Monday
Nov012010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill McKitrick on coal and wind
Nov 1, 2010 Energy Ross McKitrick has a new presentation up, looking at the arguments that are made against coal-fired power stations - pollution, health, greenhouse gases and so on.
These arguments don't seem to be grounded in facts. (3Mb download)
Reader Comments (14)
Some issues here:
It is a fact that coal mines account for 2000+ deaths per year just to get the coal from underground, mostly chinese deaths (but aren't they human too?).
McIttricks' argument isn't against "against" coal. It's against shutting down some power plants in Ontario. His argument? Air pollution is caused by the usa's own coal power plants, see page 15.
The rest of his case is better.
About renewables. He isn't being fair. Renewables are "tax powered". Well they perhaps are, right now, but the investment isn't dumb. It's "powering up" a new industry where soon (10 years?) the price of solar or/and wind will be low enough to be extremely competitive with coal.
See here the downward trend of solar: http://www.solarbuzz.com/ModulePrices.htm
Or in a more bird's eye view: http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2007/05/glittering-future-of-solar-power.html
an educating graph, the growth rate of solar power till 2000: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Rdh68kT5rCk/RkXvBJoRv_I/AAAAAAAAABM/lzypsYcWaOQ/s400/PVlearningrate.png
Also, most of our coal, gas, oil industry was also heavily subsidized in its beggining. To cry "foul" to the sun, wind subsidy is being blindingly biased towards the "status quo". As if changes aren't possible, and shouldn't be invested.
Luis:
Granted that there are now a host of investment tax credits, etc., for oil industry - but can you provide details on "most of our coal, gas, oil industry was also heavily subsidized in its beggining"?
Luis --
If as you say, in 10 years' time, solar will be competitive will coal, I for one will be happy to wait 10 years. Why does the government need to subsidize? If it has a long-term profit potential, firms will invest the capital, and be rewarded handsomely when it succeeds. Start a company and recruit investment from all persons who think as you do. But don't take other people's money.
I attended a conference this weekend and saw Ross McKitrick deliver this presentation. I do not agree that it is not based in fact. He made a very clear case for his assertions and received a standing ovation from a room full of PhDs.
Lynne: I think Bish is saying the opposing arguments are not based on fact, not that my presentation is not based on fact.
Luis:
Nothing in my presentation should be construed as dismissing the death risks of unsafe mining practices in 3rd World coal operations. I didn't address the issue one way or the other in that presentation. I do address the health risk from Southern Ontario's 2 coal-fired power plants. There was more to my presentation than simply showing that our thermal plants are dwarfed by the presence of the US northeast power industry, although that is an important point for Ontario to understand. The Ontario government received figures years ago showing that closing our 2 plants would have little effect on our air quality, and if the current facilities were replaced with gas-fired plants the changes would be even smaller. So their claim that replacing our thermal power plants with gas or other alternatives will yield large improvements to health is simply not credible. As I explained in my remarks, at the time the report was generated the government forbade its dissemination and was actively making claims contradicted by the study.
Another reason that the health argument fails is that there has been so much progress to date on pollution control technology (in both countries) that the levels of many common air contaminants on most days in Ontario is approaching zero, even with our existing power generating system. I showed people how they can look up the government's real time air pollution monitoring data across the province and see for themselves. People are continually told that air pollution levels are rising and pose a health risk. But the reality is our air pollution levels have fallen to very low levels by historical standards. The consulting reports that government agencies have used to claim thousands of people die or get sick from air pollution use statistical models with cherry-picked coefficients that yield reliably high morbidity and mortality rates from our current low air contaminant levels. The simplest way to show they can't be correct is to feed in pollution levels from the 70s and 60s, and watch as they start predicting more deaths from air pollution than there were deaths from all causes.
With regard to subsidies, I do not defend or advocate subsidies for fossil energy either. Even if those sectors used to be subsidized, the reality is they are profitable now and don't need any support to operate. If wind and solar will soon be profitable then let's wait. But if they only exist because of subsidies, mandates and feed-in tariffs then they are a drain on the economy and cannot be a source of growth. I was addressing the claim that these sectors will create jobs and growth. That cannot be true as long as they are dependent on handouts or artificial pricing. Even taking into account the costs of emission controls and GHG offsets we would not opt for wind and solar at current relative prices.
It's difficult to see how wind and solar can ever become truly competitive because of the low energy density and intermittency of the energy source. These energy sources need to operate in conjunction with some massive energy storage devices. The Scandinavians do it by using Danish surplus wind power (they get it for next to nothing) to pump water uphill at times of low demand. But in most countries it is not feasible.
Re Luis
Yes they are. Mining is inherently dangerous, sometimes made more so by not allowing open cast mining, or mountain top removal to simplify coal extraction and make it safer. Similar issues arose with oil by opposing in-shore drilling in areas like the Gulf of Mexico. That didn't work out too well.
There are also safety of life issues involving 'renewables' given risk issues working at heights, with moving machinery, with electricity and especially if all those are offshore.
Ross, thanks for the clarification. Terrific presentation by the way. So refreshing to hear the truth and your slides were a major topic of conversation in the car on the way home.
Phillip Bratby,
The Norwegians and Swedes get Danish wind power for "next to nothing" courtesy of the Danish taxpayers who financed the wind farms and pay high power rates.
@Ross McKitrick
Thanks for the paper - very useful for factual information
for other posters:
In regard to the much-quoted "2000+ deaths" from mining coal, with special emphasis on the Chinese situation, I have posted hard, factual information on this several times. It has been ignored each time, which leads me to conclude that factual information is not what people want. I will post again if there is any interest
The two (2) main "subsidies" for primary producers (both farmers and miners) are a) accelerated depreciation of capital equipment, and b) reduced taxation on fuel costs. Green advocates are constantly shrilling about "subsidies for mining" without ever noting the above
For future use - a couple of very quotable bullet points on slide 52
Luis Dias,
Not sure what coal industry you refer to Luis but the UK mines were ALL privately owned and run until 1 January 1947 and had enjoyed a profitable life (no subsidies) until countries such Germany, France etc started subsidizing their coal production costs in the 80's.
Cheaper open-cast coal, from in Australia Poland and the United States etc and the remarkable stupidity of Scargill put the nail in the UK's production and it is now (what is left) back under a private company. At present there are 42 opencast coal mines and 8 major deep mines in the UK. ( http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/coal/uk_industry/index.shtml ).
At present there are FIVE (not 8) major deep mines for coal in the UK (Daw Mill, Maltby, Kellingley, Thoresby, Hatfield). Whether Hatfield can be classed as "major" is a moot point. In addition there is one recently closed (Welbeck) and one in "Care & Maintenance" (Harworth), plus a few "three men and a pit pony" operations.
I suggest the figure of 2,000 coal miner deaths per year is probably too few by a factor of ten, even if you use the heavily pruned Chinese figures. But if you were to shut down ALL coal production (whether deep mined or surface mined) in US, UK, Canada, Australia, Germany etc., the likely result would be an increase in deaths, not a reduction, as production in China, Russia, India, Ukraine etc was ramped up to compensate. And an increase in (genuine) air pollution, not the fiddled huff and puff 'models' that the presentation by Ross usefully exposes.
And if the UK Government is not prevented from following its present lunatic pursuit of BigWind and BigSolar, there will be far and away more deaths from hyperthermia than ever get killed in British Industry as a whole, never mind just LittleCoal.
For very interesting discussion on recent UK energy production, see recent posts on http://rmschneider.wordpress.com/
So why are DECC's figures for BigWind three times higher than the actual figures from the National Grid?
Hmmmmmmmm. That's a tough one.
I wonder......