I try to get something new written at least once a month, but it’s a bit of a struggle right now. But I finally have something new available to read. It looks at the receding prospects of keeping CO2 levels below 450 ppm. Read it here. The concept of “committed emissions” discussed in the piece is one I hope to return to in future.
I enjoy being cited by people I don’t agree with. James Delingpole once said something I wrote demonstrated how corrupt the Green movement was. A curious accusation, I thought.
And today I find myself being cited by the Heartland Institute, which is fine. I believe in free speech, and if people with a political ideology I despise cite me, then so be it. At least it is publicity, and there are clichéd things to be said for publicity.
But what I do not like is having what I write get distorted. Then people might draw the wrong conclusion. And being cited approvingly by the Heartland Institute is not something to shove on your CV.
Here is what they have written about me.
“In his post in the Energy Collective, Robert Wilson, a PhD Student in Mathematical Ecology at the University of Strathclyde, calls Germany’s situation: “more of a coal lock-in than a solar revolution,” as the need for electricity, especially in the cold, grey days of January, requires the steady supply of coal-fueled electricity.”
The implication is clear. Going with renewables requires coal for back up in Germany, and that this is a view I hold is. Total piffle.
The Heartland Institute is either deliberately passing off their own views or are incapable of reading. I cannot rule out both.
However, if the author is too lazy to read through what I have written on the issue and for whatever reason is reading this, I can summarise my views on the issue, views which are public record and are linked to in the article that was distorted.
Germany is not building coal power plants because renewables are useless. They are building them mostly because they are shutting down nuclear power plants. It would have been wiser to build gas power plants, but that would have been less politically correct. These arguments can easily be found at my site on Energy Collective. And Arizona is not Germany. If I observe that growing papayas in Sweden is a bad idea, I would be foolish to conclude that growing papayas in a warmer is a bad idea. Yet, such fatuous logic prevails in energy debates. Suggest solar is a bad idea in cloudy countries and people, a lot of people, will conclude that you think it is a bad idea everywhere. But perhaps I complain too much. I should lower my expectations of public discourse.
Of course organisations as divorced from reality as the Heartland Institute cannot really be expected to do as much as check though what someone has actually written on a subject. To expect that would be rather optimistic, and I am not have a reputation for optimism.
I am much too busy writing up my thesis to publish anything substantial on energy at the minute. But I churned out a very quick one over the weekend (or more accurately I finished something I wrote two months ago) debunking the rather popular meme that Germany now gets half of its energy from solar panels. Read it here.
I suspect this will be the last thing I write for a couple of months. Though I have a primer on capacity factors that I wrote a year ago and have yet to tidy up. So, if I’m in the mood I might tidy up the loose ends in that one a month ago. Anyway, you probably have better things to be doing…..
The phrase “bringing coals to Newcastle” has been around for almost 500 years. It signifies an activity that is rather pointless.
And for centuries it made literal sense. Coal was put on boats, and later trains, near Newcastle and shipped to London and elsewhere. The phrase then did not merely indicate a superfluous activity, but reflected the reality that Britain’s dominance and its empire was powered by the coal mines not far from Newcastle.
But today the phrase no longer makes any literal sense, and is probably rather confusing to anyone born in the last twenty years. According to official government statistics, Britain did not start to import coal until 1970. In fact, for a large part of the twentieth century Britain was more than self-sufficient. When coal production peaked in 1913, Britain exported 96 million tonnes of the 292 million tonnes produced that year. But by 1970 Britain was only exporting 3 million tonnes of the 147 million tonnes produced.
However, in the space of one century Britain’s annual coal production has declined from 292 million tonnes to only 13 million tonnes, an astonishing decline. Yet, last year Britain consumed 60 million tonnes of coal, and Britain then had to import 49 million tonnes of coal.
Bringing coals to Newcastle then is now a necessary activity, not a pointless one. The coal that powers the many remaining coal power plants in the north of England is more likely to come from Russia than from anywhere near Newcastle.
But within two decades the activity will once again become largely pointless. New coal power plants without carbon capture and storage our now illegal, and almost all existing coal power plants will be closed by 2030. This will then leave the use of coal in industry as the only major source of consumption. But this was a mere 10 million tonnes in 2013, mostly coal used in blast furnaces. And Britain is not likely to see a grand renaissance in the production of steel from coke.
The birthplace of the Industrial Revolution then is seeing the death of coal before more or less every other major economy. Among those other economies is Germany, which despite its ostensibly green credentials, recently approved plans to let Vattenfal take 200 million tonnes of lignite out of the ground after 2026.
So, coal is dying in Britain, while getting a shot of life in Germany. Perhaps Britain is not as far behind Germany as many in the green movement would have you believe.
I’ve got a new piece up over at Energy Collective. A quick run through which countries produce the most fossil fuels in absolute terms and on a per-capita basis. I wrote it because I calculated that Australia produced 8 times more coal per-capita than China and I wondered if Australia was number 1 in per-capita coal production. And they are. So, the Australian who was emailing me recently to complain about how Australians are continually portrayed as dirty and China is much dirty, well, he was bloody wrong.
A simple piece of advice is that if you are going to bust myths at least get basic facts correct. Matt Ridley however appears incapable of doing this.
Onshore wind: one of the cheapest renewables but still twice as costly as gas or coal, it kills eagles and bats, harms tourism, divides communities and takes up lots of space. The money goes from the poor to the rich, and the carbon dioxide saving is tiny, because of the low density of wind and the need to back it up with diesel generators. These too now need subsidy because they cannot run at full capacity.
We could of course spend all day pondering the curious propensity of right-wing opponents of renewable energy complaining about how it harms the poor. Where is this concern for the poor the rest of the time exactly? And I suspect that, given Ridley’s investments in coal mines, that harm to wildlife caused by energy infrastructure is not something that troubles his mind on a regular basis. (The coal mining, I should point out, occurs on the estate Ridley inherited. And again, I could point out that Ridley has hypocritically used the “wind farms benefit rich land owners” card. Evidently, rich land owners benefiting are a problem only so long as the rich land owner does not go by the name of Viscount Ridley.)
But what is most absurd for a supposed piece of myth busting is the following sentence “the carbon dioxide saving is tiny, because of the low density of wind and the need to back it up with diesel generators. These too now need subsidy because they cannot run at full capacity.” Here, Ridley peddles the stupid myth about wind farms not reducing emissions because of back up, and then adds a new myth on top of it – that the low density of wind farms means they do little to reduce emissions.
What’s more embarrassing is that Ridley does not even bother getting the myth correct. It is not back up by diesel generators that supposedly means wind farms do little to reduce emissions. Instead it is back up by open cycle gas turbines. This myth, of course, will not die. Yet, on the face of it the argument is absurd. Supposedly each gigawatt of wind capacity must be backed up by one gigawatt of open cycle gas turbine capacity. This at least is what most versions of the myth assume. So, there should be around 10 gigawatts of open cycle gas turbine capacity in Britain. I invite anyone to have a look through the British government’s list of power plants and to find me anywhere close to 10 gigawatts of open cycle gas turbines.
The other supposed reason wind farms do little to reduce emissions appears to be something Ridley has made out of whole cloth. I pay attention to these debates and I have never heard anyone argue that the “low density of wind” means that wind farms do little to reduce emissions. Yes, wind farms are low density. And this is a very serious problem that I have written about many times. As people from Vaclav Smil to David MacKay have argued the space requirements of wind farms will almost certainly place real limits of the expansion of wind power. This however has absolutely nothing to do with whether wind turbines reduce emissions. Ridley is clearly mixing up his arguments against wind farms, in the same way he mixed up diesel generators and gas power plants.
This however is what we get in energy debates. Faux engineering arguments against energy technologies, whether they are wind turbines or nuclear power plants. We would all be much better off if we simply stated our real reasons for opposing things.
To keep myself mildly occupied over breakfast or lunch I will be blogging here a bit more regularly, perhaps once a day for a while. Mostly this is just to tie up loose ends, ideas for columns I had that didn’t go anywhere, but where I had a graph or two finished that I can turn into a quick blog post. These things will probably be no more than a paragraph or two. A trend highlighted, a myth exposed.
So, here is the first. And an interesting one. The change in the capacity factors of gas power plants in Britain and America between 2008 and 2012.
In one country cheap shale gas has resulted in an increase in the capacity factors of gas power plants. In the other expensive gas, cheap coal and low – or more accurately non-existent – carbon prices have resulted in a massive reduction the capacity factors of gas power plants.
The graph below shows both just how much has changed with gas in America and Europe, but also just how difficult it is to predict the future. No-one would have predicted this a decade ago.