GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Those are the old technology, the new is much better. I guess you did not know that?

Do you have any evidence they are using the best technology?

If their main goal is to burn the cheapest fuel they probably don't splurge on expensive scrubbers.  #logic

Edited November 29, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Those are the old technology, the new is much better. I guess you did not know that?

No you said (actually correctly) that the new burners REDUCE the toxic count!

Reduce means lessen if youre confused, so they still emit toxicity into the atmosphere, FACT.

There is no way of escaping the FACT that they are polluters, enjoy your pollution and toxic atmosphere, keep promoting coal, oil and ICE vehicles and watch thousands globally die from the resulting pollution, if you lived in India or China that could be you or a family member dying! Why do you want those innocent people to die ECO?

"(2021) suggests that the death toll from outdoor air pollution caused by fossil fuels is much higher than other studies suggest. They estimate that 8.7 million deaths globally in 2018 were due to the air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels.¹¹ 8.7 million premature deaths are almost one-fifth of all deaths globally."

Just for clarity thats more each year than the holocaust!

 

[turbguy + 1,544]

15 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

 

 

Texas’s Green Energy Dream Is Risking Its Electric Grid

BY TYLER DURDEN

MONDAY, NOV 27, 2023 - 07:20 PM

Authored by Michael Washburn via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Since Texas weathered its second-hottest summer on record and faced unprecedented demands on its power grid, the future of energy supply and use in the state—and across the country—has become the subject of national discussion. Air conditioners were in constant use in Texas over the summer as average temperatures reached 85.3 degrees between June and August and didn't dip below 100 degrees for weeks on end in some cities.

(Illustration by The Epoch Times, freepik

Gee!  I hadn't heard of any load shedding events in Texas this year.

BTW, load shedding happens ALL THE TIME, ALL THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, with select power customers who accept terms that allow curtailment at times for a lower rate.

How can a fossil power source compete with a competing source that:

 

Uses zero fuel...

Uses almost zero water...

Produces zero operational wastes to deal with...

and uses less "heads per MWh" ?

 

Oh, BTW...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/

l

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

 

8 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Those are the old technology, the new is much better. I guess you did not know that?

https://netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/low-emissions#:~:text=Gasification-based processes for power,compared to conventional coal combustion.

 "gasification has inherent advantages over combustion for emissions control. Emission control is simpler in gasification than in combustion because the produced syngas in gasification is at higher temperature and pressure than the exhaust gases produced in combustion. These higher temperatures and pressures allow for easier removal of sulfur and nitrous oxides (SOx, and NOx), and volatile trace contaminants such as mercury, arsenic, selenium, cadmium, etc. Gasification systems can achieve almost an order of magnitude lower criteria emissions levels than typical current U.S. permit levels and +95% mercury removal with minimal cost increase.^2"

Good grief! You fool that technology is 50 years old and there are only 6 experimental coal gasification (IGCC) plants in operation worldwide and they are mired in high costs. No one is actually building them out.

 

and relatively new means 50 years old, IGCC has been failing for a long time!

 

IGCC power plants have had a development history of half a century since the first IGCC electric station in Lünen, Germany came into operation in 1972 (Balling et al., 2002). To date, high construction and maintenance costs remain the major hurdle for the commercialization of this technology. Numerous studies have investigated the cost of IGCC plants (Table 1). The rationales behind the cost analysis models for the IGCC plants employed by various organizations or authors are broadly similar.

China built an experimental IGCC plant in 2012 with plans to expand it that have been cancelled:

Edited November 29, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

8 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

No you said (actually correctly) that the new burners REDUCE the toxic count!

Reduce means lessen if youre confused, so they still emit toxicity into the atmosphere, FACT.

There is no way of escaping the FACT that they are polluters, enjoy your pollution and toxic atmosphere, keep promoting coal, oil and ICE vehicles and watch thousands globally die from the resulting pollution, if you lived in India or China that could be you or a family member dying! Why do you want those innocent people to die ECO?

"(2021) suggests that the death toll from outdoor air pollution caused by fossil fuels is much higher than other studies suggest. They estimate that 8.7 million deaths globally in 2018 were due to the air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels.¹¹ 8.7 million premature deaths are almost one-fifth of all deaths globally."

Just for clarity thats more each year than the holocaust!

 

A 95% reduction is not a reduction?

You are my favorite comedian, Rob.

"China’s new coal-fired power plants are cleaner than anything operating in the United States.

China’s emissions standards for conventional air pollutants from coal-fired power plants are stricter than the comparable U.S. standards."

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/15/15634538/china-coal-cleaner

Edited November 29, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

Good grief! You fool that technology is 50 years old and there are only 6 experimental coal gasification (IGCC) plants in operation worldwide and they are mired in high costs. No one is actually building them out.

 

and relatively new means 50 years old, IGCC has been failing for a long time!

 

IGCC power plants have had a development history of half a century since the first IGCC electric station in Lünen, Germany came into operation in 1972 (Balling et al., 2002). To date, high construction and maintenance costs remain the major hurdle for the commercialization of this technology. Numerous studies have investigated the cost of IGCC plants (Table 1). The rationales behind the cost analysis models for the IGCC plants employed by various organizations or authors are broadly similar.

China built an experimental IGCC plant in 2012 with plans to expand it that have been cancelled:

Jay, it looks good.

 "lower criteria emissions levels than typical current U.S. permit levels and +95% mercury removal with minimal cost increase.^2"

^{The new Chinese coal plants are cleaner than anything in America.}

^{https://www.americanprogress.org/article/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/}

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,544]

BTW, 1/3rd of ERCOT's demand today is being supplied by wind and solar.  More "free" Nat Gas for Texas to sell elsewhere!

If I have to pay for "free" nat gas, is doesn't quite make it "free", does it?

Edited November 29, 2023 by turbguy

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

11 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Those are the old technology, the new is much better. I guess you did not know that?

https://netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/low-emissions#:~:text=Gasification-based processes for power,compared to conventional coal combustion.

 "gasification has inherent advantages over combustion for emissions control. Emission control is simpler in gasification than in combustion because the produced syngas in gasification is at higher temperature and pressure than the exhaust gases produced in combustion. These higher temperatures and pressures allow for easier removal of sulfur and nitrous oxides (SOx, and NOx), and volatile trace contaminants such as mercury, arsenic, selenium, cadmium, etc. Gasification systems can achieve almost an order of magnitude lower criteria emissions levels than typical current U.S. permit levels and +95% mercury removal with minimal cost increase.^2"

Fool, you posted about gasification, claiming it was much better. Clearly you do not know that it is a failed technology. Now you are running away and claiming you are talking about different technology. You obviously have no idea what is going on.

And your new "new" technology is 30 years old and hasn't improved one bit since the day it was created! As Turb says, coal efficiency has maxed out. 

Renewables though continue to rapidly increase efficiency.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

38 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, it looks good.

 "lower criteria emissions levels than typical current U.S. permit levels and +95% mercury removal with minimal cost increase.^2"

^{The new Chinese coal plants are cleaner than anything in America.}

^{https://www.americanprogress.org/article/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/}

 

Those are not gasification plants.

And once again you have given a quote that does not exist in the article cited.

Further, cleaner coal does not mean it is actually clean. In fact they are minimally cleaner according to your article:

"In the United States, the total nameplate capacity of our top 100 most efficient coal-fired power units is 80.1 gigawatts, and their cumulative annual carbon emissions amount to 361,924,475 metric tons.⁹ Meanwhile, the total nameplate capacity of China’s top 100 units is 82.6 gigawatts, and their cumulative annual carbon emissions are an estimated 342,586,908 metric tons."

Edited November 29, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ron Wagner + 710]

https://dailycaller.com/2023/11/29/biden-landmark-climate-report-activists/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push

 

ENERGY

‘Cherry-Picking Of Experts’: Biden’s Landmark Climate Report Authored By Eco-Activists Linked To Liberal Dark Money

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

NICK POPECONTRIBUTOR

November 29, 202312:06 PM ET

FONT SIZE:

Nearly two dozen authors and contributors to the Biden administration’s landmark climate report work for left-wing environmental groups, some of which receive money from a liberal dark money network.

The Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5), published in November, projects dire climate change scenarios and emphasizes the need for large-scale economic mobilization to prevent its worst effects. Over two dozen of the report’s hundreds of listed authors and technical contributors work for environmentalist or left-of-center policy advocacy organizations, like the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Nature Conservancy.

The report is the product of about four years of work, and it is intended to “[provide] the scientific foundation to support informed decision-making across the United States” on matters of climate change and policymaking.

Some of the report’s analytical methods, including the use of billion-dollar damage events as a de facto proxy for climate change’s intensity, have drawn criticism for being misleading. The NCA5 also relied upon “indigenous knowledge” to arrive at some of its findings, and the report’s text is littered with mentions of the importance of centering social justice concepts like “equity” and “environmental justice” in the government’s response to climate change.

While the report’s top-line findings about the potential catastrophe that awaits the country if serious action is not taken quickly garnered significant media attention, the fact that many of the report’s authors work for environmentalist groups and other potentially-conflicted organizations did not.

 

 

Several of the organizations named in the report’s credits receive funding from groups managed by Arabella Advisors, a for-profit company that oversees several nonprofits that variously support left-wing causes and Democratic candidates. (RELATED: Biden’s Energy Secretary Says ‘We Can All Learn From China’ On Climate Policy)

President Joe Biden delivers remarks during a climate event at the White House complex November 14, 2023 in Washington, D.C. Biden spoke on his administration’s efforts to address the global climate crisis and the Fifth National Climate Assessment. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

“Although conflicts of interest are impossible to avoid entirely, the NCA5 did a terrible job in managing them. The NCA5 was written by the US climate industry power elite,” Professor Jessica Weinkle, program coordinator for the master of coastal and ocean policy at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Of course, we have a nation of wonderful researchers. A core problem, however, is that the production of climate change research is more tied to business and political interests than is commonly recognized.”

Omanjana Goswami, Melissa Finucane and Kristina Dahl all are credited in the report and work for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a left-wing nonprofit that opposes fossil fuels and supports a de facto international “climate reparations” program, according to its website.

Goswami, an interdisciplinary scientist for UCS, was the review editor for the NCA5’s chapter on “agriculture, food systems and rural communities.” Finucane, the organization’s vice president, is credited as an author in the “Northeast” chapter. Dahl, a senior climate scientist for UCS, is listed as a technical contributor to the “transportation” chapter.

Andrew Rosenberg, the review editor for the report’s “ocean ecosystems and marine resources chapter,” worked for the UCS as a scientist and as the director of the group’s Center for Science and Democracy for about a decade before leaving in August 2022.

Carolyn Kousky, an author for the report’s chapter pertaining to the economics of climate change, is EDF’s associate vice president for economics and policy. EDF is a leading national environmentalist organization that explicitly pushes for a global green energy transition “as fast as possible” and routinely engages in well-funded legal challenges to hinder fossil fuels.

In 2022, EDF took about $3.4 million from the Windward Fund, a nonprofit organization managed by Arabella Advisors, according to Windward Fund’s tax filings.

EDF also has a political action committee (PAC) that endorses Democratic candidates and causes. EDF’s PAC launched a six-figure ad campaign to boost President Joe Biden’s climate agenda in 2022, and EDF’s political arms spent $3.2 million to defeat former President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential race. EDF’s PAC also routinely promotes Biden’s massive green energy spending.

The Nature Conservancy, which took more than $1.5 million in 2022 from the New Venture Fund and Windward Fund, has five employees listed in NCA5’s credits as chapter authors or technical contributors.

Katharine Hayhoe is an author for the “climate trends” chapter, Richard Bell helped to write the “ocean ecosystems and marine resources” chapter, Marissa Ahlering authored the “northern Great Plains” section and Joseph Fargione authored the chapter on “mitigation,” while Alison Long is a technical contributor for the “northern Great Plains” chapter.

Hayhoe’s author credit, however, did not disclose her Nature Conservancy affiliation, instead noting her as an affiliate of Texas Tech University.

The Nature Conservancy’s Virginia office received more than $798,000 from the New Venture Fund in 2022, and the Windward Fund also granted its New Jersey office more than $793,000 last year, according to the nonprofits’ 2022 tax filings.

The Nature Conservancy aims to preserve huge swaths of land and water worldwide in order to decrease carbon emissions, and it advocates for an “equitable” global transition to green energy generation to replace fossil fuels.

The Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) received nearly $280,000 combined from the same two Arabella-managed funds in 2022. Three CPI employees are credited as technical contributors to NCA5. The organization aims to finance green energy in the developing world and pursue “industrial decarbonization.”

Overlooking influence in climate science “is like pretending medical research is of no interest to pharmaceutical corporations and the health care lobby,” Weinkle, who also writes on conflicts of interests in climate science, told the DCNF. “The process of developing the NCA is directly tied to the White House and this weighs heavily on the cherry-picking of experts.”

The NCA5 also credits three Ocean Conservancy employees. The group works to advance “ocean justice” and confront climate change, according to its website. Henry Huntington, the group’s Arctic science director, is the NCA5’s lead author for the “Alaska” chapter, while Sarah Cooley, the organization’s director of climate science, is an author for the report’s “ocean ecosystems and marine resources” chapter and a technical contributor to the section on “focus on blue carbon.”

Patricia Chambers, the organization’s Arctic digital manager, is credited as a technical contributor in the “Alaska” chapter. Notably, Sandra Whitehouse, the wife of Democratic Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, works for the Ocean Conservancy.

Also credited as an author of the “Alaska” chapter is Darcy Peter, who works for the Alaska Conservation Foundation. Her organization opposes key fossil fuel and mining development efforts in Alaska, one of the most resource-rich states in the country. The Alaska Conservation Foundation opposed the Pebble Mine and oil and gas drilling activity in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, both of which the Biden administration has moved decisively to prevent. (RELATED: Scientist Admits Omitting ‘Full Truth’ From Climate Study To Get It Published)

 

Kate Marvel, a senior climate scientist for Project Drawdown, is credited as the lead author for the chapter on “climate trends.” Marvel is also listed as an author for the NCA5’s “overview” chapter. Project Drawdown is a nonprofit that aims to “help the world stop climate change—as quickly, safely, and equitably as possible,” advocating for global cooperation and planning to deploy “solutions that also reduce poverty, conserve biodiversity, cleanse water and air, and advance justice.”

Other groups represented in the report’s credits include the Center for American Progress (CAP) and the Soros family-funded Open Society Foundations, both of which are explicitly left-of-center in their advocacy. John Podesta, a Democratic insider working for Biden in the White House and distributing green energy subsidies, established the Center for American Progress in 2003. In 2022, the organization received $280,000 combined from the Arabella-managed Sixteen Thirty Fund and Hopewell Fund, according to their tax filings.

The CAP’s Mark Haggerty is credited for authoring the report’s chapter on the “northern Great Plains.” Miriam Goldstein, an author of the chapter on “ocean ecosystems and marine resources,” worked at CAP from 2019 to February 2023, before taking a job with the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Daniel Rizza, director of the program on sea level rise for Climate Central, is credited as a technical contributor for the NCA5’s chapter on “adaptation.” Climate Central collaborates with local news outlets to provide “data, science and data reporting, editing and guidance to joint features coverage informed by new climate data,” according to its website. Climate Central also has a “Climate Matters” campaign, which helps “a nationwide media network connect global climate change to local audiences in ways that matter.”

For example, Climate Central has partnered with local news outlets to write stories with headlines like “the view from above: climate change poses threats to Nebraska’s birds — and people” and “climate change makes allergy season longer.” On television, Climate Central’s work featured in more than 5,000 segments in 2021, and more than 4,000 outlets around the world covered its visual depictions of contrasting outcomes under different pollution scenarios that same year, according to its website.

Climate Central had more than 1,000 television reporters participating in its data visualization service as of 2020, according to its website. In 2022, the group partnered with The Weather Company to spread its content to The Weather Company’s hundreds of clients.

“We’re a non-advocacy and non-partisan organization communicating scientific research and analysis, so we’re fully supportive of staff contributions to the National Climate Assessment,” a spokesperson for Climate Central told the DCNF.

Notably, Climate Central got its start in 2008 with funding from the Flora Family Foundation and the 11th Hour Project, two left-of-center grantmaking organizations that focus on climate advocacy. (RELATED: ‘Embarrassing’: Climate Expert Explains What’s Wrong With The White House’s New Climate Report)

 

Bee Moorhead, the executive director of the Texas Impact Foundation, is a credited author in the NCA5’s chapter on the “southern Great Plains.” Texas Impact Foundation describes its mission as equipping religious leaders with the tools to encourage civic engagement, and two of its key campaigns focus on achieving “climate justice” and “economic justice,” according to its website.

Also present in the credits is the founder of Introducing Youth to American Infrastructure (IYAI)— an organization that aims to develop an “equity-centered” infrastructure workforce— and a NCA5 chapter lead from Groundwork USA, a group that received $50,000 from the Windward Fund in 2022 while partnering with the Bezos Earth Fund, the Barr Foundation and the Kresge Foundation. Another group found in the report’s credits, the Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN), is supported financially by left-of-center organizations including the Kresge Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, according to its 2022 annual report.

The NCA5’s credits also feature individuals working for corporations that may stand to benefit from a global transition away from fossil fuels.

For instance, Stacy Swann, the CEO of Climate Finance Advisors, is a technical contributor to the report’s section on adaptation. Climate Finance Advisors is a company that provides financing options specifically for green investments, and is a member of WSP, a climate-focused consulting firm.

Emily Wasley, who is listed as the chapter lead for the “adaptation” chapter, was the corporate climate risk and resilience leader for WSP until January of this year before taking a job as the “head of resilience and biodiversity” with Meta. Another WSP employee was a technical contributor for the same chapter.

Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist who works for digital payment processor Stripe as the climate research lead, helped to author the “climate trends” chapter. Stripe has “invested millions in carbon removal technologies,” according to CNBC; in its first chapter, the NCA5 highlights natural and industrial carbon removal solutions as essential for reaching “net-zero” carbon emissions in the coming decades, an outcome which the report asserts is necessary if the worst projected impacts of climate change are to be avoided.

Ian Bolliger, a vice president for BlackRock, is listed as a technical contributor to the report’s “economics” chapter. Bolliger works for the company’s Aladdin Sustainability Lab, which generates data for investors to analyze the exposure of certain financial products to climate change.

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, has been a leading proponent of environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) investing, an investment strategy which has drawn scrutiny from Republicans for injecting politicized considerations into investments that critics say should be ideologically neutral. BlackRock’s CEO and Chairman, Larry Fink, has defended ESG investing and its underlying “stakeholder capitalism” model.

“Climate risk is investment risk,” Fink wrote to other CEOs in his 2020 annual letter. In his 2022 letter to investors, Fink commended the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Biden’s signature climate bill, for “creating significant opportunities for investors to allocate capital to the energy transition” and “attracting investment into existing and emerging technologies like carbon capture and green hydrogen.”

The White House, the Nature Conservancy, the Ocean Conservancy, the Center for American Progress, the EDF, UCS, USDN, IYAI, Open Society Foundations, Climate Policy Institute, WSP, Groundwork USA, Alaska Conservation Foundation, Institute for Climate and Peace, Climate Finance Advisors, Stripe, Project Drawdown, Stripe and BlackRock did not respond to requests for comment. The Texas Impact Foundation could not be reached for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

 

 

 

Tags : biden administration climate activism climate change national climate assessment science

[Ron Wagner + 710]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-new-highs-in-global-energy-consumption-and-carbon-emissions-in-2019/?sh=64f50bad66a1

Renewables provide only five percent of power worldwide. RCW

 

FORBESBUSINESSENERGY

EDITORS' PICK

Fossil Fuels Still Supply 84 Percent Of World Energy — And Other Eye Openers From BP’s Annual Review

Robert Rapier

Senior Contributor

I am a chemical engineer covering the energy sector.

Follow

 

 

 

Jun 20, 2020,08:35pm EDT

 

 

Listen to article4 minutes

 

 

This article is more than 3 years old.

•  
•  
•  

BP logos are seen at a BP petrol and diesel filling station in Hildenborough, southeast of London on ... [+]

AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

This week BP released its Statistical Review of World Energy 2020. The Review covers energy data through 2019, and provides a comprehensive picture of supply and demand for major energy sources on a country-level basis.

 

 

This annual report is one of the most important sources of global energy data. It is a primary source of data for numerous companies, government agencies, and non-government organizations.

 

As I do every year, following the Review’s release I analyze the data, create graphics, and try to provide a unique interpretation. I strive to find hidden gems or overlooked facts in the data.

 

Today I want to cover the major highlights of this year’s Review.

 

Primary energy consumption grew by 1.3% last year, which was less than half the rate of 2018 (2.8%). Nevertheless, this still represents the 10th consecutive year that the world set a new all-time high for energy consumption.

PROMOTED

The largest share of the increase in energy consumption, 41%, was contributed by renewables. Natural gas contributed the second largest increment with 36% of the increase. However, as an overall share of energy consumption, oil remained on top with 33% of all energy consumption. The remainder of global energy consumption came from coal (27%), natural gas (24%), hydropower (6%), renewables (5%), and nuclear power (4%).

Cumulatively, fossil fuels — shown below in shades of gray — still accounted for 84% of the world’s primary energy consumption in 2019.

Primary Energy Consumption

ROBERT RAPIER

 

China was responsible for three quarters of the world’s energy consumption growth, followed by India and Indonesia. The U.S. and Germany posted the largest declines.

Carbon dioxide emissions set a fourth consecutive new all-time high. However, emissions growth last year was only 0.5%, which was less than half the 10-year average. Since the negotiation of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to curb emissions, global carbon dioxide emissions have risen by 50%.

Forbes Daily: Get our best stories, exclusive reporting and essential analysis of the day’s news in your inbox every weekday.

Sign Up

 

By signing up, you accept and agree to our Terms of Service (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions), and Privacy Statement.

Oil consumption also grew to a new record, again led by demand growth from China. But global oil production fell for the first time in a decade, as growth in the U.S. was more than offset by OPEC production cuts. Given the impact Covid-19 is having on the world’s energy markets, it looks like 2018 may stand as the high mark for oil production for at least a couple of years.

[notsonice + 1,255]

24 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-new-highs-in-global-energy-consumption-and-carbon-emissions-in-2019/?sh=64f50bad66a1

Renewables provide only five percent of power worldwide. RCW

 

FORBESBUSINESSENERGY

EDITORS' PICK

Fossil Fuels Still Supply 84 Percent Of World Energy — And Other Eye Openers From BP’s Annual Review

Robert Rapier

Senior Contributor

I am a chemical engineer covering the energy sector.

Follow

 

 

 

Jun 20, 2020,08:35pm EDT

 

 

Listen to article4 minutes

 

 

This article is more than 3 years old.

•  
•  
•  

BP logos are seen at a BP petrol and diesel filling station in Hildenborough, southeast of London on ... [+]

AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

This week BP released its Statistical Review of World Energy 2020. The Review covers energy data through 2019, and provides a comprehensive picture of supply and demand for major energy sources on a country-level basis.

 

 

This annual report is one of the most important sources of global energy data. It is a primary source of data for numerous companies, government agencies, and non-government organizations.

 

As I do every year, following the Review’s release I analyze the data, create graphics, and try to provide a unique interpretation. I strive to find hidden gems or overlooked facts in the data.

 

Today I want to cover the major highlights of this year’s Review.

 

Primary energy consumption grew by 1.3% last year, which was less than half the rate of 2018 (2.8%). Nevertheless, this still represents the 10th consecutive year that the world set a new all-time high for energy consumption.

PROMOTED

The largest share of the increase in energy consumption, 41%, was contributed by renewables. Natural gas contributed the second largest increment with 36% of the increase. However, as an overall share of energy consumption, oil remained on top with 33% of all energy consumption. The remainder of global energy consumption came from coal (27%), natural gas (24%), hydropower (6%), renewables (5%), and nuclear power (4%).

Cumulatively, fossil fuels — shown below in shades of gray — still accounted for 84% of the world’s primary energy consumption in 2019.

Primary Energy Consumption

ROBERT RAPIER

 

China was responsible for three quarters of the world’s energy consumption growth, followed by India and Indonesia. The U.S. and Germany posted the largest declines.

Carbon dioxide emissions set a fourth consecutive new all-time high. However, emissions growth last year was only 0.5%, which was less than half the 10-year average. Since the negotiation of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to curb emissions, global carbon dioxide emissions have risen by 50%.

Forbes Daily: Get our best stories, exclusive reporting and essential analysis of the day’s news in your inbox every weekday.

Sign Up

 

By signing up, you accept and agree to our Terms of Service (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions), and Privacy Statement.

Oil consumption also grew to a new record, again led by demand growth from China. But global oil production fell for the first time in a decade, as growth in the U.S. was more than offset by OPEC production cuts. Given the impact Covid-19 is having on the world’s energy markets, it looks like 2018 may stand as the high mark for oil production for at least a couple of years.

3 year old article

 

your 84 percent now is 80 percent max

 

New output from Solar and Wind this year matches the total increase in worldwide energy demand

2024 New Solar and Wind will start displacing fossil fuels.....IE Peak Fossil Fuels has happened in 2023

80 percent this year 78 percent by the end of 2024

And better air quality and less pollution

 

[turbguy + 1,544]

49 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Those are not gasification plants.

That link in the quote is quite informative!  Thanx!

Since no new coal plants are being built (or even thought of) in the USA, I highly doubt we will ever have another utrasupercritical unit built. They are expensive to maintain, use a significant amount of superalloys, and will still suffer from shorter lifetimes of really expensive high-temp components (turbine rotors/blades, nozzles, piping, casings, valves, and the like).

That said, ultrasupercritical units still provide more watts per gram of coal consumed than older coal designs, and will never be as efficient as a combined cycle unit operating "pedal to the metal".

Also I note the "utilization factor" for coal units in China is 45%?  Is that equivalent to capacity factor?? That;'s REALLY poor.  Almost the same as well-positioned wind power.  China appears to be overbuilding coal plants, similar to their real estate builds.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

12 minutes ago, turbguy said:

That link in the quote is quite informative!  Thanx!

Since no new coal plants are being built (or even thought of) in the USA, I highly doubt we will ever have another utrasupercritical unit built. They are expensive to maintain, use a significant amount of superalloys, and will still suffer from shorter lifetimes of really expensive high-temp components (turbine rotors/blades, nozzles, piping, casings, valves, and the like).

That said, ultrasupercritical units still provide more watts per gram of coal consumed than older coal designs, and will never be as efficient as a combined cycle unit operating "pedal to the metal".

Also I note the "utilization factor" for coal units in China is 45%?  Is that equivalent to capacity factor?? That;'s REALLY poor.  Almost the same as well-positioned wind power.  China appears to be overbuilding coal plants, similar to their real estate builds.

And 14% less coal seems rather marginal improvement. Instead of burning 100 tons it burns 86 tons.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[turbguy + 1,544]

52 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

https://dailycaller.com/2023/11/29/biden-landmark-climate-report-activists/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push

 

ENERGY

‘Cherry-Picking Of Experts’: Biden’s Landmark Climate Report Authored By Eco-Activists Linked To Liberal Dark Money

 

Be careful...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

"The Daily Caller is a source that needs to be fact-checked on a per-article basis".

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 minute ago, turbguy said:

Be careful...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

"The Daily Caller is a source that needs to be fact-checked on a per-article basis".

When has he ever cared about current truthful facts?

[Ron Wagner + 710]

6 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Be careful...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

"The Daily Caller is a source that needs to be fact-checked on a per-article basis".

I think for myself, so should you. 

[turbguy + 1,544]

23 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And 14% less coal seems rather marginal improvement.

14% less is better than 0%.   Marginal gains are a matter of opinion.

If batteries in EV's were able to get 14% more range per pound, you probably would consider that not "marginal".  "YMMV".

That said, the metallurgy to support greater coal fired efficiency gains is not on the horizon.  It's hard to compete with combined cycle units that have firing temps (between 1650 to 2550°F). This range of temperatures is necessary to achieve the high efficiency that combined cycle power plants are known for.

AND,..CC units don't burn coal.  That's been attempted.  The ash really "gums up" the works.  And erosion makes the blades "disappear".

Edited November 29, 2023 by turbguy

[Ron Wagner + 710]

30 minutes ago, notsonice said:

3 year old article

 

your 84 percent now is 80 percent max

 

New output from Solar and Wind this year matches the total increase in worldwide energy demand

2024 New Solar and Wind will start displacing fossil fuels.....IE Peak Fossil Fuels has happened in 2023

80 percent this year 78 percent by the end of 2024

And better air quality and less pollution

Maybe you can surpass hydro. 

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

13 minutes ago, turbguy said:

14% less is better than 0%.   Marginal gains are a matter of opinion.

If batteries in EV's were able to get 14% more range per pound, you probably would consider that not "marginal".  "YMMV".

That said, the metallurgy to support greater coal fired efficiency gains is not on the horizon.  It's hard to compete with combined cycle units that have firing temps (between 1650 to 2550°F). This range of temperatures is necessary to achieve the high efficiency that combined cycle power plants are known for.

AND,..they don't burn coal.  That's been attempted.  The ash really "gums up" the works.  And erosion makes the blades "disappear".

I would call it a 2 year marginal increase:

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[turbguy + 1,544]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I would call it a 2 year marginal increase:

 

Good to know your opinion!  Coal fired stuff ain't gonna get much better than ultrauspercritial units.

Batteries?  Significant developments are quite possible!

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

Maybe you can surpass hydro. 

Already done in the US. Solar + Wind are more than twice Hydro.

But of course hydro isn't what we are competing against, it is a carbon free renewable. Solar + wind + hydro will  be more than natural gas. in a decade.

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Fool, you posted about gasification, claiming it was much better. Clearly you do not know that it is a failed technology. Now you are running away and claiming you are talking about different technology. You obviously have no idea what is going on.

And your new "new" technology is 30 years old and hasn't improved one bit since the day it was created! As Turb says, coal efficiency has maxed out. 

Renewables though continue to rapidly increase efficiency.

What makes you think that gasification is gone away? I don't see that anywhere, show us some data.

You have no comeback on the Chinese improved coal use? Speak up man.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

What makes you think that gasification is gone away? I don't see that anywhere, show us some data.

You have no comeback on the Chinese improved coal use? Speak up man.

I provided an entire post on why gasification is dead and a post on the minimal improvement in the Chinese coal tech. Try reading. Do you even know what the Chinese coal tech is called?

Edited November 29, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I would call it a 2 year marginal increase:

 

 

Why are you promoting this graph as reality in batteries?  Buddy ol' pal, its the batteries from ONE company(WeLion), not batteries in general... learn to R-E-A-D.  In year 2000 I had in my products I was selling, Lithium polymer ~225Wh/kg cells.  Guess what highest is today.... ~250Wh/kg.  ~Zero change in 20+ years.   Costs have come down, Power Density has not gone anywhere.  Gosh golly gee, its almost as if chemistry hasn't changed any in 20 years. Ya don't say.   Now nano printed batteries have great potential, but... until one of them is actually SOLD, I won't believe it until then. 

Common man, this is just embarrassing. Company advertising is just cringe dude.