Coal, Oil & CO2 Madness

[dgs49]

It has been scientifically established that the human race, through its activities which oxidize fossil fuels, is generating carbon dioxide at a rate that exceeds the capacity of the earth to absorb it. As a result, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is very gradually increasing, and it appears that the increased CO2 levels are affecting the earth’s climate. Although there are, and will continue to be some benefits of the climate change (e.g., longer growing seasons in some temperate regions), it is generally thought that the overall impact of the changes in the earth’s climate will be negative, and in some cases catastrophic.

Analysis of mankind’s principle generators of CO2 inevitably highlights two dominant sources: transportation and the generation of electric power. Transportation is facilitated mainly around the globe through the burning of oil and oil byproducts, and the generation of electricity is principally accomplished by burning coal or natural gas.

In both transportation and electricity generation, there are other technologies and other sources of energy, but aside from nuclear power generation – which is quite expensive and somewhat problematic - they are all marginal in their impact. Wind and solar will never be economically viable, and neither is suitable for “base load” generation. The alternative to burning fossil fuels for transportation is electricity, which is no help for the CO2 situation since the electricity is usually generated by burning fossil fuels.

Ironically, the problem we thought we would have with energy twenty years ago – that our supplies would be running out – is basically gone. We have a virtually infinite supply of coal, proven oil reserves that are higher than they ever could have been imagined, and new technology has made available enough natural gas to meet our projected needs for the next century.

Against this backdrop, there are powerful forces within the international community, and which have become more powerful in our own government in recent years, who look at the United States as an outlaw state for not making commitments to reduce our generation of CO2 over the coming decades. They want to harass and over-regulate coal-fired electric plants into forced obsolescence, and make permitting of new ones virtually impossible. They want to promulgate ever-more onerous environmental regulations that will force foundries and factories to either close down or implement suicidal anti-pollution measures. They want to subsidize marginal, non-viable electricity generation technologies regardless of the economic foolishness of doing so. They want to increase the pump-price of gasoline to a level that will ensure that recreational travel is a seldom-used luxury. They believe that making us uncomfortable in our homes and offices – too cold in the Winter and too hot in the Summer – is the price we must pay to do our part in minimizing global “climate change.” I am reminded of the times during my childhood when a teacher would tell me to endure some deprivation or discomfort and “offer up my suffering for the poor souls in Purgatory.”

But guess what? No matter what deprivations we impose upon ourselves, China will still be building scores of new coal-fired power plants in the next fifty years to bring electricity to dozens of newly-constructed cities and towns. (To be fair, they are also planning a large number of non-CO2-generating nuclear power plants, as well). The burgeoning Chinese middle class will at the same time be buying millions of new cars, hopefully Buicks. India, which has mountains of its own coal, will also be building dozens of new coal-fired electric plants and replacing their bicycles and motor scooters with Tata mini-cars. Do you think the people in equatorial Africa might want a little air conditioning? And keep these ratios in mind: One gallon of burned motor fuel, or two kWh of coal-generated electricity, equals twenty pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Regardless of the environmental impacts or the theoretical impacts of global “climate change,” it always makes sense to use resources economically. Manufacturers need to be goaded into producing more efficient vehicles and appliances, and if market forces don’t do it, it may be relatively harmless for Gub’mint to push them along. It is also appropriate to ensure that farms, factories, and other businesses are not creating or contributing to environmental conditions that are unduly harmful to humans. Although the existence of the EPA is unconstitutional, it does have some slight value.

But imposing artificial thresholds and deadlines, capping CO2 production, and nonsense like that are just punishing ourselves for no rational purpose and no measurable benefit. Humans have survived and thrived in incredibly harsh environments, and there can be no doubt that technology (and people) will adapt to changing climactic conditions whatever they may turn out to be.

It has often been noted that at the turn of the last century it could be calculated that Manhattan would be coated under a three foot blanket of horse manure by 1950; they did not anticipate that the horse would be replaced by autos and trucks within a relatively short period. There is a kid out there somewhere right now who is going to invent a device that will convert CO2 into something either beneficial or harmless, and people 50 years in the future will laugh at the generation that worried itself silly about “global warming.”

[rubato]

I can recall reading in the 1970s that we had > 200 years worth of coal. No one was saying that 'fossil fuels are running out' what they were saying is that oil is going to run out. They're still right about that.

Wind is currently economically viable and costs in between the amounts for gas and coal per kwh even when the lower environmental costs are included. Which explains the rapid expansion in the market place. It is cheap, scalable, fast to deploy, and there are many very good sites around the US.

Geothermal is also cost effective but limited in area.

Photovoltaic continues to drop rapidly in costs. This year the industry std for commercial finished panels is 17-18% efficiency and this jumps next year to 23%. A 35% increase in the energy output per sq meter. Costs are being driven down by the development of inkjet printing and screen printing to deposit dopants on the cell surfaces just as new architectures (backside contact) are diving efficiency improvements.

Nuclear costs too much, we will run out of fuel before we can generate enough electricity that way, and costs are not going down.

China is also investing heavily in photovoltaic energy and trying to pick up the technological leadership Ronald Reagan threw away to Japan and Germany. (hey thanks Ron, real smart).



yrs,
rubato

[liberty]

The way to see if something is economically feasible is to observe if people are buying and selling it. If it is a good deal people will stand in line to put their money down. Only in a few parts of our country is wind power competitive with electricity generated from fossil fuels and even there the differential is not tremendous. If people could cut their cost for electricity in half by switching to wind generated electricity a huge number of people would do it because it would be in their best interest.

Before electricity came into general use in this country wind mills were extensively used. People even used them to operate their private water cisterns. Yes before there was electricity in our country, rich people had had running water in their homes. Wind mills gradually disappeared not because they were old fashioned, but because they were too expensive to maintain compared to the cheapness of a small electric motor.

As I see it there is only one way wind generated could be made to work within the economy and that would be huge winds farms in area with very strong winds, but the power would be available to a limited area. There is a limit to how far even AC electricity can be transmitted.

There is another way it could be made to work but that would require socialism and forced labor.

[rubato]

The marketplace voted on wind a long time ago. It has been certain that wind will be a significant part of the energy equation for many years now.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... dPower.png

Wind power: worldwide installed capacity 1996-2008