hello Roger, I disagree. Based on IPCC and IEA data, methane at GWP20 is a far "worse" culprit than CO2. if you do simple mathermatics, adjusting for 54% natueral uptake of any CO2 emissions (as per IPCC AR6) then surface mined coal is "better for the climate" that anverage natural gas. And coal is certainly far better than LNG because of its higher methane losses, additional processing and energy inefficiency compared to pipeline natural gas). you can contact me directly at energyeconomics at top-email dot net
In Deutschland werden die modernsten Kohlekraftwerke stillgelegt, deweil werden in einem Jahr weltweit mehr Kohlekraftwerke in Betrieb genommen als Deutschlandje stilllegen kann! Von den Wirkungsgraden ganz zu schweigen.
A coal exit treaty is an interesting concept but in the case of the German example it involved significant compensation to coal workers, companies and regionals who are impacted by the decision. How would this would on a global level? Each country pays for its own ex coal victims? Outside of countries, like Germany, where coal mining was subsidised the economic drivers are hard to see at the moment. It would be politically difficult in Australia, for example, to compensate coal miners and their communities. Environmental groups would surely draw the line at paying off coal miners when they are many others in the country they would see as much more deserving of public support.
While paying coal miners to stop could well be the least cost method of carbon abatement I am struggling to see how this could happen on either a national levels where coal mining is profitable or globally when all producing nations would need to sign on
It is an interesting thought, but I think it would be impossible to agree upon. The reason is that many countries see cheap domestic coal as a competitive advantage which they won’t give away.
They will argue that they will lose all their competitive advantage if they were to replace all the coal power with for instance gas. A better alternative for them would be to build out carbon free power like nuclear and renewables to take a large share of their power production, but keep some cheap coal plants.
Roger, I'm afraid I find myself in rare disagreement with you!
Regulations – especially those that create prohibitions – create winners and losers, so that those with interests in competing (in this case) energy sources seek policies that restrict their competition and thus advantage their own.
You wrote an insightful analysis of the roles of Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg in having the US and then the IPCC adopting the extreme and highly unlikely scenario RCP8.5. Both have made fortunes from coal (Steyer) and gas (Bloomberg) and then enhanced their wealth by campaigning against coal and funding anti-coal NGOs. Steyer at least made much of his fortune in Farallon Capital investing in the likes of Whitehaven Coal in Australia and other coal plays in Indonesia before then quitting it. Bloomberg poured money into the Sierra Club's 'Beyond Coal' campaign, while going long on coal. Falsely amplifying risk around climate change suited their interests: an enhanced sense of urgency enhanced the prospects of intermittent renewables plus firming from (usually single pass) gas turbines.
This has always been close to questions about coal, ever since the issue was raised in response to Carter's NEP, and the Charney Report succeeded in switching the concern from cooling to warming.
It was classic 'garbage can' decision-making. For Thatcher, while she later recanted her views, it gave her a weapon against the miners and a reason to close uneconomic coal pits.
For Kohl, it was a way to wedge the DSP and the Greens, who were both advocating a nuclear phase-out, to be replaced by coal, and a way of addressing the DM12 billion subsidies to coal.
That this was about coal was amply demonstrated by the reaction (from the likes of the Union of Concerned Scientists) to the Hansen Alternative Scenario 20 years ago, which proposed focusing mitigation on measures that were more economical or technically more feasible.
These included addressing indoor air pollution, which causes around 170,000 annual premature deaths in India alone (more elsewhere) and contributes to climate forcing from the Asian Brown Cloud. Hansen was very quickly shouted down and told to focus on fossil fuel mitigation,
So why seek to prohibit coal, when best available technology offers developing countries alternatives that are much more benign and cheaper than intermittent renewables plus firming?
BAT is Advanced Ultra-supercritical Coal (AUSC). GE claims 49.1 percent efficiency for AUSC, and the first plant, Pingshan power plant phase two in China of 1350MW was commissioned in December 2020. The average efficiency of the existing global coal fleet is 34%, having edged up 1% in the past five years. Each 1% improvement in efficiency yields a 2-3% reduction in GHG emissions, so there is a 30-45% reduction in GHG emissions available simply by allowing the churning of existing plant.
I think China, India and other developing economies (especially in Africa) are likely to look at all that and reject any notion that they reject coal. The developed world can do its bit, with nuclear, renewables, etc, but it should not ignore the fact that there is a huge amount of GHGs embodied in the latter – steel and cement in wind generators and energy and solvents like SF6 and NF3 (GWPs around 20,000 times CO2) in solar panels. (That these are emitted in places like China makes little difference to global outcomes). Firming them with single-pass GTs must be added to their contribution.
So, I see little need to prohibit coal, rather than allow innovation to find cost-effective ways of reducing emissions in line with balanced risk assessments as unaffected by interests as possible. And I see little prospect that China, India and other developing countries would sign up for such a convention – which renders it all rather moot.
China won't go along, and you know it. China is still building coal fired generating plants both domestically and abroad. Any climate treaty without China is meaningless.
This would definitely be a more pragmatic approach with clear benefits. A treaty like this would be good, if it could be negotiated and ratified. I have to think that's a pretty big "if" though, given how dependent some economies are on coal. Would countries like China and India even consider a treaty to phase out coal, or would it require concessions that other countries would be unwilling to make?
hello Roger, I disagree. Based on IPCC and IEA data, methane at GWP20 is a far "worse" culprit than CO2. if you do simple mathermatics, adjusting for 54% natueral uptake of any CO2 emissions (as per IPCC AR6) then surface mined coal is "better for the climate" that anverage natural gas. And coal is certainly far better than LNG because of its higher methane losses, additional processing and energy inefficiency compared to pipeline natural gas). you can contact me directly at energyeconomics at top-email dot net
In Deutschland werden die modernsten Kohlekraftwerke stillgelegt, deweil werden in einem Jahr weltweit mehr Kohlekraftwerke in Betrieb genommen als Deutschlandje stilllegen kann! Von den Wirkungsgraden ganz zu schweigen.
A coal exit treaty is an interesting concept but in the case of the German example it involved significant compensation to coal workers, companies and regionals who are impacted by the decision. How would this would on a global level? Each country pays for its own ex coal victims? Outside of countries, like Germany, where coal mining was subsidised the economic drivers are hard to see at the moment. It would be politically difficult in Australia, for example, to compensate coal miners and their communities. Environmental groups would surely draw the line at paying off coal miners when they are many others in the country they would see as much more deserving of public support.
While paying coal miners to stop could well be the least cost method of carbon abatement I am struggling to see how this could happen on either a national levels where coal mining is profitable or globally when all producing nations would need to sign on
It is an interesting thought, but I think it would be impossible to agree upon. The reason is that many countries see cheap domestic coal as a competitive advantage which they won’t give away.
They will argue that they will lose all their competitive advantage if they were to replace all the coal power with for instance gas. A better alternative for them would be to build out carbon free power like nuclear and renewables to take a large share of their power production, but keep some cheap coal plants.
Roger, I'm afraid I find myself in rare disagreement with you!
Regulations – especially those that create prohibitions – create winners and losers, so that those with interests in competing (in this case) energy sources seek policies that restrict their competition and thus advantage their own.
You wrote an insightful analysis of the roles of Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg in having the US and then the IPCC adopting the extreme and highly unlikely scenario RCP8.5. Both have made fortunes from coal (Steyer) and gas (Bloomberg) and then enhanced their wealth by campaigning against coal and funding anti-coal NGOs. Steyer at least made much of his fortune in Farallon Capital investing in the likes of Whitehaven Coal in Australia and other coal plays in Indonesia before then quitting it. Bloomberg poured money into the Sierra Club's 'Beyond Coal' campaign, while going long on coal. Falsely amplifying risk around climate change suited their interests: an enhanced sense of urgency enhanced the prospects of intermittent renewables plus firming from (usually single pass) gas turbines.
This has always been close to questions about coal, ever since the issue was raised in response to Carter's NEP, and the Charney Report succeeded in switching the concern from cooling to warming.
It was classic 'garbage can' decision-making. For Thatcher, while she later recanted her views, it gave her a weapon against the miners and a reason to close uneconomic coal pits.
For Kohl, it was a way to wedge the DSP and the Greens, who were both advocating a nuclear phase-out, to be replaced by coal, and a way of addressing the DM12 billion subsidies to coal.
That this was about coal was amply demonstrated by the reaction (from the likes of the Union of Concerned Scientists) to the Hansen Alternative Scenario 20 years ago, which proposed focusing mitigation on measures that were more economical or technically more feasible.
These included addressing indoor air pollution, which causes around 170,000 annual premature deaths in India alone (more elsewhere) and contributes to climate forcing from the Asian Brown Cloud. Hansen was very quickly shouted down and told to focus on fossil fuel mitigation,
So why seek to prohibit coal, when best available technology offers developing countries alternatives that are much more benign and cheaper than intermittent renewables plus firming?
BAT is Advanced Ultra-supercritical Coal (AUSC). GE claims 49.1 percent efficiency for AUSC, and the first plant, Pingshan power plant phase two in China of 1350MW was commissioned in December 2020. The average efficiency of the existing global coal fleet is 34%, having edged up 1% in the past five years. Each 1% improvement in efficiency yields a 2-3% reduction in GHG emissions, so there is a 30-45% reduction in GHG emissions available simply by allowing the churning of existing plant.
I think China, India and other developing economies (especially in Africa) are likely to look at all that and reject any notion that they reject coal. The developed world can do its bit, with nuclear, renewables, etc, but it should not ignore the fact that there is a huge amount of GHGs embodied in the latter – steel and cement in wind generators and energy and solvents like SF6 and NF3 (GWPs around 20,000 times CO2) in solar panels. (That these are emitted in places like China makes little difference to global outcomes). Firming them with single-pass GTs must be added to their contribution.
So, I see little need to prohibit coal, rather than allow innovation to find cost-effective ways of reducing emissions in line with balanced risk assessments as unaffected by interests as possible. And I see little prospect that China, India and other developing countries would sign up for such a convention – which renders it all rather moot.
Error: Bloomberg went long on GAS, not coal
Bloomberg’s $30 billion personal and philanthropic fortune rose to $50.9 billion (Forbes, 2018), despite donating around $500m each year.
China won't go along, and you know it. China is still building coal fired generating plants both domestically and abroad. Any climate treaty without China is meaningless.
This would definitely be a more pragmatic approach with clear benefits. A treaty like this would be good, if it could be negotiated and ratified. I have to think that's a pretty big "if" though, given how dependent some economies are on coal. Would countries like China and India even consider a treaty to phase out coal, or would it require concessions that other countries would be unwilling to make?