Coal, Oil & CO2 Madness
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:19 pm
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.”
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.”
