GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,242]

Here is a better site with interaction with future, closed, proposed plants in the real near future. 

Bloomberg Global Coal Countdown (bloombergcoalcountdown.com)

China won't play by the Paris Accord and is in the process of doubling down on more plants. So no matter how many EU and USA take down is dwarfed by China's thirst for more. Jay's graph doesn't have China on it. 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Old-Ruffneck
add

[Ecocharger + 1,463]

9 hours ago, Boat said:

None of us here has control of any market. I have been refuting these claims of a growing coal market until you can see a trend line on a chart. That’s what you look for boys and girls. If the worlds coal consumption goes up it will be easily detected by the dot on the line or the column rising. You starting to grasp how these charts work? You need further schooling?

Bottom line...new technology for burning coal is being employed in a massive leap forward worldwide.

No doubt about that. Less coal needed under higher productivity? Yes, what else is new.

[Ecocharger + 1,463]

On 5/22/2021 at 3:45 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

Let's do a little reality check since your data is always such crap:

Coal expansion in Turkey hits headwinds, 70GW canceled or delayed since 2009 

only 2 GW under construction.

“There are quite a number of projects that will never see daylight,” a Turkish utility source said. “The ones that will burn imported hard coals are definitely dead due to diminishing availability of soft loans and Turkey’s strong policy for decreasing the current account deficit.”

President Recep Erdogan’s strategy to shift utility purchases away from imported thermal coal toward domestic lignite, due to the impact energy imports are having on Turkey’s balance of trade, had been expected to fuel domestic plant construction near lignite mines, the utility source said. But the policy appears to have ground to a halt, as proposed lignite projects have been halted by strong environmentalist opposition.https://ieefa.org/coal-expansion-in-turkey-hits-headwinds-70gw-canceled-or-delayed-since-2009/

Philippines declares no new coal plants other than 22 already approved but they are questionable 

• No new coal power plants have been built in the country since 2017, amid massive community pushback, excess energy supply, and a Supreme Court ruling that voids power supply agreements.

 https://news.mongabay.com/2020/11/philippines-declares-no-new-coal-plants-but-lets-approved-projects-through/

South Africa's new plan for energy additions The new energy plan has provision for 1,500 MW of new coal power, 2,500 MW of hydropower, 6,000 MW from photovoltaic, 14,400 MW from wind and 3,000 MW from natural gas. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-safrica-energy/south-african-power-generation-plan-keeps-coal-in-the-mix-idUSKBN1WX0OD

South Korea has cancelled all new coal plants, plans to close half of the existing fleet by 2034 and has agreed to stop funding international coal plants. Will triple renewables by 2025 https://www.powermag.com/south-korea-will-close-half-its-coal-fired-fleet/

Japan is under tremendous financial pressure to stop building coal plants. It is unlikely anymore will be built. Japan's top coal power producer J-Power canceled the construction of a power plant in Yamaguchi Prefecture, the company said Friday, as it works to curb its dependence on the fossil fuel amid growing regulatory pressures. As part of Japan's push to curb emissions and shut down inefficient facilities, the economy ministry plans to require all coal power plants to achieve an efficiency rate of 43% by 2030. 

Japan has roughly 150 coal-fired facilities nationwide. Among those operated by a major utility, just two met the threshold in fiscal 2019, while 31 scored an efficiency rate of 40% or above, according to the economy ministry.

Both new and existing plants would require massive investment to achieve the 43% goal. But this could be a risky move, since it usually takes at least 20 years before utilities start earning returns on coal power plants, and Japan could adopt even tougher restrictions on the fuel in the meantime.

"We are seeing pushback against coal across the world, which contributed to our decision" to cancel the new plant, Kanno said.https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/Japan-s-top-coal-power-company-scraps-plan-for-new-plant

EU Just five years on from the historic UN Paris Climate Agreement, half of Europe’s 324 coal power plants have either already closed or pledged to shut down before 2030. The halfway milestone was reached this Monday, when the West Burton coal power plant’s retirement by 2022 was announced by the British energy company EDF.  https://caneurope.org/europe-halfway-to-closing-all-its-coal-plants-by-2030/

India private sector new coal has dropped to zero. 

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/most-coal-power-plants-coming-up-are-govt-owned-report/articleshow/82107017.cms

State-run NTPC Ltd, India's top electricity producer, said in September it will not acquire land for new coal-fired projects. Private firms and many run by states across the country have not invested in new coal-fired plants for years saying they were not economically viable.

In 2019, the states of Gujarat and Chhattisgarh, the latter of which is home to India’s third-largest coal reserves, announced that they will not build any new coal generating facilities. Last fall, Indian power minister R.K. Singh said that the generating capacity from 29 coal plants scheduled to retire in the coming years would be replaced entirely by renewables. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/coal-king-india

The US unfortunately has way more than 15 coal plants. 

 

 

Jay, you are all over the place with this stuff, but again off-topic. Give us the numbers of existing and "being built" you think are better than the ones above. And please include China, which you (ahem) "forgot" to discuss.

Here is from an anti-coal and rabidly anti-CO2 site. Yes, coal is going up, facilitated by the new near-zero toxic emission technology.

TOTAL GLOBAL COAL PLANT CAPACITY BY GW

2,059

 

+0.64%

Net Change Since 2020

Edited May 23, 2021 by Ecocharger

[JoMack + 549]

19 hours ago, Boat said:

I check out the EIA drilling productivity report every month. It shows wells drilled and wells completed are on the rise. Go look for yourself.

In Feb there were 172 drilled and 190 completed

In April there were 245 drilled and 366 completed. 
 

Your not woke. I look at data=woke. Come back with numbers instead of bs.

From Baker Hughes:

Baker Hughes’ latest U.S. rig count shows a one-unit drop in oil rigs (to 180) and a one-unit decline in natural gas rigs (to 71). The number of miscellaneous rigs held steady at three units.

 

Against the year-ago figure of 886, the U.S. rig count is down by 632 drilling units, Baker Hughes continued. It pointed out that oil rigs are down 553, gas rigs are down 82 and miscellaneous rigs are up three.

Baker Hughes added the U.S. offshore rig count remained unchanged at 15 this week – down from 25 a year ago.

 

[notsonice + 1,255]

5 minutes ago, JoMack said:

From Baker Hughes:

Baker Hughes’ latest U.S. rig count shows a one-unit drop in oil rigs (to 180) and a one-unit decline in natural gas rigs (to 71). The number of miscellaneous rigs held steady at three units.

 

Against the year-ago figure of 886, the U.S. rig count is down by 632 drilling units, Baker Hughes continued. It pointed out that oil rigs are down 553, gas rigs are down 82 and miscellaneous rigs are up three.

Baker Hughes added the U.S. offshore rig count remained unchanged at 15 this week – down from 25 a year ago.

 

What are you smoking? Please note the change from last year  is  plus 137. The rig count is 455 this week. If you are going to post please post the truth not babble.

Rig Count Overview & Summary Count https://rigcount.bakerhughes.com/rig-count-overview

 

 

Area	Last Count	Count	Change from Prior Count	Date of Prior Count	Change from Last Year	Date of Last Year's Count
U.S.	21 May  2021	455	+2	14 May 2021	+137	22 May 2020

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

8 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Here is a better site with interaction with future, closed, proposed plants in the real near future. 

Bloomberg Global Coal Countdown (bloombergcoalcountdown.com)

China won't play by the Paris Accord and is in the process of doubling down on more plants. So no matter how many EU and USA take down is dwarfed by China's thirst for more. Jay's graph doesn't have China on it. 

Their map is out of date. Things are moving fast. I didn't mention China because we have discussed it at length. They are adding new plants but their coal usage is flat, which is the more important metric. Seems they are mothballing their old plants as they add new ones. It remains to be seen if they live up to their pledge to the Paris Accord.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

21 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, you are all over the place with this stuff, but again off-topic. Give us the numbers of existing and "being built" you think are better than the ones above. And please include China, which you (ahem) "forgot" to discuss.

Here is from an anti-coal and rabidly anti-CO2 site. Yes, coal is going up, facilitated by the new near-zero toxic emission technology.

TOTAL GLOBAL COAL PLANT CAPACITY BY GW

2,059

 

+0.64%

Net Change Since 2020

All over the place? I referenced each country that you did except for China. Here, I'll give you the simpleton summary:

You said:

Turkey is building 93. Truth is they are building 3

South Africa is building 24. Truth is they are building 2 

Japan is building 45. Truth is Japan is building 9. Massive retirements planned.

South Korea is building 26. Truth is they are building 4. Massive retirements planned.

EU is building 27. Truth is they are building 3 Massive retirements planned.

Philippines are building 60. Truth is they are building 4

India is building 446. Truth is they are building between 20 and 30.

I didn't forget China, China has been discussed at length. Yes, they are building much more capacity but consumption is flat.

These numbers are generally based on https://bloombergcoalcountdown.com/ as suggested by Old R. I updated a few based on recent announcements.

My post was about refuting your claim that the planet is on a world wide coal binge. It is not! Only three countries are building significant new quantity: China, India, Indonesia

Every other country on the planet has far more renewables in the pipeline than coal.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,242]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Their map is out of date. Things are moving fast. I didn't mention China because we have discussed it at length. They are adding new plants but their coal usage is flat, which is the more important metric. Seems they are mothballing their old plants as they add new ones. It remains to be seen if they live up to their pledge to the Paris Accord.

Dude, yer outta date. 

The Bloomberg Global Coal Countdown dashboard provides information on all existing coal-fired power plants of 30MW capacity or larger, as well as those proposed since 2010. The data is compiled by Global Energy Monitor and is updated bi-annually. The current dashboard uses data from January 2021.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Dude, yer outta date. 

The Bloomberg Global Coal Countdown dashboard provides information on all existing coal-fired power plants of 30MW capacity or larger, as well as those proposed since 2010. The data is compiled by Global Energy Monitor and is updated bi-annually. The current dashboard uses data from January 2021.

I'll agree that it is close enough. But a lot has happened since January. I was looking at some of the manufacturer sites that say some plants have been recently completed which the map says are under construction. And planned quantities don't all line up with recent government plans, e.g. South Africa just released a plan significantly decreasing the number of planned coal units.

The map also shows the PTOLEMAIDA 5 plant in Greece as under construction but it has been cancelled.

Edited May 23, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

20 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Bottom line...new technology for burning coal is being employed in a massive leap forward worldwide.

No doubt about that. Less coal needed under higher productivity? Yes, what else is new.

Of all the plants under construction in the world only 2 are the new coal tech tech you have been crowing about. Both are IGCC in Japan. There are no PFBC plants under construction that I can find. As a reminder, the following is from the new coal tech list that Rob found for you and you posted:

• Advanced technologies such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion (PFBC) enable higher thermal efficiencies still – up to 50% in the future.

Worldwide you say. What a load of crap.

Not a single coal plant under construction in all of the Americas or Australia. Only 4 in Africa, 7 in all of Europe including Turkey and Russia. It is only SE Asia that is still gung ho on coal.

So your claim that new tech for burning coal is being employed in a massive leap forward worldwide is unequivocally refuted!

Edited May 23, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[turbguy + 1,540]

21 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is what is happening around the world, NEW coal-burning plants are being constructed using the toxic-free NEW technology which produces near-ZERO toxic effluents.

Read 'em and weep, current numbers for coal-burning plants,

The EU has 468, building 27 more = 495

Turkey has 56, building 93 more = 149

South Africa has 79, building 24 more = 103

India has 589, building 446 more = 1,035

Philippines has 19, building 60 more = 79

South Korea has 58, building 26 more = 84

Japan has 90, building 45 more = 135

China has 2,364, building 1,171 more = 3,534

U.S. has 15, building 0 more = 15

The U.S. has some work to do to get back into the mainstream of the new coal technology. That would be absolutely necessary if the transition is to be made (which it will not) to electric vehicles.

Why are all countries adopting the new coal-burning technologies at such a rapid rate?

Here is part of the answer,

"

• Coal cleaning by 'washing' has been standard practice in developed countries for some time. It reduces emissions of ash and sulfur dioxide when the coal is burned.
• Electrostatic precipitators and fabric filters can remove 99% of the fly ash from the flue gases – these technologies are in widespread use.
• Flue gas desulfurisation reduces the output of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere by up to 97%, the task depending on the level of sulfur in the coal and the extent of the reduction. It is widely used where needed in developed countries.
• Low-NOx burners allow coal-fired plants to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 40%. Coupled with re-burning techniques NOx can be reduced 70% and selective catalytic reduction can clean up 90% of NOx emissions.
• Increased efficiency of plant – up to 46% thermal efficiency now (and 50% expected in future) means that newer plants create less emissions per kWh than older ones. See Table 1.
• Advanced technologies such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion (PFBC) enable higher thermal efficiencies still – up to 50% in the future.
• Ultra-clean coal (UCC) from new processing technologies which reduce ash below 0.25% and sulfur to very low levels mean that pulverised coal might be used as fuel for very large marine engines, in place of heavy fuel oil. There are at least two UCC technologies under development. Wastes from UCC are likely to be a problem.
• Gasification, including underground coal gasification (UCG) in situ, uses steam and oxygen to turn the coal into carbon monoxide and hydrogen."

This just scratches the surface.

Steam technologies will not reach 50% thermal efficiencies without major improvements in metallurgy (unless you want a base load plant that operates 1000 hrs between major overhauls).

And, those improvements will require a LOT of expensive alloyings, with FE being a tramp element in the mix.

With UCC tech, what do you do with the real estate that does not burn?  Dump it where?

Every one of the techs you mention costs both $ and reduces final net plant power. 

Say that delivered coal costs $3 per million BTU's.  After all the coal "preparation", flue gas "treatment", and waste disposal, it raises to $4-6 per million BTU.  Not only is coal dirty, it is not inexpensive anymore.

Edited May 23, 2021 by turbguy

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

6 hours ago, JoMack said:

From Baker Hughes:

Baker Hughes’ latest U.S. rig count shows a one-unit drop in oil rigs (to 180) and a one-unit decline in natural gas rigs (to 71). The number of miscellaneous rigs held steady at three units.

 

Against the year-ago figure of 886, the U.S. rig count is down by 632 drilling units, Baker Hughes continued. It pointed out that oil rigs are down 553, gas rigs are down 82 and miscellaneous rigs are up three.

Baker Hughes added the U.S. offshore rig count remained unchanged at 15 this week – down from 25 a year ago.

 

Those are the numbers from September 10, 2020. You guys really do love your outdated data.

[notsonice + 1,255]

44 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Those are the numbers from September 10, 2020. You guys really do love your outdated data.

well they still think it is September , 2020 and they think Trump will get re-elected. Trump is planning some rallies to get out the vote this summer. Who has a lower IQ Trump or those who support him?

[turbguy + 1,540]

2 minutes ago, notsonice said:

well they still think it is September , 2020 and they think Trump will get re-elected. Trump is planning some rallies to get out the vote this summer. Who has a lower IQ Trump or those who support him?

I believe they are living in a "alternative" 1950's...

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

34 minutes ago, notsonice said:

well they still think it is September , 2020 and they think Trump will get re-elected. Trump is planning some rallies to get out the vote this summer. Who has a lower IQ Trump or those who support him?

Anyone, even babies, who have the coordination to drop a 10micron cylinder into a hole with n95 microns on a side

Anyone who can figure out which bathroom to walk into

Anyone who can read a thermometer and can rub 2 brain cells together deducting that yes, people in 1880 can indeed accurately read a thermometer and no their records do not magically need to be adjusted lower to a new grand total of minus 1.5C and increasing every time the IPCC publishes to make this year the warmest on record. 

Anyone who can figure out that, anthropological global warming, if it is true, should increase daily highs, which have not increased much, not just daily lows. 

Anyone who can figure out that daily lows increase due to heat island effect of cities and anyone who can figure out that urbanization, population, and use of Heating/AC have massively increased and yet said thermometers in cities are still being used as the basis of the IPCC reports instead of ONLY thermometers outside of cities...

Anyone who can figure out the above and rub two brain cells together and ask, DO WE HAVE thermometers outside of cities?  Why yes, Sherlock, we do, and do they show increases in daily lows over daily highs?..... -->  No. 

Anyone who can deduct by simple reading that Satellite temperatures obtain their calibration based on land temperatures...

Anyone who can deduct that Removing vast swathes of Tropical, subtropical, and temperate forest from the planet have more albedo effect of raising temperatures than anything else.  Same goes with changing Grasslands to cropland. 

Anyone who can figure out we have eye witness accounts and newspapers showing no ice on the NORTHern edge of Svalbardland in the dead of winter in the late 19th century and beginning of the 20th century which oh by the way was the same time the first boat passage of the northwest passage happened and was not done again for MANY MANY decades afterwards due to.... ICE.  Has there EVER been a winter again since that period with no pack ice on the North shore of Svalbardland?  No. 

We have recorded history in the 12th and 13th century of the rivers of Europe running DRY, not low, DRY.  We have moving sand dunes across the Great plains in North America at this same time period via Carbon 14 dating which are currently vast farmland instead of sand....

We have the Mongols invading China and conquering not because they wanted to, but rather they were STARVING from heat.  Same reason later the Manchu's conquered China setting up the Qing Dynasty, they were starving from COLD. 

What caused all this?  Do we even know the cycle and its severity?  Cycle, maybe, severity of it?  No.  But don't let basic historical fact get in your way of your Dogma. 

I know Socialists can't do math or science, but damn.... Open your eyes man.

Edited May 23, 2021 by footeab@yahoo.com

[JoMack + 549]

17 hours ago, notsonice said:

What are you smoking? Please note the change from last year  is  plus 137. The rig count is 455 this week. If you are going to post please post the truth not babble.

Rig Count Overview & Summary Count https://rigcount.bakerhughes.com/rig-count-overview

 

 

Area	Last Count	Count	Change from Prior Count	Date of Prior Count	Change from Last Year	Date of Last Year's Count
U.S.	21 May  2021	455	+2	14 May 2021	+137	22 May 2020

I realize that you missed the war between Saudi Arabia and Russia driving crude oil prices in the negative in 2020.  Oh, and that pandemic you might remember.  Therefore, the rig count in May of 2020 shows at least 400 rigs lower than the rigs running in 2019.  So, comparing May 2021 to the May 2020 rig count is skewed since demand was practically dead in 2020 and crude prices were low.

So, let's look at 2019 so you can actually see the rig count in a year "without much turmoil", and actually in 2019 had lower crude oil prices than 2019.  So, you may think I'm "smoking something" as you state, but you are not using anything relevant as a comparison on rig counts between 2020 and 2021.

The fact that the rig count is down 50% in 2021 from 2019  shows, in my opinion,  that factors that are weighing on investment in drilling in the U.S. which are clearly impacting the oil and gas industry exploration in the U.S.  The Biden Administration has a total focus on renewable energy and is inflicting onerous regulations on oil and gas development. That moratorium on permitting for drilling and leasing on federal lands is close to 90 days over the end of the moratorium.  The UN has injected itself into world financing and has admonished any of the biggest banks to halt financing of industries dealing in oil and gas, coal or nuclear.  The industry here in the US is now required to add environmental and social risk when applying for loans and lines of credit.  These are untenable risk factors which cannot be calculated.  

By the way, this particular commentary is not "old data", it is a comparison between a pro-energy Administration and the current Administration whose goal is to eliminate fossil fuels.  In 4 months, we are seeing the consequences of Biden and his team of fools, who killed Keystone, yet granted a waiver to Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Germany.  When Colonial was hacked and the pipleline was closed down, the DOE Director Granholm tells the press that pipelines are the safest way to move crude, gas, jet fuel, diesel and propane, then she backtracked.  The Biden Aministration pushes its climate change through fear mongering and forced policies which will invariably lead to a country in decline.

 

 

 

U.S. Rig Count Data available from Baker Hughes.webarchive

[-trance + 114]

13 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Anyone who can figure out that daily lows increase due to heat island effect of cities and anyone who can figure out that urbanization, population, and use of Heating/AC have massively increased and yet said thermometers in cities are still being used as the basis of the IPCC reports instead of ONLY thermometers outside of cities...

Anyone who can figure out the above and rub two brain cells together and ask, DO WE HAVE thermometers outside of cities?  Why yes, Sherlock, we do, and do they show increases in daily lows over daily highs?..... -->  No. 

 

If the cities are warmer the countryside would actually have to be colder for there to no global warming.

That's how averages work.

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by -trance

[specinho + 467]

On 5/22/2021 at 1:35 AM, Ecocharger said:

Global warming/cooling is solar related, nothing humans can do will affect the results.  The futile attempt to control CO2 is all a bad dream based on junk science.

Science has been subverted by politics...the same thing happened in the 1930's in Germany.

 

Once upon a time........ there were a few blind men and an elephant........

 

Pardon me. The intention has not been trying to say we are all blinds but how we are handling the issue, particularly with highly specialized opinions from the experts, academicians, professionals, politicians and the likes. It is like holding on to a fraction of scenario respectively and believing it is the whole thing. And........... Only what we hold on to is what it is supposed to be...........

Who could we trust?? * dismay looking face *

 

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by specinho

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

18 minutes ago, -trance said:

If the cities are warmer the countryside would actually have to be colder for there to no global warming.

That's how averages work.

 

Where are the majority of thermometers? --> In cities.  Which ones are the oldest.... --> In cities which did not used to have ever increasing populations, HVAC. 

And dear, appears you need to read some more, I said nothing about global temperatures going up/down currently. 

[specinho + 467]

31 minutes ago, -trance said:

If the cities are warmer the countryside would actually have to be colder for there to no global warming.

That's how averages work.

 

This assumption is probably slightly off the mark......

temperature of an area, be it a city or a small rural town, is generally referred to as microclimate. Factors affecting microclimate vary by probably a matter of scale. For example, temperature change over a span of 30 years in a city during day time could be 8 to 15 degree celcius higher or more; rural 5 to 10 degree celcius.

Average might not function like, higher temperature in the city and lower temperature in the rural = no change, over this issue..... or no?

[-trance + 114]

3 hours ago, specinho said:

This assumption is probably slightly off the mark......

temperature of an area, be it a city or a small rural town, is generally referred to as microclimate. Factors affecting microclimate vary by probably a matter of scale. For example, temperature change over a span of 30 years in a city during day time could be 8 to 15 degree celcius higher or more; rural 5 to 10 degree celcius.

Average might not function like, higher temperature in the city and lower temperature in the rural = no change, over this issue..... or no?

 

 

It wasn't a statement about climate science.  It was just pedantic math; pointing out that if any readings go up then your averages will go up unless other data points go down by an equal amount.

"Eliminating outliers" from the data is a controversial topic.  Obviously, some readings have to discarded; but discard too many and you are "massaging the data."

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by -trance

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

29 minutes ago, -trance said:

It wasn't a statement about climate science.  It was just pedantic math; pointing out that if any readings go up then your averages will go up unless others go data points go down by an equal amount.

"Eliminating outliers" from the data is a controversial topic.  Obviously, some readings have to discarded; but discard too many and you are "massaging the data."

 

You don't say

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/380635-yes-noaa-must-adjust-data-but-its-climate-record-really-is-quite

Yes, NOAA must adjust data — but its climate record really is quite wrong

NOAA does a reasonable job on the weather, but has been subject to much criticism for its handling of climate and is often accused of "cooking the data" for ideological reasons, related to energy policy.

 

More serious, perhaps, is the continued failure of NOAA to recognize that its climate record is really quite wrong. This official record shows a warming at the beginning of the 20th century and also at the end. The first warming is genuine, the second warming is an artifact, based on an incomplete analysis of all of the available data.

Second, while the warming may exist in the surface record of weather stations, it does not exist in the atmospheric record. In fact, the gap between model results based on increasing CO2 and the atmospheric observations is continuing to grow. Scientists are at a loss in trying to explain the puzzling ineffectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Could it be that CO2 is not warming the climate at all? It is a topic that bears investigation. NOAA has not tackled this problem, likely because of ideological reasons. NOAA probably considers CO2 as a "pollutant." It has been slow to change, in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary.

Edited May 23, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open

[Ecocharger + 1,463]

The reality of the transportation system and the absolute need for fossil fuels going forward,

 

"As Brookings, a nonprofit public policy organization, contributor Samantha Gross notes:

"The energy density of fossil fuels is particularly important in the transportation sector. A vehicle needs to carry its fuel around as it travels, so the weight and volume of that fuel are key. Electric vehicles are a much-touted solution for replacing oil, but they are not perfect for all uses. Pound for pound, gasoline or diesel fuel contain about 40 times as much energy as a state-of-the-art battery. On the other hand, electric motors are much more efficient than internal combustion engines and electric vehicles are simpler mechanically, with many fewer moving parts. These advantages make up for some of the battery's weight penalty, but an electric vehicle will still be heavier than a similar vehicle running on fossil fuel. For vehicles that carry light loads and can refuel often, like passenger cars, this penalty isn't a big deal. But for aviation, maritime shipping, or long-haul trucking, where the vehicle must carry heavy loads for long distances without refueling, the difference in energy density between fossil fuels and batteries is a huge challenge, and electric vehicles just don't meet the need."

Also "Over the 20th century, the energy system transformed from one in which fossil energy was used directly into one in which an important portion of fossil fuels are used to generate electricity. The proportion used in electricity generation varies by fuel. Because oil — an energy-dense liquid — is so fit-for-purpose in transport, little of it goes to electricity; in contrast, roughly 63% of coal produced worldwide is used to generate electricity. Methods of generating electricity that don’t rely on fossil fuels, like nuclear and hydroelectric generation, are also important parts of the system in many areas. However, fossil fuels are still the backbone of the electricity system, generating 64% of today’s global supply."

Edited May 24, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,463]

22 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,463]

22 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

All over the place? I referenced each country that you did except for China. Here, I'll give you the simpleton summary:

You said:

Turkey is building 93. Truth is they are building 3

South Africa is building 24. Truth is they are building 2 

Japan is building 45. Truth is Japan is building 9. Massive retirements planned.

South Korea is building 26. Truth is they are building 4. Massive retirements planned.

EU is building 27. Truth is they are building 3 Massive retirements planned.

Philippines are building 60. Truth is they are building 4

India is building 446. Truth is they are building between 20 and 30.

I didn't forget China, China has been discussed at length. Yes, they are building much more capacity but consumption is flat.

These numbers are generally based on https://bloombergcoalcountdown.com/ as suggested by Old R. I updated a few based on recent announcements.

My post was about refuting your claim that the planet is on a world wide coal binge. It is not! Only three countries are building significant new quantity: China, India, Indonesia

Every other country on the planet has far more renewables in the pipeline than coal.

 

 

Jay, coal is going up, not down as you claim.

Here is from an anti-coal and rabidly anti-CO2 site. Yes, coal is going up, facilitated by the new near-zero toxic emission technology.

TOTAL GLOBAL COAL PLANT CAPACITY BY GW

2,059

 

+0.64%

Net Change Since 2020