems to be most concerned about, he needs to understand why, whatever Biden/Obama and Europe may have "preached", renewably generated electricity is simply too costly for the World's fast-growing population to afford and hideously un friendly to the environment because of its grotesquely enormous demand for metals and the impossibility of recycling so many of these short lived, "green" electricity generators and lithium ion batteries.
Please get in touch! My email is sharman@incoteco.com
Forbes? I was cancelled there if you are not aware. I agree that so-called renewable energy is too costly, and not renewable in any real sense of the word.
You compiled many good points, here, such as the 43% efficiency of ultra supercritical coal fired plants. However "CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a vital gas for photosynthesis, driving global greening as NASA satellite data confirm." is irrelevant to the problem of global warming. Yes, CO2 provides the carbon for photosynthesis Yes, CO2 intercepts IR and insulates Earth's heat emissions, raising temperatures.
No it is not irrelevant. If CO2 is GHG, its warming effects need to be assessed I agree, as much as its greening effects. If as William Happer suggests that the warming impact of CO2 is a logistics curve, further additions of CO2 will not raise temperatures much, while its greening effects are positive for human welfare.