A CLOSER LOOK AT CLIMATE CHANGE (PART 12)

COAL - THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS

There are two types of fossil fuels in use today that sustain societies the world over: petroleum and coal. At the present time these sources of energy are indispensable - without them societies around the world would collapse. We would find ourselves back in the 17th century. It would not be fun, yet there are those who are proposing exactly that. They want to phase out fossil fuels and replace our energy needs with so-called green energy.
To do so is a noble goal - for three reasons. 1.)  to slow the accumulation of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, 2.) to gain independence from fossil fuels before we run out of them, and 3.) to get our energy needs out of the grips of the commodity traders who are in a position to manipulate the prices of these commodities for their own financial gain and at everyone else's expense. These commodity traders have a sordid history of market speculation leading to the creation of bubbles. This problem is especially true regarding petroleum, as we saw in the great oil price run-up of 2008 which was a factor in the economic crash of 2008 - 2009. For that reason alone coal-generated energy is far more preferable than petroleum. There's enough coal to last over a hundred years just in North America, whereas nobody knows exactly how much oil is still in the ground.

From a purely environmental standpoint, coal produces slightly more CO2 than petroleum derivitives used for transportation - an estimated 15 billion metric tons a year and 12 billion metric tons respectively. Natural gas (methane) used for heating and electricity generation adds another 6 billion metric tons per annum, while natural gas burned off at wellheads and refineries contributes another 6 billion metric tons of CO2. The flaring of natural gas is necessary because it's more than 20 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. Thus, burning off natural gas represents the lesser of two evils.

Curiously, the people squawking about man-made global warming seem to have a singular focus on coal as being the Great Evil. For reasons that escape me, these people don't seem as concerned about the fact that two thirds of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions world-wide come from the petroleum side of the ledger. Maybe coal is the most convenient target. There are huge political and business interests that would like to see coal-generated electricity become prohibitively expensive so that people would be forced to buy their energy-efficient products and/or alternative energy technology such as wind turbines and solar panels and parabolic collectors. 

The phasing out of coal-sourced energy and replacing it with renewable energy is a wonderful idea, but it promises to be impractical in many areas. Solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric are available only where there is ample sunshine, hot spots (such as Iceland and the Yellowstone region), and rivers (in canyons) that can be dammed, respectively. The wind blows just about everywhere, but nobody wants a forest of wind turbines in their back yard making loud wooshing noises, so the available real estate for wind-sourced energy is limited. All in all, renewable energy will not make much of a dent in global energy requirements. That leaves coal as the predominant source of electricity world wide.

There is currently a movement to build more nuclear power- generation facilities, but any such facilities will take ten years to build. Then there's the resistance of environmentalists who like to point towards Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as good reasons not to build any more.

There has been talk about generating electricity with natural gas, but there is a risk of supply and demand principles driving up the price of natural gas that is otherwise used in heating homes. Moreover, natural gas is still a fossil fuel, and as a petroleum byproduct it is subject to speculative bubbles. The upshot is, coal is the most reliable and cheapest energy source for generating electricity. That's just the way it is.

Where, then, does petroleum factor into fossil fuel equation?

Petroleum is by far the most common source of energy used for transportation. Gasoline powers our automobiles, while diesel fuel powers many cars, most trucks, construction equipment, locomotives, and ships. Kerosene powers commercial aircraft, while propane and fuel oil are used to heat homes. Is there a practical alternative to replacing these fuels with an alternative or renewable source of energy? Well, not really. At least, not in the short run. The development of fully electric vehicles and hybrids does offer a viable alternative to gasoline powered vehicles, but there are some issues with these kinds of vehicles, for example, they have a far higher purchase price than traditional vehicles, and are therefore available to a limited demographic. Another, larger issue is that these vehicles will increase demand for electricity from off the grid. And that electricity will largely come from burning coal.

Given a choice between energy dependence on oil from overseas or secure coal from right here at home, it's a no-brainer. It's both a national security issue and an economic issue. No one country will be able to bring this country to its knees by turning off the oil spigot. Moreover, the cost of coal isn't as easily manipulated as petroleum on the open market, so the risk of speculative bubbles is much lower. In a nutshell, more coal and less petroleum is the better option.

But there will be vehement disagreement with the coal-is-a-better-option stance by the global warming fanatics, and probably by some not-so-fanatical types as well. Most everyone agrees that fossil fuels, whether it's coal or petroleum, need to be phased out. The question is this: How can this be done without policy mandates that promise to create a lot of hardship. Well, there are ways. There is industry-financed research and development directed at fuel efficiency for cars and trucks, and green products for the home and business.  Private entities such as foundations and trust funds have been and will continue to be funding research,  and of course there is ongoing green energy research financed by governments around the world. An example of industrial commitment is the lithium-ion battery being developed in-house by Ford Motor Co. Ford will recoup their development expenses from their customers when they sell cars. Ongoing research at universities will eventually lead to newer technologies. This is all well and good. Unfortunately, scientists practicing quackery on their own behalf and on behalf of their allies in the policy arena wish to finance their research, not privately, but with punitive fees on coal-burning power generating facilities and steep taxes on consumers. Their approach is to exact many pounds of flesh from ordinary citizens so they can line their own pockets and grease the wheels of their cronies in the business world who stand to make enormous profits.
We are told that we must make "sacrifices" to save the planet, which is fine, except that these "sacrifices" will almost certainly be disproportionately borne by those in the lower half of the income spectrum. And that is where we should draw the line. In-house industrial research on energy-efficient products is fine. Research at academic institutions funded by government grants is fine, too, as long as it's legitimate research. What is not fine is when scientists apply their research to proving their hypotheses about climate change rather than testing it with objective scientific experimentation. I don't want to pay for some politically motivated scientists to use quackery and trumped up data so they can collaborate with the policy makers so they, in turn, can engineer policies that will drain money out of the pockets of the people going forward. I don't want to see these people getting rich at my expense. I, personally, want their hands out of my pockets!

I am well aware that my stance on coal's preference to petroleum and petroleum derivatives constitutes utter heresy in the minds of a majority of people worldwide, and that's OK. I think it's important to realize that anthropogenic global warming is not a settled matter, although we are being told by many scientists that it is definitely a settled matter. This much we know.
We know the earth has been getting warmer over the course of the last hundred years or so, at least at the surface.
We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and that there is more of it than there used to be. The hypothesis, which is in the form of a question, is this: Is there a cause and effect relationship between higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and a concurrent warming of Planet Earth? The answer to that question is not available at this time. It will take another decade or two, or three, before we can even begin to get a handle on what is causing the warming. The answers will come trickling in over time. There are remaining questions about the plethora of models that are giving dire predictions for the future of the planet. For instance, climate modeling allegedly doesn't encompass variables such as El Niños and La Niñas, which come and go on their own schedule. Further, climate models allegedly don't factor in such factors as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). Some scientists believe that most climate models are predicated upon surface temperatures on land and in the surface layers of the earth's oceans, and that PDOs and AMOs and similar oscillations cause the models to give spurious scenarios. In the final analysis, anthropogenic global warming is not an established truth at this time, regardless of what the so-called "leading scientists" and "climate experts" and their media shills say. There are hundreds of climatologists around the world who are trying to say - at their own peril - Wait a minute! Not so fast! So, until more is known, the best course to follow, in my view, is to conserve as much as possible without undue hardship, that is, to not be wasteful, to be good stewards of the environment, to conduct objective research with an eye towards finding a better way to sustain our respective societies, but to do so without political entities imposing drastic or punitive measures against anyone - any private person, any business, or any country, or any society or culture.

This concludes my series on climate change. My final post, which will be coming in the next couple of days, will more or less be a bibliography of source material I've consulted for this in-depth look at this controversial topic. Feel free to follow links to web pages of scientists, climatologists, meteorologists, and others on both sides of the issue. I'm sure it will be informative but probably won't change any minds.