Cap and Trade and Yes and No

[On Guard for Thee]

More than 1000 coal fired power plants in the planning in dozens of countries.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/20/coal-plants-world-resources-institute

China builds coal plants but doesnt use them at all, or at very low output due to a kinky state banking system. Same reason they have built those ghost cities.

[Argus]

China builds coal plants but doesnt use them at all, or at very low output due to a kinky state banking system. Same reason they have built those ghost cities.

And when their economy rebounds they will use them. India will certainly use theirs. They have a major shortage of electricity there.

Even if one accepts that C02 emissions are overall bad one needs to have a realistic plan for addressing this on a world basis, and that's never been done. All of the previous agreements exempted third world countries, which simply chased high level manufacturers from Europe to India and Mexico. And that's all Ontario's cap and trade system will do too.

[On Guard for Thee]

And when their economy rebounds they will use them. India will certainly use theirs. They have a major shortage of electricity there.

Even if one accepts that C02 emissions are overall bad one needs to have a realistic plan for addressing this on a world basis, and that's never been done. All of the previous agreements exempted third world countries, which simply chased high level manufacturers from Europe to India and Mexico. And that's all Ontario's cap and trade system will do too.

India is planning to move toward nuclear power, hence the purchase of 350 million dollars worth of our uranium. China will of course still have its coal plats but is moving toward lower fossil fuel production. i.e. gas, and non fossil i.e. wind, solar. I think most accept that CO2 is bad. The Indian PM stated he looked at his countries purchase of uranium as helping to save the world from global warming.

[Shady]

India is planning to move toward nuclear power, hence the purchase of 350 million dollars worth of our uranium. China will of course still have its coal plats but is moving toward lower fossil fuel production. i.e. gas, and non fossil i.e. wind, solar. I think most accept that CO2 is bad. The Indian PM stated he looked at his countries purchase of uranium as helping to save the world from global warming.

I'm on board with more Canadian nuclear power as well.

[Bonam]

The Indian PM stated he looked at his countries purchase of uranium as helping to save the world from global warming.

Now if only Western nations didn't have nuclear-phobia, they might be able to make some progress on this front too.

[Mighty AC]

More than 1000 coal fired power plants in the planning in dozens of countries.

Fossil fuel use isn't going to stop overnight, but the long term outlook is bleak enough that HSBC is already warning clients of the risks associated with devalued untapped fossil assets. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24423-cap-and-trade-and-yes-and-no/page-9#entry1057268

Fossil Fuel co's stand to lose significant value as new climate deals are signed; which, is why they are spending significant sums on the US election. The Kochs alone are set to spend near $1B on Republican candidates.

At the same time new plants are being built, many coal facilities are being retired or shuttered. The US will take over 70GW of coal power offline by next year and Europe will shutter another 50GW of fossil fuel power by 2017.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/04/europes-fossil-fuel-exit-30-fossil-fuel-power-capacity-close-2017-ubs-analysts-project/

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/policy/power-plant-closures/

[Shady]

Fossil fuel use isn't going to stop overnight, but the long term outlook is bleak enough that HSBC is already warning clients of the risks associated with devalued untapped fossil assets. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24423-cap-and-trade-and-yes-and-no/page-9#entry1057268

Fossil Fuel co's stand to lose significant value as new climate deals are signed; which, is why they are spending significant sums on the US election. The Kochs alone are set to spend near $1B on Republican candidates.

At the same time new plants are being built, many coal facilities are being retired or shuttered. The US will take over 70GW of coal power offline by next year and Europe will shutter another 50GW of fossil fuel power by 2017.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/04/europes-fossil-fuel-exit-30-fossil-fuel-power-capacity-close-2017-ubs-analysts-project/

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/policy/power-plant-closures/

Is that after the trillions of barrels of oil recently discovered in the Antarctic? Or the 200 year supply of natural gas in North America?

[Shady]

Obama's executive orders can be reversed. No actual laws have been passed.

[eyeball]

Now if only Western nations didn't have nuclear-phobia, they might be able to make some progress on this front too.

Most western nuclear phobia is actually just a deep well-placed mistrust in western regulatory agencies.

Clean that up, deep clean, and I'd likely support nuclear power.

Edited May 27, 2015 by eyeball

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm on board with more Canadian nuclear power as well.

We have a hefty stock of uranium for sure. Its probably time to take another serious look at the idea. Lets just not build the plants on a fault line near a shore and put the emergency generators in the basement.

[Mighty AC]

Is that after the trillions of barrels of oil recently discovered in the Antarctic? Or the 200 year supply of natural gas in North America?

I'm not sure I follow your question, but I'll attempt to explain anyway. Companies own vast quantities of untapped fossil fuel resources. These unexploited assets represent a significant portion of a company's net worth. However, since the world is moving towards a carbon neutral future the future value of these assets is shrinking at an increasing rate. A 200 year supply becomes worthless if it no longer makes economic sense to extract it. Anyway, as the value of these future assets shrink so does the value of the company.

It is similar to what happened to the value of natural rubber assets when neoprene and other synthetic replacements were invented, or the value of asbestos deposits, etc.

[TimG]

Long term future assets that will never be used, can quickly become worthless.

It is reasonable to say that some currently unknown technology could emerge and the fossil fuel reserves would become useless. It is also reasonable to point out that new technologies have created a supply glut that makes fossil fuels a bad investment over the next 10 years. People who think that fossil fuels will 'stay in the ground' because of hypothetical future regulation need to have their head examined: fossil fuels will be used as long as they are the only source of reliable energy that can meet the needs of society. No politician will sacrifice the economy to prevent CO2 emissions.

In fact we have a real example of Germany where coal consumption has skyrocketed after the shutdown of the nuclear reactors because the powers that be realized that wind/solar cannot provide base load power and coal is the only option with nuclear off the table. The German example shows that when the choice is between having access to reliable power or emitting CO2 people will happily increase CO2 emissions - even in super green Europe.

Edited May 27, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

However, since the world is moving towards a carbon neutral future

Except it is not happening anywhere other than your imagination.

[eyeball]

No politician will sacrifice the economy to prevent CO2 emissions.

No politician needs to sacrifice the economy to prevent emissions. That's just your typical the-sky-is-gonna-fall alarmist imagination running away with you.

[Wilber]

It is reasonable to say that some currently unknown technology could emerge and the fossil fuel reserves would become useless. It is also reasonable to point out that new technologies have created a supply glut that makes fossil fuels a bad investment over the next 10 years. People who think that fossil fuels will 'stay in the ground' because of hypothetical future regulation need to have their head examined: fossil fuels will be used as long as they are the only source of reliable energy that can meet the needs of society. No politician will sacrifice the economy to prevent CO2 emissions.

In fact we have a real example of Germany where coal consumption has skyrocketed after the shutdown of the nuclear reactors because the powers that be realized that wind/solar cannot provide base load power and coal is the only option with nuclear off the table. The German example shows that when the choice is between having access to reliable power or emitting CO2 people will happily increase CO2 emissions - even in super green Europe.

Except that is not true.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/22/carbon-germany-emissions-idUSL5N0YD3L320150522

[TimG]

Except that is not true.

Yes it is: https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/germanys-2020-greenhouse-gas-target-is-no-longer-feasible/

This is simple arithmetic, yet it was denied at the time, and still is, by many (most?) people within the environmental movement. But now many in the environmental movement have suddenly noticed that Germany is not moving away from coal, and this is making their 2020 targets more or less impossible to meet. Naturally, dots remain unconnected, and Germany’s inability to move away from coal is not recognised to be the result of policies lauded by most environmentalists. A new form of denialism

[On Guard for Thee]

Except it is not happening anywhere other than your imagination.

And apparently in Germany's imagination too.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602

[Wilber]

They aren't standing still on the alternate fuels front either.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3059025/Audi-creates-DIESEL-air-water-fuel-future-powering-car-driven-German-minister.html

http://www.gizmag.com/audi-e-benzin-synthetic-fuel/37672/

[Mighty AC]

In fact we have a real example of Germany where coal consumption has skyrocketed after the shutdown of the nuclear reactors because the powers that be realized that wind/solar cannot provide base load power and coal is the only option with nuclear off the table.

Yet, the EU is on track to reduce emissions by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030. They are achieving this through green capacity and massive efficiency improvements.

Also baseload is no longer a relevant prerequisite for a modern generating system. This is worth reading: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/02/3081889.htm

"Many traditional engineers insist that baseload is an absolute requirement for a comprehensive and cheap system, complemented by intermediate peaking and fast peaking plants to meet demand throughout the day.

But baseload output is not a fundamental requirement of modern energy production. It is rather a characteristic of certain fossil, geothermal and nuclear plants that are operated continuously to lower their relative capital expenditure versus fuel cost.

More fundamental to meeting our energy demands is the ability to match inflexible sources of power — those that can only generate energy at certain times such as wind — with flexible sources of power — those that can generate and store energy such as solar."

[TimG]

They aren't standing still on the alternate fuels front either.

Not sure why this is relevant. R&D can and should go on. The question is whether we are likely to see alternatives to fossil fuels emerge in the next 20 or so years. It is possible but it may not happen either and no government has the power to make it happen. Until it happens we will use fossil fuels and no amount of grandstanding or moralizing will change that reality.

[TimG]

Yet, the EU is on track to reduce emissions by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030. They are achieving this through green capacity and massive efficiency improvements.

Targets which they will abandon the second they become too difficult politically (as shown by the German example). That I way I laugh at people who think targets mean anything.

[Wilber]

Not sure why this is relevant. R&D can and should go on. The question is whether we are likely to see alternatives to fossil fuels emerge in the next 20 or so years. It is possible but it may not happen either and no government has the power to make it happen. Until it happens we will use fossil fuels and no amount of grandstanding or moralizing will change that reality.

Did you read the articles?

Things aren't standing still on hydrogen production either.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3050963/Hydrogen-fuel-breakthrough-Clean-power-generated-WITHOUT-relying-fossil-fuels.html

http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_358595_en.html

A lot of big companies and institutions are spending a lot of money just to grandstand. Time to start paying attention Tim.

On edit.

Government does have the power to make it happen. Minimum amounts of biodiesel and ethanol are already mandated in the fuels we use today. Carbon taxes can make these fuels more competitive with current fossil fuels.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Wilber

[TimG]

A lot of big companies and institutions are spending a lot of money just to grandstand.

Sure they do. It is called marketing. Your articles point to possible technological breakthroughs that *might* be game changers at some point in the future. Such articles are a dime a dozen and many of the touted technologies will never be viable. That does not mean this R&D should not happen - just that one needs to be realistic about what can be accomplished with this kind of R&D. If a breakthrough happens it is not going to be the result of any timeline set by a government bureaucrat.

[Wilber]

Sure they do. It is called marketing. Your articles point to possible technological breakthroughs that *might* be game changers at some point in the future. Such articles are a dime a dozen and many of the touted technologies will never be viable. That does not mean this R&D should not happen - just that one needs to be realistic about what can be accomplished with this kind of R&D. If a breakthrough happens it is not going to be the result of any timeline set by a government bureaucrat.

It's governments who set the standards and industry has to meet them. Every safety and emission standard we have in the vehicles we drive today came about because of government insisting on them being met on a timeline.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's governments who set the standards and industry has to meet them. Every safety and emission standard we have in the vehicles we drive today came about because of government insisting on them being met on a timeline.

That's not entirely true, as many early safety designs were adopted as engineering improvements and optional equipment. For instance, Nash began offering seat belts in the late 1940's, and windshield wipers were around earlier than that without any government mandate. Safety glass design also preceded government requirements.

Automatic distance keeping and braking systems are now available without government mandated timelines.

Edited May 27, 2015 by bush_cheney2004