Prepare For Grid Down / Disruption Events

Make sure you have standby power, even if it is “minimal”. It looks like those in the know are predicting more power outages / grid down events. Cause? Decreasing nuclear, coal and gas generation intersecting higher demand spikes.

Regulars here have known this for a long time: Nuclear, Gas, and Coal generation are reliable and can be made available any time. Solar & Wind are not. They come and go on a semi-random basis. At anything over about 20% solar and wind, you have random spikes of unreliable power, and random dropouts. As the percentage of nuclear, gas, and coal power drops; it becomes impossible to stabilize the power grid against those spikes and dropouts. The EU, UK, & USA have been busy destroying their Nuclear, Coal, and Gas generation capabilities.

Well, looks like it is now being recognized that during cold excursions, we can no longer avoid blackouts (and during hot excursions in California…)

At the same time, the foolish push to “electrification” of just about everything is adding more demand spikes. We now have a lot of people who get home from work and plug in their electric car to charge it, just as demand for home heat, cooking, A/C, laundry, lighting, etc. etc. is peaking. So while the ability to meet “peak demand” is dropping, the height of that peak is rising.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/north-america-faces-elevated-blackout-risk-NERC-reliability-natural-gas/699275/

Has the obligatory genuflect to muh-“Climate Change”… and in some places disses “gas” when the real issue is pushing coal and nuclear out of the picture and shoving that demand onto rapid growth of gas generation in excess of natural gas supply; but it still makes some good points (bolding by me):

Much of North America faces ‘elevated risk’ of blackouts in extreme winter conditions: NERC
Climate change, rising energy demand and natural gas dependence mean “a massive grid disruption is inevitable,” said Mark Spurr, legislative director at the International District Energy Association.

Published Nov. 9, 2023

Note that the “rising energy demand” is the huge push to electrify everything, including cars. Then “natural gas dependence” really means “killing coal and nuclear pushes demand for RELIABLE power onto gas” when adding more production of natural gas, and pipelines to deliver it, are being blocked.

Much of the U.S. bulk power system faces an elevated risk of blackouts in extreme winter weather, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. warned in its 2023–2024 Winter Reliability Assessment, published Wednesday.

A key issue is the availability of natural gas supplies for generation and the operation of gas-fired power plants, NERC said. During extreme weather, generators can face operating difficulties in frigid temperatures, supplies may be diverted for home heating, and gas production may slow due to wellhead and pipeline issues.

“Diverted to home heating”? Don’t you mean “we overbuilt our gas generation capacity compared to the gas supply”? Home heaters have been in place for decades, they didn’t get suddenly installed in the GW range in the last few years…

They have a map of risk further down the article. It shows the major risk areas to be the North East and Midwest, plus Saskatchewan in Canada. As they are focused mostly on cold demand issues, California escapes their map; but note that California is at high risk of outages in hot weather when A/C demand and E-Cars are the issue.

IMHO, the major problem is that Coal Generation is being removed from the grid. Utilities can pile up huge mountains of coal next to a power plant, and then they don’t depend on various pipeline / pumping limitations and variations in gas demand. Coal plants also can be turned up and down faster and easier than baseload nuclear (though not as fast as gas plants). What ought to be done is to use Nuclear for the steady baseload demand, coal for the predictable “Duck Curve” variations, and natural gas for the peak fluctuations (as it was in the ’90s). Adding huge amounts of wind & solar just causes an exaggeration of the Duck Curve variations (since solar has a daily cycle) AND it adds a lot of “surprise spikes” of both up and down supply that must be met by something as rapid as gas turbines.

Then add in that a cold winter day / night with still air has a sudden outage of ALL of that solar and wind generation and throws all of that capacity demand along with the heating demand increase from the cold onto the now limited gas turbine capacity. Worse, the move to “full electrification” means that at the same time, the mandated “heat pumps” will be moving out of their most efficient range and into their use of “resistance heating” to make up for their problems at low temperatures, AND the e-Car fleet will be suffering huge losses of efficiency at low temperature so suddenly demanding up to 2 times as much electricity per mile.

Simply put: Electrification of everything makes the power demand swings much more extreme at the same time that removing Nuclear, Coal, and Gasoline/Diesel cars makes the resilience to such swings far worse. Eventually those two cross and we have failure of the grid. We are now at the point where that will happen when we have a Very Cold Day (or worse, night…).

As we move further down this path, it will happen on modestly cold days (and modestly hot days in California / Arizona / West Texas); and then eventually it will arrive at “just about every day at peak demand”.

So my recommendation is to plan your standby home power generation now, because this is going to get a whole lot worse before the entrenched Powers That Be decide to admit that it was a Very Bad Idea and they made a mistake.

I’ll likely get a standby whole house Diesel Generator sometime in the coming year; though I note that Florida is not at high risk per their map. ;-)

Bolding done by me:

In the southern areas of the Midcontinent ISO market, NERC’s winter reliability report warned extreme cold-weather “can cause high generator outages from inadequate weatherization or insufficient natural gas fuel supplies.” In New England, gas transportation infrastructure could be constrained if fuel is diverted for consumer heating needs.

Across the PJM Interconnection territory and in some portions of the U.S. Southeast, severe cold can cause a spike in forced outages. “Forecasted peak demand has risen while resources have changed little in these areas since Winter Storm Elliot caused energy emergencies across the area in 2022,” NERC said. “Generators are vulnerable to derates and outages in extreme conditions.”

So lack of adding gas capacity while shifting demand to gas generators. Something about blocking the exploration for gas and oil coupled with blocking new pipelines? Eh? Thanks “greens”… Then, you can heat your home, or have the lights on, but not both… OK… Then we’ve moved to more electric demand with forced electrification of things like home heating and cars; but not added reliable power generation. Got it.

Here’s an example of “Why”:

[…]
Saskatchewan Power, in Canada, could face insufficient operating reserves in normal peak conditions due to falling reserve margins, planned generator maintenance and the retirement of a 95 MW gas-fired unit.

So in “normal peak conditions”, they will be out of power. Shutting down reliable generation. Expect “load shedding” (i.e. the lights go out…)

Again we have the genuflect to muh”Climate Change”. But I thought it was supposed to be getting warmer, not colder /snark;:

‘Massive grid disruption is inevitable’

It is only a matter of time before a widespread grid disruption occurs, according to Mark Spurr, legislative director at the International District Energy Association and president of engineering and consulting firm FVB Energy.

Spurr pointed to a confluence of three trends: an increase in severe weather events due to climate change, rising peak electricity demand and a growing dependence on natural gas. “A massive grid disruption is inevitable,” he said, because those factors are “getting worse, not better.”

I note that the “rising demand” is due in large part to shifting energy demand from fossil fuels to The Grid via electrification and the increasing dependence on natural gas comes from shutting down Nuclear and Coal while adding unreliable and spike prone Solar & Wind. Entirely predictable (and predicted) result is an unreliable electric grid that will crash regularly. Interestingly, the article then goes on to blame this on “failure of fossil fueled power plants”… One supposes he means due to not having enough of them using big piles of coal… but skipping that nonsense; we get back to reality at:

[…]
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association warned the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal-, gas- and oil-fired power plants could worsen the grid’s precarious situation.

NERC’s reliability assessment “shows that our nation faces looming grid reliability challenges while demand for electricity continues to soar,” NRECA CEO Jim Matheson said in a statement. EPA’s “unlawful, unrealistic and unachievable proposal will result in less electricity, more power outages and higher costs for American families and businesses.”

Uh, yeah.

JUST to replace the gasoline & Diesel vehicles with electric ones would require a COMPLETE doubling of the total Grid. From generation, to wires, substations, transformers, fuel supplies. The Works! It just can not be done in less than about 40 years IF we were trying, and we are not. Instead we are shutting down the Nuclear and Coal components. This is doomed to fail and crash, hard.

So plan on lots of power outages, right when you need that electricity the most, and an entirely unreliable Electric Grid supply system. Not really something I wanted to spend money on; but it is looking a lot like the best solution is a DIY home power generation system. Store enough fuel yourself to power your home when, inevitably, that cold night comes. IFF you are foolish enough to buy an e-car or e-truck: Make sure you have a gasoline or Diesel 2nd vehicle that you keep full of fuel for those cold days of Grid Down without any working chargers.

Here’s another view of it all, including J.P. Morgan warnings:

Humorous note: At about 3 minutes, he talks about the GW growth to power all the coming AI Chips demand; and that we won’t have it. So “Good News”: We have dodged “singularity” where AI takes over the world as, as soon as it tries, the grid will go down and crash it! Nice that! ;-)

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Economics - Trading - and Money, Emergency Preparation and Risks, Energy, Vehicles. Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to Prepare For Grid Down / Disruption Events

  1. Canadian Friend says:

    When people are in a vulnerable situation, they are much more likely to agree to almost anything.

    20 or 30 years ago I thought such things were just silly conspiracy theories, I would have dismissed that…

    but with all we know now of the lies about covid, the lies about global warming, the lies about, well almost everything,
    and how each of those fake crisis are used by drunk-with-power-tyrants to gain even more power,
    I think they want people to be without power a good deal of the time, that will make most people willing to accept any crazy thing the government wants to impose.

    when people are hungry and freezing in the dark, they’ll say yes to almost anything.

  2. E.M.Smith says:

    @Canadian Friend;

    I’ve added a note after the video about the good news in all this: Grid Down will also mean AI Down, so we’ve dodged “Singularity” with AI taking over the world ;-)

    So now the “Elite Power Structure” will have to choose between using AI to “take over the world” or providing reliable power ;-)

  3. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – didn’t you know that Climate Change means more extreme weather, so more droughts and floods, more heatwaves and cold snaps, more snow or snow becoming a distant memory, depending on what the current weather is? Whatever happens, it’s because we’re burning too much oil and coal, but what is burnt in China and India etc. doesn’t have the same bad effects as what we burn.

    Here in France, though the proportion of nuclear energy in my electricity bill has dropped from 82% to 70% over the last couple of decades I’ve been here, at least Macron has seen some of the light and has decided to build some new ones. Still a problem with wind and solar having increased, but not as bad as others, so I’m not expecting other than the usual problems of living out in the sticks. Bad weather can bring lines down, but the generators will still be running. Yep, the cost of electricity here rises a lot on cold days (6 pricing levels, 3 daytime and 3 nighttime) but that just means that smart people don’t use electric heating.

  4. cdquarles says:

    Our local grid suppliers take reliability as a must do. They routinely repair lines, replace old ones, replace transformers, trim trees, etc. I have two hydroelectric dams relatively close to me and a good sized coal plant even closer to me. Nuclear plants southeast and northwest of me. Sure, a local municipality is experimenting with solar, but, as far as I can tell, it is a small supplemental one. Very few people want to clear land just for solar. They will clear it for agriculture :), but don’t really need to now. Tree farming is also a thing here, too.

  5. jim2 says:

    Three thumbs up on this one!

  6. rhoda klapp says:

    Nothing will be done before the inevitable disaster. When it comes some people will die but we hope others will wake up

  7. E.M.Smith says:

    @Rhoda:

    Well, the best good thing I can find is that the “inevitable disaster” will hit first in just those regions most embracing the Gang Green Dream! So the Bos-Wash new England corridor of power including Washington D.C., and the MidWest around Chicago and similar (along with California in Summers).

    Those of us living in places like Florida and Wyoming will be fine. Likely fine too will be the folks in places like Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Utah, Arizona (Palo Verde Nuclear Plant), etc.

    So the disaster will show up first and hardest in just the right place to whack the right people upside the head ;-)

    That will also give the rest of us plenty of time to prepare for the arrival of it, should the Idiots In Charge be slow learners ;-) Why I’m not rushing out to buy that standby generator Right Now and instead I’m looking at next year.

    Unfortunately for you, the UK is “leading the charge” (or is that discharge? ;-) on this so will likely be in the forefront of Grid Down events. Certainly well before France.

    But you visit Florida a fair amount. Just plan long visits here during winter…

    I also note in passing that Mexico is not being stupid. USA Citizens, and I think most of the EU / UK, can get a 6 month tourist visa just by visiting Mexico. So those who “have significant issues” can just show up in Mexico and enjoy a warm winter… What’s a few hundred gallons of Jet-A Fuel among friends, eh? Saving the climate and all that ;-)

  8. John Hultquist says:

    Being in Washington State (low chance of grid failure) and having a modern catalytic burner wood stove, I am currently in no danger. I may/will have to move in the not too distant future because of age. That horizon is not in sight.
    I do have smallish generator, bought for a 28ft trailer and never used. So, I need to see about getting it hooked into the house and regularly testing it.
    My newly adopted mantra: There is always something!
    The area just came through its coldest period in about 25 years; I had a -17°F morning. Now we are back to the mid-20s & 30s.

  9. E.M.Smith says:

    chiefio@headless2:~$ cat DNS_ATTACK
    There may be some kind of DRDOS (Distributed Denial Of Service) attack on DNS services. All day today I’ve had slothful and failure prone responses from ROKU TV device and from the Chromebook (and spousal Mac). A lot of it looked like DNS timeouts. Even my in-house DNS PiHole server was having issues with lookups for new sites (Those cached were fast).

    On this R.Pi Linux box, some lookups were fast (likely cached in the PiHole and not using the DNS built into browsers…) while some were having issues and lookups for new sites (those casched were fast).

    I looked into it and did some lookups aimed at particular Public DNS servers. Some worked and others clearly failed. Note the first two, both to the same OpenDNS server. One works, the next one just a minute later times out. That ought not happen.

    chiefio@headless2:~$ nslookup ibm.com 208.67.222.222
    Server:		208.67.222.222
    Address:	208.67.222.222#53
    
    Non-authoritative answer:
    Name:	ibm.com
    Address: 23.37.69.29
    Name:	ibm.com
    Address: 2600:1403:c400:580::3831
    Name:	ibm.com
    Address: 2600:1403:c400:58c::3831
    
    chiefio@headless2:~$ time nslookup ibm.com 208.67.222.222
    ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
    
    
    real	0m15.120s
    user	0m0.060s
    sys	0m0.060s
    

    Then a series of of failed lookus to big name servers, even Google:

    chiefio@headless2:~$ time nslookup ibm.com 1.1.1.1
    ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
    
    
    real	0m15.112s
    user	0m0.090s
    sys	0m0.020s
    chiefio@headless2:~$ time nslookup ibm.com
    ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
    
    
    real	0m15.115s
    user	0m0.080s
    sys	0m0.030s
    chiefio@headless2:~$ time nslookup ibm.com 198.101.242.72
    ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
    
    
    real	0m15.116s
    user	0m0.090s
    sys	0m0.020s
    chiefio@headless2:~$ time nslookup ibm.com 23.253.163.53
    ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
    
    
    real	0m15.111s
    user	0m0.070s
    sys	0m0.040s
    

    then this one to a lesser known address works:

    chiefio@headless2:~$ time nslookup ibm.com 1.0.0.1
    Server:		1.0.0.1
    Address:	1.0.0.1#53
    
    Non-authoritative answer:
    Name:	ibm.com
    Address: 23.37.69.29
    Name:	ibm.com
    Address: 2600:1403:5400:382::3831
    Name:	ibm.com
    Address: 2600:1403:5400:396::3831
    
    
    real	0m5.165s
    user	0m0.070s
    sys	0m0.040s
    

    So I suspect something is up.

    Either my network connection is just crap (unlikely as despite DNS problems, the speed test I did was fast and we did watch a lot of TV over it – despite “start up” problems that looked like DNS fails…

    So just FYI: It might not be you, it might be a DNS attack.

    Anyone else notice anything?

    I’m packing it in for the night, as the sporadic long waits are annoying…

  10. E.M.Smith says:

    Looks like things are normal again today.

  11. Ossqss says:

    If you don’t have a static IP, reboot the modem and that sometimes helps.

    I have enabled DoS protections and the basic and IPv6 firewall on my routers also.

  12. E.M.Smith says:

    @Ossqss:

    Yeah, did the router reboot thing (and nothing changed) before I went to the Linux machine and started poking directly at various Public DNS Servers to further diagnose. What sometimes happens is your home telco router gets a bad port on the upstream telco POP router; then the reboot fixes it (sometimes) as someone else gets that port and you take the next one ;-)

    I was already fairly certain (as in ‘certain’) that “it wasn’t about me” due to the speed test I ran early on. It had a bit of lag getting started, then went to about 40 Mb/sec down load and about 15 Mb/sec upload. So basic communication was about what I expected. All the “issue” was showing up in the lag time to get a new site or page to begin transferring; and that is almost always a sign of DNS issues. Often the “error message” directly stated a failure to resolve the IP address.

    The way my network is set up, I can choose my private WiFi that uses my caching DNS server, or the Telco router WiFi that uses their DNS. Swapping between them showed that even my DNS server was having trouble resolving some new addresses, BUT once resolved, things then were reliably fast. Confirming a DNS issue and not a router bandwidth or bad port on the uplink router issue.

    Then, poking directly at various DNS servers gave dramatically different results. That was pretty much were it was confirmed “not me, but DNS attack or failure”. BIG Name DNS servers that never have an outage or long delays were flat out timing out. The lesser known ones responding normally. So a difference in the potential “targets” hinting at targeting.

    Rather than just swap my DNS server over to one of the lesser upstreams, I chose to go to bed (it being the middle of the night…) and come back this morning. Let the guys who work those issues do the work… And this morning all is normal again. (Good Job guys!).

    Later today I’ll likely expand the list of places my DNS server looks for “upstream” to include some less common addresses just to see if that makes it more robust to such outages. FWIW, IIRC I was using a couple of the Big Names in my /etc/resolv.conf and in the PiHole list of places to look. But having set it up about 3 or 4 years ago, I’ll need to take a look to be sure the memory is current ;-)

    I also had tried 2 different configurations. One of them just referred “upstream” and another did the whole “walk the source of authority” thing, and at this point I’m not sure which one I left in service… I probably ought to check that, and make a list of the Root Server IP numbers so I can test IP lookup directly against them, too. But being retired I’ve gotten a bit lazy about that kind of diagnostic prep.

    Heck, I didn’t even test any IPv6 addresses. I suppose it could have been a failure of the NAT translation of the addresses… but I deliberately run NO IPv6 inside my network as a security feature. There are NO directly communicating devices inside my network; everything goes through a NAT translation. So if NAT has not built a back translation table, poking the router from outside can not get through. I did note that in one case the IPv4 lookup succeeded but it timed out on the IPv6 lookup part (that nslookup does). I didn’t include that one in the text capture above.

    So I suppose I did do some IPv6 lookups indirectly via the normal nslookup activity… just didn’t test any IPv6 connectivity.

    Anyway… it is over now. For now. Usually there are these kinds of things whenever somebody is mad at The West or the USA in particular. They typically don’t amount to much more than an annoyance (bit of sloth on TV program startup for example) and are resolved inside of one day. Most people just get a timeout or two, and move on to something else for a while and don’t even know it is going on.

    I probably could have checked the various attack tracking sites, but … that “retired” thing again ;-) Glass of wine and bed won out ;-0

  13. beng135 says:

    Coal-plant startups shouldn’t be much of an issue if their is enough forecast time to get them started and running on minimum load (standby), and then able to ramp up quickly. As I recall while working at a coal power plant in southern VA, Jan 1994 cold-wave very nearly caused major brownouts and, rather remarkably, was averted because of help from various other utilities including some Florida gas turbine-generators.

  14. Roger Sowell says:

    I suspect that the concern over imminent grid failures is a bit overblown. We have had grid failures before, notably 1965 and 2003 in the US Northeast. The ’65 event was caused by a faulty relay setting, and ’03 was due to a computer bug. In both cases, grid designers and operators learned how to prevent such things.

    We have also had, more recently, peak load events that result in requests to reduce electricity use; typically caused by poor planning. California has such things, both load reduction requests and poor planning. It is called a Flex-Alert. Recently, here in Texas, we had the grid operator, ERCOT, issue a conservation request due to unusual and very cold air that blanketed the state. Earlier and more widely known was the February 2021 storm “URI” and grid issues. Again, the cause was poor planning by all of the Texas entities who are in charge of the grid design and capacities, from generation to transmission and distribution. The root cause was winterization was poor or lacking entirely. The lack of winterization brought down generators that ran on natural gas, on coal, and the over-vaunted nuclear. Notably, the wind generators performed as expected. It turns out that low wind is expected behind such Arctic air masses, so ERCOT was not expecting wind to contribute very much.

    Grid operators such as ERCOT in Texas and CAISO in California, PJM in the East, and MISO in the Midwest, are keenly aware of the several issues around grid reliability. But, the grid operators do not decide what generators to build, nor where, nor when. The same is true for transmission systems. Those decisions are typically made by the state Public Utility Commission.

    Back to Texas and ERCOT, two big factors in the URI issue and recent winter conservation requests are unprecedented population growth, and (as our host mentioned) electrification of home heating. The heat-pump systems for cooling and heating work well in mild weather, but are electricity hogs in either very cold, or very hot periods. We have a lot of heat-pumps in new housing here. Given the long lead-time required to approve, design, and install grid-scale generating and transmission systems, the Texas population boom with heat-pumps is taking a while to accommodate. As a result, recently the Texas governor pushed for and obtained new laws to incentivize fossil-fuel generating facilities. We have at least 7 GW of new, gas-fired dispatchable generation coming online in 2024, per the governor’s office. Whether that 7 GW is enough is uncertain.

    With nuclear costing at least $12,000 per kW, and requiring at least 15 years from plan to startup, that is out of the question in the US. New coal is also out of the question, with the high cost of delivered coal and current air pollution regulations. New, large hydroelectric plants are also out of the question from lack of rivers yet un-dammed. That leaves natural gas, wind, and solar.

    I suspect that the Texas experience with near-failure and catch-up efforts will be seen in a few other states. Even if their populations are stable, more electrification will slowly increase the demand side.

    Just my two cents. I expect many will disagree. I do wonder how those who are not in agreement would justify building new nuclear, new coal, and/or new hydroelectric. Hundreds of power generating company executives review these issues each year. It should be instructive that no one has nuclear or hydro in their plans. Coal may be an option, if the transport costs are low.

  15. E.M.Smith says:

    @Roger:

    My point was not that the whole grid is going down fast. It was that the frequency of Grid Down in various regions has increased and will increase more as the present trends continue (and they will as nothing is being done to stop them) so prepare for outages. I lived through exactly that kind of increase in California (2 times… First one was Gov. Grey “out” Davis so we dumped him and got stable power for another decade or so). So I have “lived that experience”. Prep now or scramble later. Your choice.

    No new nukes, eh?
    https://apnews.com/article/georgia-power-nuclear-reactor-vogtle-9555e3f9169f2d58161056feaa81a425

    BUSINESS
    The first US nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia
    […]
    At its full output of 1,100 megawatts of electricity, Unit 3 can power 500,000 homes and businesses. A number of other utilities in Georgia, Florida and Alabama are receiving the electricity, in addition to the 2.7 million customers of Southern Co. subsidiary Georgia Power.

    “This hadn’t been done in this country from start to finish in some 30-plus years,” Chris Womack, CEO of Atlanta-based Southern Co. said Monday in a telephone interview. “So to do this, to get this done, to get this done right, is a wonderful accomplishment for our company, for the state and for the customers here in Georgia.”

    A fourth reactor is also nearing completion at the site, where two earlier reactors have been generating electricity for decades. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Friday said radioactive fuel could be loaded into Unit 4, a step expected to take place before the end of September. Unit 4 is scheduled to enter commercial operation by March.

    Yes, years late and over budget, but it got done. Then, other folks in other countries can build them much cheaper.

    Unit of Chashma Nuclear Power Plant (Chashma-5) in Chashma, Mianwali, Pakistan, Friday, July 14, 2023. Sharif launched the construction of a 1,200-megawatt Chinese-designed nuclear energy project, which will be built at a cost of $3.5 billion as part of the government efforts to generate more clean energy in the Islamic nation. (Press Information Department via AP)

    Which points out the key issue of why is nuclear so expensive here and why is a new coal plant hard to get approved. It is NOT the technology nor is it the fundamental economics of nuclear or coal. It is the result of political actions taken to artificially make them both more expensive. Frankly, Coal is about as cheap as it is possible for making electricity, IF you get the Green Tax out of it.

    Coal did not become expensive due to shortage of coal or failure of mines to be able to physically mine the coal.

    Then there’s the up and coming Small Modular Reactors for nuclear. IF the political apparatus does not kill them with “regulations, laws & red tape”…

    https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-certifies-first-us-small-modular-reactor-design

    Office of Nuclear Energy
    NRC Certifies First U.S. Small Modular Reactor Design
    JANUARY 20, 2023

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued its final rule in the Federal Register to certify NuScale Power’s small modular reactor.

    The company’s power module becomes the first SMR design certified by the NRC and just the seventh reactor design cleared for use in the United States.

    The rule takes effects February 21, 2023 and equips the nation with a new clean power source to help drive down emissions across the country.

    Historic Rule Making
    The published final rule making allows utilities to reference NuScale’s SMR design when applying for a combined license to build and operate a reactor.

    The design is an advanced light-water SMR with each power module capable of generating 50 megawatts of emissions-free electricity.

    NuScale’s VOYGR™ SMR power plant can house up to 12 factory-built power modules that are about a third of the size of a large-scale reactor. Each power module leverages natural processes, such as convection and gravity, to passively cool the reactor without additional water, power, or even operator action.

    So I’d not be quite so quick to say nuclear is dead…

    Oh, and China has started Thorium reactors on the road to commercial use.

    https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/thorium-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-china

    ‘Green light’ given for first thorium molten salt nuclear reactor in China
    China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment has approved the commissioning of an experimental molten salt thorium nuclear reactor in Wuwei City.

    Christopher McFadden
    Published: Jun 16, 2023 03:04 AM EST

    Chinese authorities have officially given the green light to commission a working thorium-based molten salt nuclear reactor. Currently under construction since 2018, the reactor in question, “Thorium Molten Salt Reactor – Liquid Fuel 1” (TMSR-LF1), is being built at the Hongshagang Industrial Cluster, Wuwei City, Gansu Province.

    If successful, the TMSR-LF1 has the potential to open doors for developing and constructing a more extensive demonstration facility by 2030. Additionally, it could lead to constructing a TMSR fuel salt batch pyro-process demonstration facility, which would enable the utilization of the thorium-uranium cycle by the early 2040s.

    Since Thorium molten salt reactors can “burn” the nuclear waste from light water reactors, it also provides a solution to “waste disposal” and spent fuel rod recycling.

    Historical note: The USA built and operated one of these for years long ago. It was largely shut down in favor of reactor types that were more supportive of our Nuclear Weapons Program and those that were less able to make a “proliferation” fuel. Th can be turned into U233, which India has used to make a test nuclear bomb. IMHO, Thorium reactors provide a “back door” to “SNM” Special Nuclear Material and that is why we buried the tech. Note the last sentence above about “thorium-uranium cycle” and pyro-process…

    So I say “Never attribute to technical limitations or economic limitations that which is adequately explained by political manipulations.”

  16. Roger Sowell says:

    EM: my views on nuclear are not changed. The Vogtle plant fiasco is a warning to others, not a trail-breaker. See Finland, France, and UK for almost identical results. SMR by NuScale was cancelled when the client saw the cost to build. Costs in Third World countries are not applicable here. Unless one can import thousands of workers and pay them third-world wages. There are probably laws against that, see minimum wage.

    The US Thorium reactor was shelved because the reactor material and everything else the molten salt touched grew brittle, and fast. Brittle is bad; can’t have reactors cracking apart by any little vibration. China is about to find that out the hard way. Reactor material must hold strong for at least 40 years.

    Coal IS running out, as is well-documented. Rutledge gives an excellent summary of the coal issue.

    That leaves gas, solar, wind, and now batteries.

  17. jim2 says:

    Coal reserves seem to be steady or rising.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/265450/global-proved-reserves-of-coal/

    At the current state of knowledge we *only* have 139 years of coal. But they always discover more, especially if the price of it is rising.

  18. Canadian Friend says:

    I don’t not feel like looking for and posting links, but as far as I know we are not running out of coal.

    Not only do they keep finding more coal, but they keep inventing ways of burning stuff ( coal, natural gas, petrol, wood, etc etc ) to produce energy that are more efficient,
    so those fuels, I mean the reserves, may last longer than many think they will

    ….well that is unless we import a few hundred million people and we triple pr quadruple our use of coal gas, petrol, wood and what have you…which seems to be what liberals want to do,
    they seem to want to import the rest of the planet here so that everyone of the 8 Billion people will be here with us and the rest of the planet will be empty of humans…..ok i m being a bit sarcastic but not that much either, I am not too far from reality.

  19. Thomas Sowell, do not know where you get your information but I suggest you have been listening to Green socialists who have no technical knowledge. Australia alone has enough coal reserves to supply the world for over 100 years and there is more to be discovered. South Korea can build nuclear rectors (of their own design). They completed the 4th unit in the UEA last year in about 1 1/2 years. It is legislation and supposed environmental permits that take a long time not the construction time or even the cost. In the UAE it took about 10 years to get started but then they built 4 units each taking about 18 months to build. Finland uprated their nuclear power plants (with increased turbines) to about double output and licenced them for sixty years from their first date. Last year they commission a new unit. Many countries are now looking at building nuclear power plants. The following are willing suppliers of technology and equipment 1/ China 2/ Russia 3/ Finland 4/ France 5/ India 6/Japan 7/ Pakistan 8/ South Korea (suppose one can add Canada & USA). The Chinese are building or have planned I believe 16 new nuclear power stations. I saw a nuclear PS station in China a few years ago. I suggest that within 5 years Indonesia will start on their 1st Nuclear PS while they have lots of coal (in Sumatra and Kalimantan & 3rd largest exporter), they want to learn the technology.

  20. Keith Macdonald says:

    Deindustrialisation in the UK just took a huge, err, leap forward. The kind that goes off the edge of a cliff. About 3,000 jobs will be lost when the UK’s biggest steelworks (at Port Talbot in Wales) closes its two blast furnaces, to replace them with an Electric Arc Furnace (EAC) in 2027 (maybe). To conform with UK Government Net Zero targets.

    Blast furnaces are for making high-quality steel from iron ore. EAC for making lower-grade steel from recylcled scrap metal.

    No mention of where or how the EAC will get the megawatts of electricity needed. Perhaps we will import that along with the scrap metal.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  21. Keith Macdonald says:

    The UK has also been downgrading its ability to produce electricity as well, as we’ve been closing coal-fire power stations.

    We are increasingly reliant on underground/undersea “interconnector” cables from France, Belgium, Ireland and other countries. Last month, a new £1.7bn 475-mile interconnector to Denmark was brought into operation.

    The UK Gov PR spin says things like:

    The 475-mile cable is the longest land and subsea electricity cable in the world and will provide cleaner, cheaper more secure energy to power up to 2.5 million homes in the U.K. It will help British families save £500 million on their bills over the next decade, while cutting emissions.

    What’s not mentioned is where and how the electricity is produced elsewhere, at a higher cost.

    A deep dive into the National Grid interconnector data, however, shows the claims of cleaner, cheaper and more secure energy do not stand up to scrutiny. They do not make it cleaner. The problem here is that the energy we import during periods of high demand is likely to be ‘dirty’ energy from diesel engines and coal-fired power stations, while the energy we export in times of lower demand is more likely to be ‘clean’ energy from wind and solar.

    Second, it is crystal clear that interconnectors do not provide cheaper energy. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The data show that interconnectors have helped us to perfect the art of buying high and selling low. The price we pay for imports is consistently above the market price and the price we get for exports is significantly below market rates; we even frequently pay others to take surplus power off our hands (known as negative prices).

    https://dailysceptic.org/2024/01/18/the-governments-latest-net-zero-swindle-electricity-interconnectors-with-europe/

    One (in)famous power station (Drax) was a highly-efficient lower-cost coal-fired station. Converted to burning wood-chip “to save the environment”. But where does the wood chip come from? It’s all shipped transatlantic, from thousands of miles away in Canada. So now hundreds of square miles of Canadian forests are being felled to feed this monstrosity. To save the environment.

  22. Keith Macdonald says:

    How to make a Raspberry Pi 5-powered cyberdeck for “after meltdown”

    https://www.raspberrypi.com/news/meet-pidex-your-raspberry-pi-5-powered-doomsday-companion/

    Build it, then build a Farady Cage as well, to protect it before “the big event”. What it would be good for (after the event) is a seperate topic.

  23. Canadian Friend says:

    England makes a good deal of its electricity from burning wood.

    I know it sounds impossible, and I do not have the link anymore as this was about 6 or 7 years ago, but a long article ( that I had posted on facebook back when I was there often ) was explaining that England was buying wood from the USA, it was shipped on diesel ships ( very green right ? haha!), and because trees are renewable – they grow back or you can grow new ones- England was calling that green electricity…

    but burning wood emits not only a lot of co2 it emits lots of chemicals we are told are bad for the planet…

    my point being that they may be burning less coal and going ” electric” but that electricity comes in good part from burning wood.

    In other words, it is a lie and a scam, they are not doing much that can be called green ( not only them, every nation that claims to be green is cheating and lying about how they get their electricity)

    actually I just found a link from 2019, says England uses -burns – one third of all wood pellets…how very green haha!

    https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/renewable-energy-wood-pellets-biomass

  24. Canadian Friend says:

    I had not seen that comment, I had only seen your previous comment,
    we are saying kind of the same thing ;England burns wood from other nations so they can pretend they have clean energy, what a scam.

  25. Keith Macdonald says:

    Even the Greens have woken up.

    Fury at plan to extend Drax subsidy to burn trees for electricity.
    Climate groups and MPs criticise proposals for consumers to foot bill to support biomass plant after existing scheme ends in 2027. The government has proposed plans to offer the Drax power plant extra subsidies to burn trees for electricity, provoking a backlash from climate groups and green Tory MPs. Ministers have begun consulting on plans for bill payers to foot the cost of supporting Drax until the end of the decade once its existing subsidy scheme, which pays on average more than £500m a year, ends in 2027.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/18/ministers-propose-extra-drax-subsidy-burn-trees-electricity-biomass

    Nice subsidy (if you can get it). While we pay higher bills because of it.

  26. beng135 says:

    Russia has liquid-sodium cooled breeder reactors operating, like this one. Has the potential to make more fuel than it uses.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

  27. E.M.Smith says:

    As I’m preparing for a trip, I must be brief, so much of the proof of these assertions will have to wait a few days.

    Coal resource is more important than reserves as the quantity of reserves is an economic (not physical) concept. Reserves are what you can produce at the current price at a profit. Higher prices mean more reserves suddenly come into existence. We have over 400 years of coal recoverable economical resources available at relatively trivial price rises (low enough to not change the economic viability of coal power plants). The Greens / Left (but I repeat myself…) regularly use an artificially low reserves value to project future supply, which is a gross error.

    Nuclear resource is functionally unlimited. Somewhere over 10,000 years for Uranium alone. There’s a LOT more Thorium than Uranium. Why? Well, a few decades ago when U was trading for about $70 / kg, the Japanese proved a technique of selective absorption of U onto polymer mats hung in the Japan Current that produced U at about $100 / kg. The total resource available in the ocean is insanely large, and the energy produced from a kg of U is massively higher value than $100. Effectively free. PROVEN technology.

    Nuclear reactors are running reliably and economically All Over The Planet. There isn’t a technical issue. There isn’t an economical issue or France would have collapsed decades ago, and Southern California would not have been depending on power from Palo Verde plant in Arizona of many decades now. There is a political problem and there are paranoia and political driven insane and irrational cost burdens put on nuclear for no good reason other than to try to destroy the industry. (FWIW, in the ’70s, I was on that side and participating… to my shame now.) Our “Nuclear Navy” is another example (we don’t use those reactors commercially due to them using 20% enriched fuel and worries about “proliferation”). India is using nuclear power reactors in increasing numbers and has made many interesting variations.

    One of the best is (was?) the CANDU that can use U, Pu, or Th (and has, in India…). Been running for decades and not hard to build. But uses Heavy Water so the USA has tried to kill it as it lets you more easily make SNM (Boom Stuff) which India did to make some of their more interesting bombs.

    BTW, Fort St. Vrain was a HTGCR High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor so was not shut down due to any corrosion from molten salts. It did have some corrosion problems, being a new tech, but those were eventually fixed. Seems the design was done for a certain degree of porosity of graphite but it was built with a harder less porous one and that lead to water issues.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Saint_Vrain_Nuclear_Power_Plant
    So from the incredibly anti-nuclear Wiki:

    Most of the past issues had been resolved at considerable expense and the plant was beginning to perform at a commercially viable level when an economic downturn and the history of the plant caused the owner to shut it down even though it had not reached the end of its design lifetime.

    Three major categories of problems were experienced at Fort St. Vrain: first, water infiltration and corrosion issues; second, electrical system issues; and third, general facility issues.

    A gas cleaning system was provided to remove contaminants, including water, from the helium system. Design problems resulted in too much water in the helium system, leading to corrosion.

    The designers had intended for the water injectors to maintain pressure in the bearings about equal to the gas pressure in the system. In practice, the gas pressure varied more than expected, allowing excessive water to escape into the circulator.

    The capacity of the gas cleaning system did not account for the excess water from the bearings, and assumed that high-temperature reactions in the graphite reactor core would reduce the impact of residual water in the helium, based on the porosity of typical core graphite. The graphite used to construct Fort St. Vrain’s core was higher grade and less porous, and thus did not present as much surface area for these reactions to occur.

    So it was running at the economic level, but the business environment and the history of getting the tech to that point lead to a decision to kill it (much like the Germans did with their Brand New HTGCR due to mah-GreenScream… at a cost of $Billions flushed for politics NOT tech nor economic issues).

    Molten Salt reactors were not so afflicted:

    https://www.ornl.gov/molten-salt-reactor/history

    The Molten Salt Reactor Experiment achieved its first self-sustaining nuclear reaction on June 1, 1965. Three years later, on Oct. 8, 1968, it became the first reactor ever to run on uranium-233.

    MSRE was noteworthy in at least three respects. Beside running on U-233 and acting as an economic proof of concept for nuclear power, the reactor was fundamentally unlike most modern designs.
    […]
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Molten Salt Reactor Experiment was designed to assess the viability of liquid fuel reactor technologies for use in commercial power generation. It operated from January 1965 through December 1969, logging more than 13,000 hours at full power during its four-year run. The MSRE was designated a nuclear historic landmark in 1994.
    […]
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory was the home of Alvin Weinberg’s Molten Salt Reactor Experiment. The MSRE proved that a fission reaction in molten fluoride salts could be contained in Hastelloy-N, and that a molten salt fueled reactor concept was viable.

    Note that running on U233. Since U233 can be used to make bombs (India made one) that was a Red Flag to the MIC to quash it as they wanted to drive the whole world into the most expensive and difficult and least able to make SNB (Boom Stuff) technologies. Light Water Uranium with difficult enrichment and reprocessing.

    It is remarkably easy and relatively cheap to make nuclear reactors (including breeder reactors) via Graphite Moderation (UK did that as did Russia), Heavy Water reactors (the Canadian CANDU for example), and via the Thorium Cycle. BUT, they all make it much easier to make Boom Stuff in large quantities… so had to die. (USA and Canada fought over the CANDU for decades and the USA was very pissed when the Indians used one to make their bomb program work).

    FWIW, you can also, now, put MOX (Mixed Oxide) rods into light water reactors and make various kinds of SNM, but since refueling is harder, you need to build one with an easier way to swap the fuel rods. “Research Reactors” are a nice easy way to do this, and India also used one of those to make some of their Boom Stuff. There’s also a company now that makes Th / U rod sets for light water reactors… Note that many Research Reactors are “Pool Type”. This is basically a swimming pool full of water and the core is naked in the bottom. You can even look down into it in operation (the water is both a great moderator and when deep enough a shield) and see the glow from the radiation…

    So what make a nuclear plant expensive is not “the reactor”, since you can make one with a swimming pool and fuel rods… but all the “stuff” around it typically mandated by Gang Green and Proliferation Paranoia. But since the Proliferation Genie is now way out of the lamp, the cost of that paranoia is now way higher than the benefit from it. Anyone with a good University now has students who can make SNM and make bombs out of it. It is, after all, 80 year old technology…

    Will there be various maintenance issues in Molten Salt? Sure. Will some of it involve something or other corroding? Certainly, but so does my car. The experiment was run for years and Hastelloy-N was found adequate.

    So IF you want an effectively unlimited and economical power supply, go nuclear. Yes, be careful with it, and use the right materials. Hire good folks to do it, and, yes, you will need Solid Political Support against the onslaught of Gang Green and the TLAs. And you will likely need to be in the ROW (Rest Of World). Note that China and India have lots of working reactors and at least China is busy building them for other countries too…
    https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/npcil-commission-nuclear-power-reactor-every-year-pathak-interview/article67751083.ece

    India will ‘commission a nuclear power reactor every year’: NPCIL chief
    An interview with B.C. Pathak on India’s nuclear power plans and strategy
    January 18, 2024 09:40 am | Updated 05:15 pm IST – Mumbai

    On December 17, 2023, India’s largest indigenously developed 700-MWe pressurised heavy water reactor (PHWR) – the fourth unit in Kakrapar, Gujarat – attained criticality. Six months earlier, another 700-MWe unit in the same facility had started producing commercial electricity. In 2024, another unit with the same capacity is expected to be commissioned in Rawatbhata, Rajasthan. Behind all these reactors is the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). Its chairman and managing director B.C. Pathak told The Hindu NPCIL plans to “commission a nuclear power reactor every year” hence.

    But hey, if you want to believe that the USA has inferior technology to India and can not build what India and China can build because our skills are so poor, go right ahead.

    While we screw around strangling ourselves with political crap, the ROW is going to go right ahead and get cheap reliable power. For a few thousand years…

    Guess what that will do to “economic dominance” of The West… Solar Panels and Wind are not going to make steel, so forget making ships, skyscrapers, trains, cars & trucks, or even tanks and artillery…

    BTW, the last steel mill in the UK is now shutting down. So I guess the UK will be asking Brazil, China and India for steel to make their ships and guns… hope they don’t get into a fight with the BRICS+ nations… Oh, wait!…

  28. Roger Sowell says:

    “When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, Sir?” – attributed to John Maynard Keynes

    For how much coal is available for production at a profit, please refer to Table 3 of Rutledge 2011, “Estimating long-term world coal production with logit and probit transforms,” David Rutledge, International Journal of Coal Geology 85 (2011) 23-33. Dr. Rutledge is a professor emeritus at Cal Tech, Pasadena, California.

    Link https://www.its.caltech.edu/~rutledge/DavidRutledgeCoalGeology.pdf

    Note in particular that Dr. Rutledge used world production of 6.9 GT/y, which rose to 8 GT/y in 2022 (per IEA). Minable coal remaining from Table 3 was 371 GT. 371 divided by 6.9 gives 53 years to coal exhaustion date, of 2064. From today, 2024, 7-8 GT/y produced for 12 years gives approximately 90 GT mined and burned. 371 minus 90 gives 281 GT left. At 8 GT/y, there are now only 35 years left of minable coal.

    I suggest that if any of you can find fault with Dr. Rutledge’s numbers, please do so. His contact information is listed in the paper.

    Also note that minable coal does not include coal reserves that, if mined with current best practices, would result in an economic loss. That is, the costs to bring the coal to the surface are greater than the sales price.

    As to Australia, “cementafriend,” and “Australia alone has enough coal reserves to supply the world for over 100 years years and there is more to be discovered.” Reserves are not minable at a profit. One looks to minable coal, which Rutledge lists at 50 GT for Australia – in year 2011. If Australia were to supply the world, at 8 GT/y, one arrives at a bit longer than 6 years, not “over 100 years.” Also, I insist you do not refer to me as “Thomas Sowell,” as I am no relation to the famous PhD in Economics, a Black man and noted author.

  29. E.M.Smith says:

    @Beng135;

    There are several kinds of Breeder Reactors that make more fuel than they consume. You can do it with a CANDU reactor (it has tubes where you can shove fuel in one end and then later push it out the other, depending on what you push in, you get U233 or Pu out the other end…). It’s a bit tricky to compute the neutron flux and such correctly for that mode of operation, but it has already been done. (Part of why the USA tried to squash them since making SNM was easier that way). It is likely one of the most flexible reactors in the world.

    You can also breed fuel in regular power reactors, but again, takes some care in the computing… One company I know of puts Th232 rods around the outside of the core and then breeds U233 in them. Still not commercial, but they are trying to sell the product.

    So it doesn’t take a Liquid Metal reactor.

    BTW, it isn’t a technical issue, it is a dirt cheap Uranium issue that reduced enthusiasm for breeders in The West. (Spiced with proliferation paranoia).

    https://www.britannica.com/technology/breeder-reactor

    The first experimental breeder reactor, designated EBR-1, was developed in 1951 by U.S. scientists at the National Reactor Testing Station (now called Idaho National Engineering Laboratory), near Idaho Falls, Idaho. France, Great Britain, Japan, and the Soviet Union subsequently built experimental breeders. Although interest in breeder reactors waned after the 1960s as a result of the discovery of additional uranium reserves, Russia, China, India, and Japan have breeder reactors in operation.

    Note that this, too, is 70 year old technology…

    China and India are pushing forward with breeders due to their having a LOAD of Thorium and not as much Uranium. So they want to breed U233 from Th232 and use that for fuel. Japan is doing it since they don’t have much of anything (other than that “get it from the sea” option). Then Russia? Well, Russia and the USA both want to know what the other might be doing ;-)

    FWIW, you can also design a power reactor that is almost but not quite a positive net breeder. Then, instead of using 1% of the U in the fuel bundle, you can use up 70% of it. So just by shifting to that tech of reactor, our “Uranium Reserves” last 70 times as long…

    From the same article:

    Thermal breeder reactors
    Another type of breeder, the thermal breeder reactor, employs thorium-232 as its basic fuel, or fertile material. It converts this isotope into fissionable uranium-233, which is capable of creating a chain reaction. In the thermal breeder, whose technology is much simpler than that of the liquid-metal fast breeder, ordinary water is employed as a coolant to remove the heat produced by the continuous series of fission reactions.

    An experimental thermal breeder known as the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) employs molten fluoride salt to transfer heat to the turbines. Such reactors do not require fuel rods, and interest in developing the technology has grown in the early 21st century.

    See the pattern now? Shove folks toward the harder more expensive LMFBR and away from the LFTR breeder that has the potential for U233 chemical extraction and quicker and easier path to Boom Stuff… Then don’t talk at all about putting a fuel bundle with Th into a light water reactor…

    Oh Well. China and India are doing it. China has a huge “Rare Earth” minerals processing industry. This has the “waste product” of a LOT of slightly radioactive Thorium salts. So turning that into an energy source (and not a toxic waste) is important to them. India sits on a mountain (literally a real mountain) of Thorium sands, while not having much Uranium at all; so breeding from Thorium is their most important path.

    So at a minimum, both of them will be running Th to U233 breeders and building “a reactor a year”… while The West sucks their thumbs and tilts with windmills…

  30. E.M.Smith says:

    I see that Roger is fixated on “reserves” and has not grasped the point about “resource”. The definition is critical. We DO have 400 years of “economically viable resource”, but only mine the reserves that are profitable at the price of today. When tomorrow the price rises by $1 / ton, more “reserves” will suddenly pop into existence BY DEFINITION of reserves.

    That’s the key fault of any and all papers that talk about when “reserves” will run out.

  31. Ossqss says:

    Soooo, somebody help me read this chart. How do reserves keep going up? :-)

    Quite the long link. LOL

    GIStemp a basic intro.

  32. Ossqss says:

    Well, WordPress seems to have taken over and modified what I posed? WTF?

  33. Roger Sowell says:

    E.M., you got at least part of that correct. Resources are the total quantity on Earth of a given mineral, in this case, coal. As Rutledge carefully explains in his 2011 paper, minable reserves are coal seams 2 feet thick or greater, and no more than 4,000 feet below the surface.

    On that basis, essentially every deep coal mine in UK is now closed.

    You got right the bit about more minable reserves exist when and if, I see you sometimes use IFF, coal sales price increases. Or subsidies are paid the mine owner. In our foreseeable future, coal prices go down, not up.

    The grim reality is the inevitable consequence of coal exhaustion within 40-50 years. That means NO coal mines are operating. So, no coal-fired power plants run, either.

    As a large fraction of electricity is generated worldwide by coal, a viable replacement for coal is required. And, soon. Nuclear will never be that substitute. Professor Derek Abbott’s paper lays out the case against nuclear.

    Maybe one of the geniuses who comment on Chiefio can show how these problems can be avoided. Coal companies will pay handsomely for any profitable method to mine coal for the next 200 years.

    Nuclear licensors and the construction companies likewise will pay for viable, economic ways around Professor Abbott’s long list of roadblocks to nuclear electricity production.

  34. jim2 says:

    R.S. – If the downfall of coal is inevitable anyway, lets burn what we can and let it die a natural death.

  35. jim2 says:

    We in the US have Monazite sand (thorium mineral) on the east coast. Lots of it.

  36. E.M.Smith says:

    @Roger:

    As I mentioned, I’m packing for a trip ATM. In 10 hours (of which I hope to sleep 8) I will be on an airplane; so I can’t put in the time to go through all of this in detail. Right now, I’m going to make an Appeal To Authority claim: I’ve studied this stuff for DECADES since my Econ 136 (IIRC) class that studied “running out” in detail. I’ve spent more years of my life on this than I care to think about.

    We are NOT running out of energy. Period. Not coal, not gas, not oil, not nuclear.

    link: https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/

    A key point is the difference between a “economical resource” and a “reserve”. ANYONE who talks about “reserves” and says we have a limited supply or are running out: is already shouting they are clueless. Fundamentally daft on the topic. Oh, and “resource” is NOT “all on the planet”, it is limited to what we can extract (but does not use price). So there is a lot of Nickel in the ocean but we can’t at present extract it, so it is not in “Nickle resources”.

    Before I explain: There are a BUNCH of ‘terms of art” to describe how much of any given mineral (and oil, gas, coal) exists in the ground and can make you some money. Things iike “estimated resource” and “ultimate resource” and “recoverable reserves”. I am NOT going to cover all of them (as this is not a geology economics class…). I’m going to focus on a very few of them. So grabbing one of the others and chewing on it will NOT get me to engage. That is not a path to understanding, but a path to contention and argumentation for the fun of it. Yes, there are a lot of various terms, and yes, some of them change over time. I’m just going to talk about a couple of basic ones AS I LEARNED THEM at that time.

    Ultimate Recoverable Resource: What you can dig up regardless of price. So, for example, you can suck oil out of a well at $300 / bbl that is unlikely to ever be a profitable item. However, should you wish to have it, you can get it. (Say you wanted to use it as a petrochemical feedstock to make drugs at $1000/oz. You would get it and use it even at a loss to extract it, because the product would more than cover that loss). About 1/3 will stay in the ground no matter how hard your well sucks at it, so is not a “resource”.

    Economic Resource: What you can dig up (or pump) at a price that is likely to be profitable SOME DAY. So, for example, coal looks to be selling at about $107/ton
    https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/coal-price
    but that’s the price TODAY. In 20 years, it is quite possible that you would be able to dig up coal at $120 / ton and sell it, or even $150 / ton especially for making things like Synthesis Gas to make plastics or for feed stock to make drugs. TODAY those uses tend to be met with cheap natural gas, but in the past coal was used ( Kodak still uses coal, BTW) and in the future, since there’s a LOT more coal than gas, coal may be used again. And the profit in synthesis gas and drugs is more than enough to support a coal price of $150 / ton. So that “$150/ton to mine” coal IS a probably future profit center. It is an Economic Resource of future value.

    Now we get to the annoying one of “reserves”. Folks tend to think that “reserves” means “All we have that we can use”. That’s in error. Reserves are “what can I sell TODAY at a profit, given the price TODAY and the technology TODAY”. This term puts MOST of the “economic resource” out of reach and essentially pretends it does not exist. Yet it does.

    Over time, technology improves. Almost ALL of the metals minerals and coal and oil we use today were NOT a reserve a few decades ago. In some cases, the technology improved (flotation concentration for metals ores, tertiary recovery for oil fields). In other cases, the price rose enough to turn a “useless crap uneconomic resource” into a “profitable reserve” ( tar sands & shale oil).

    So one must be VERY careful whenever someone says “we are running out of reserves”…

    I have a book from 1919 stating that we only had 50 years of “oil reserves” and then we run out. And it was right. BUT, what happened was that prices rose, just a little, and more oil was “economically recoverable”. Also, technology advanced and oil that was NOT usable (depth, sour crude, etc.) become a usable, profitable, and valuable reserve over time. Today? Well, we still have “50 years of oil reserves”. It tends to be a constant, since when we use up the “cheap stuff” the price rises a little and we can use the “not quite as cheap” stuff. Also, once Exxon or Shell has 50 years of “reserves” on the books, they STOP SPENDING MONEY on searching for more…

    An interesting example of this is Uranium. When Uranium was selling for $40 / kg there was a PANIC!!! We were Running OUT!!!! of reserves of Uranium. When the price hit $70 / kg, “suddenly” we had so much “reserves” that it was not an issue (in fact, folks were talking about a glut…). Now the amount in the dirt didn’t change. The cost to mine it didn’t change enough to matter. Just the price changed.

    You also see this in gold mining companies. The smart ones have several ore bodies. When gold is $1000 / oz, they mine the crappy one that costs $700/oz to product, and make $300 / oz profit. When gold drops to $600 / oz, that $700 / oz ore body is no longer a “reserve” and they stop mining it, but shift over to their really “rich” $300/oz to produce ore body and, surprise, continue to make $300/oz of profit. Yes, they really do this.

    So ATM, you can make the case that we are “Running Out!!!” of Uranium, since the price is low enough that we don’t have much “reserves”. BUT, we have a gigantic “economic resource”. Japan demonstrated a technology to adsorb U from the ocean onto polymer mats in the Japan Current. The quantity that can be extracted is thousands of years worth of the TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPION of the planet. Now it cost (at that time a couple fo decades ago) about $100 / kg. Which would make many thousands of $$$ of electricity, so it is definintly an economically vialble and profitable source of Uranium. Except, with uranium then selling for $70 / kg from very cheap land sources, it was “not a reserve”… only an “economic resource” when someday we needed it. We do have effectively near infinite Nuclear Fuel in ocean U, and it IS cheap enough to profitably run nuclear reactors on it; but it is not the cheapest supply in the market RIGHT NOW, so is not a “reserve”.

    This condition, BTW, is very common. California has a large deposit of Rare Earth Minerals. It is not a “reserve” right now since China is cheaper. It WAS a reserve in the 1950s. It will again be a reserve in the future when China has a stumble. But now it is just an “economic resource”.

    Similarly, the Carolinas shed millions of tons of Monzanite Sands to their beaches. It reaches all the way to Florida. Not only are these a source of Rare Earth Minerals, but also of a lot of Thorium. Thorium that could economically and profitably power the USA for centuries to come. But it is not a “reserve” since China is a little bit cheaper as a supplier. Should the USA and China have a sactiions war, it would suddenly show up as a massive increase in the “reserves” of US Rare Earth Minerals and Thorium ore. Yet the “resource” would not change.

    With those out of the way, a short look at coal:

    https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/how-much-coal-is-left.php

    How much coal is in the United States?

    The amount of coal that exists in the United States is difficult to estimate because it is buried underground. In 1975, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published the most comprehensive national assessment of U.S. coal resources, which indicated that as of January 1, 1974, coal resources in the United States totaled 4 trillion short tons. Although the USGS has conducted more recent regional assessments of U.S. coal resources, a new national-level assessment of U.S. coal resources has not been conducted.

    The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes three measures of how much coal is left in the United States. The measures are based on various degrees of geologic certainty and on the economic feasibility of mining the coal.

    EIA’s estimates for the amount of coal reserves as of January 1, 2022, by type of reserve are:

    Demonstrated Reserve Base (DRB) is the sum of coal in both measured and indicated resource categories of reliability. The DRB represents 100% of the in-place coal that could be mined commercially at a given time. EIA estimates the DRB at about 471 billion short tons, of which about 69% is underground mineable coal.

    Estimated recoverable reserves include only the coal that can be mined with today’s mining technology after considering accessibility constraints and recovery factors. EIA estimates U.S. recoverable coal reserves at about 251 billion short tons, of which about 58% is underground mineable coal.

    Recoverable reserves at producing mines are the amount of recoverable reserves that coal mining companies report to EIA for their U.S. coal mines that produced more than 25,000 short tons of coal in a year. EIA estimates these reserves at about 12 billion short tons of recoverable reserves, of which 53% is surface mineable coal.
    U.S. reserves of coal by type and mining method as of January 1, 2022

    [chart omitted}

    Based on U.S. coal production in 2021, of about 0.577 billion short tons, the recoverable coal reserves would last about 435 years, and recoverable reserves at producing mines would last about 21 years. The actual number of years that those reserves will last depends on changes in production and reserves estimates.

    See the problem now? We HAVE 435 years of coal, and it all can be produced, but the price would be somewhat higher and we might have to invent some new technology over that 435 years (kind of like we have done in the 200 years of the Industrial Revolution…) and open some more mines… BUT if we just mine in the mines open today and at the price of today, we can do that for 21 years.

    And THAT is the fundamental problem when ANYONE says we are going to run out of RESERVES in FOO years. They are ignoring changes of PRICE and TECHNOLOGY and “ultimate resource”.

    And that is exactly what the paper Roger cites, does, since it talks about “reserves”.

    We have over 400 years of coal resources in the USA alone, and well over 10,000 years of Uranium resources. BUT we will only recognize and produce from that much smaller scrap of it that makes the most profit TODAY using the technology of TODAY at the prices of TODAY. “Mark to market” of a sort… But that’s another econ topic involving how the Government created a market panic in banks in the last century…

    There is no shortage of energy, and there never will be.
    There is no shortage of coal for hundreds of years, just price swings.
    There is a great shortage of unemotional rational thought and care with definitions.

  37. Canadian Friend says:

    That was a long but very interesting read

    and if I am not mistaken… I could google it I guess, after my coffee kicks in … on top of having lot of coal, the US also has an immense quantity of shale that is right there under ground waiting to be used.

    It may cost too much right now to do it, to ” extract” it, and the global warming cult is surely against shale and liberals are surely doing all they can to make sure no one digs for shale, but I am pretty sure I read from more than one source that there is enough shale for a few centuries.

  38. josh from sedona says:

    @canadian friend

    i read the paper from2010, and had pulled up the 2009 there is no energy shortage post (btw, that was the first post i read here, followed the link from “peak oil debunked” on blogspot) and pulled up the eia link ….. i was already to go….

    and EM had already posted everything i was going to…. gotta get up pretty early in the morning to get a jump on him….

    one thing i did like from the paper is that having a better idea of reserves creates a timeline to develop/build out other technologies, but the paper sounded like a scare piece for the ipcc to say we have to go solar now! we’re running out!…. the sky is falling

  39. josh from sedona says:

    @canadian friend

    lotta good content here… all a bunch reality check type stuff to combat FUD
    also where i “met” EM

    https://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/

    JD stopped “beating a deadhorse” a decade ago so maybe the blog is dead, but he left it up for people to find….

  40. Canadian Friend says:

    thanks for the link!

    I like how he ends his article, ( although I think he meant inversely proportional not indirectly proportional )

    ” … JD’s IRON LAW OF MEDIA EVENTS: The probability of any disaster scenario occurring is indirectly proportional to the degree it is hyped by the media/Internet etc. …”

  41. josh from sedona says:

    @ canadian friend
    that was just the last post, you should start with Popular Content
    NEW TO PEAK OIL? SCARED? START HERE: CONFESSIONS OF AN EX-DOOMER… it is the right hand column…. the comments on the 429 post he made are better than the posts themselves sometimes

  42. Canadian Friend says:

    I ll take a look, thanks !

  43. Canadian Friend says:

    I just read it…interesting…but since it was written in 2006 it does not have now – with what we know now – the punch it surely had back then. But it is intersting, definitely.

    Funny thing,
    even though I am not a global warming cultist, an anti-oil or anti-capitalism guy , I agree with him that it is kind of, ok I will not say stupid, I ll say ridiculous and very wastefull to drive a gigantic 5000 LBS SUV to go buy a dozen eggs.

    I am not against large trucks, I am not saying they should be illegal or anything like that, I just think it is strange how vehicles are bigger and bigger every year,
    and the only reason people love those gigantic heavy inneficient vehicles is for the status signaling ( or whatever is the correct expression )

    As I was reading the parts about peak oil, I had a sort of silly thought, I guess we could say the 1800s or early 1900s were the peak horse period.

    More and more things were done with horses and then BAM ! the automobile appeared and replaced horses relatively rapidly, but society did not collapse, it simply did things differently.

    I am more -much more – worried about the crazy people who are in charge ( and by cheating remain in power ) who are doing destructive things such as importing millions of illegals or reducing drastically sentences for criminals, than I am about where our energy will come from.

    If you have seen the videos of angry pro-Hamas crowds ( to give an example of signs of societal collapse ) that were shaking the fences at the White house a couple weeks ago, imagine in 5, 10 or 25 years when that crowd is 5, 10 or 25 larger because we keep importing people who have 3 to 5 times more kids than we do, imagine what it will be like then,

    those crazy things could turn the USA ( and Canada, and France, and England, and Ireland etc ) into a cross between Venezuela and Haiti; poverty, high crime rates, misery, Famine etc etc

  44. josh from sedona says:

    @canadian friend

    “Funny thing,
    even though I am not a global warming cultist, an anti-oil or anti-capitalism guy , I agree with him that it is kind of, ok I will not say stupid, I ll say ridiculous and very wastefull to drive a gigantic 5000 LBS SUV to go buy a dozen eggs.

    ABSOLUTELY AGREE it is stupid, and it is the goverments fault….. when was the last time you saw a “small pick-up”?????? gubermint classed them as passenger cars, and then they couldn’t meet mpg requirements….. see another ian’s post in wood- about the new hilux… gimme a min. ummm uhhhh here
    “First Drive: Toyota’s $10,000 Pickup Truck Is Perfect. So, Why Are We Sad?”

    https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2025-toyota-imv-0-pickup-truck-first-drive-review-japan-mobility-show/

    doesn’t say why we are sad… but it is because it won’t be available in us, ’cause of regulations….SMH

  45. Roger Sowell says:

    E.M., your blog, your right to opine as you like. I am always interested in reading what an academic economics major has to say on any energy topic, since oil, gas, coal, and nuclear were my field for the first 25 years of my career. Typically, and to be expected, your analysis above misses all the crucial points. I won’t delve into all the errors, that would be impolite on another’s blog.

    I will leave it at this: nobody cares how much uranium is extractable, nor from where, when fuel costs are immaterial to decisions to build or not build nuclear plants.

    But, utility companies are keenly aware of the coal shortages, and when; this plays a major role in them not building coal-fired plants in the US. It is stupid to build a plant where the feedstock runs out before the plant’s expected life occurs. The price of coal ($14 per short ton in Wyoming) must decrease substantially before a new coal fired power plant can expect to be profitable in the foreseeable future due to low electricity prices from wind and solar PV.

    As you correctly stated, higher coal prices result in more coal mined at a profit, while the opposite is also true. Coal prices are headed down, not up. There are good reasons so many coal-mining companies filed bankruptcy papers in the past decade.

    But, feel free to hold the opinions you like.

  46. jim2 says:

    R.S. The government is forcing perfectly good coal plants in the US to close. This has nothing to do with running out of coal. There’s no reason to build a coal plant in the US because the Federal government is encouraging shutdown. It’s a government problem.

    The coal industry is doing great selling coal to countries all over the world.

  47. josh from sedona says:

    @Roger “NOT THOMAS” Sowell

    you make several good points, and i agree that we need to develop solar and batteries…. the first cell phone call was made in 1973; but it wasn’t until ’98 that the “digital revolution” started, when mobile phones became affordable-25 years lag….i remember paying 2.56 per minute to call a girl in spain in ’97….fast forward 25y and we have smart phone that can video call a person on the other side of the world for the same price as next door…. it takes funding to develop tech. so you need to sell it… tesla is just barely 20yo, imagine another 30ys?

    I have to confess something though, I have an ulterior motive. we NEED autonomous ev’s, solar, and batterries on MARS, they are the best option there, on earth? maybe not so much… but they have to be developed here… so how do you encourage people to adopt them? the spectre of globull warming and peak coal/oil???? good sticks; subsidies, inflated fuel efficency numbers, etc? maybe not bad carrots, raise the price of fuel? grid instability? better have you own solar panels and batteries….

    another ian says:
    21 January 2024 at 1:07 am
    FWIW

    “The Electric-Vehicle Cheating Scandal
    A government rule makes them look nearly seven times as efficient as they are.”

    https://archive.is/WnsxW#selection-4307.0-4311.78

    i could go on, but i risk giving away the plot of my psy-fi novel…

    so i did read the paper you linked, and rutledge is citing ipcc numbers and admittedly cherry picking data, as it was published in 2010 and just 1 phd’s opinion(essentialy) i would love to review some other sources that state coal is running out faster than expected… maybe a lil bit more up to date.

    but i do agree with some stuff, because of physical limitations, large hydro isn’t an answer, and because of political/societal pressures, nuclear and coal aren’t viable either. so solar and batteries….

    I found it a very interesting coinqu-a-dink that rutledge/ipcc gave a deadlines of 2070 ….. fits the timeline of my novel almost perfectly

    I really need to put on my alu-min-ium foil hat…. my novel is seeming way to realistic :-)

  48. Canadian Friend says:

    ” … There are good reasons so many coal-mining companies filed bankruptcy papers in the past decade. …”

    I don t know much about coal, but I know that Obama and Biden are at war with coal, and it is not imagination, I have seen videos where they openly say it.

    That has got to be a factor why so many are going bankrupt…it may not be the only factor, but I don t think it can be ignored either that democrats are doing all they can to kill the coal industry.

  49. josh from sedona says:

    @RS

    The price of coal ($14 per short ton in Wyoming) must decrease substantially before a new coal fired power plant can expect to be profitable in the foreseeable future due to low electricity prices from wind and solar PV.

    this sounds like an economic limit? not physical resource depletion?

    could you clarify?

  50. josh from sedona says:

    FWIW… these guys do an ok job of defining some of the hurdles green energy has to overcome….. but like the thing with the cell phone,25+ys of development, and you should have something pretty great….

  51. josh from sedona says:

    @canadian friend
    check this out…. oil production is even higher under biden than the trump peak; after biden promised to kill oil….

    https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=M

  52. The True Nolan says:

    @Keith Macdonald: “Build it, then build a Farady Cage as well, to protect it before “the big event”. What it would be good for (after the event) is a seperate topic.”

    A Pi would be marvelous for reading that library of 100,000 books you stored on a small thumb drive. Might be one or two useful bits of information in there.

  53. Canadian Friend says:

    I knew about the oil production thing

    … but I would not be surprised if it was not even entirely true, maybe they are counting in a new different way to make it look good…they did that with jobs, unemployment and inflation , by twisting things a certain way they came up with good numbers …cheating is how liberals do everything

    Also Biden has depleted strategic petrol reserves to the lowest in decades…his left hand is depleting strategic receserves while his right hand is increasing production…so how much of a real increase is it in the end

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/10/strategic-petroleum-reserve-near-historic-lows-biden-drained/

    Biden also said a couple days ago he would stop illegals from coming ( He will say anything for votes anything !!!…)

    and he is gonna pay $ 5 Billion of students loans ( that he will probably do, as it will buy him votes )

    all of those things are only because there is an election coming,

    they will not last…

    if they are even true…

  54. josh from sedona says:

    @roger sowell
    imho, if you avoid ad hominin attacks you are more than welcome to eviscerate the argument with facts and figures, citing sources, provide links…. (pics or it didn’t happen bro!) in 15 years i have yet to see EM throw some one out because they have a different opinion…using logic and reason to find the truth, and leaving emotion on the wayside in favor of good data is kinda the raison d’etre here

  55. E.M.Smith says:

    @Josh:

    Basically, yeah. I don’t care if someone has different beliefs (though I will try to lead them to where clean data and logic go…); but “insults to the person” are not accepted.

    I’ve tossed out exactly ONE person over the years. He just could not stop tossing rocks at people. There have been a couple who left on their own due to some perceived offense (that was not there).

    For whatever reason, most people seem to have an immutable behaviour of attributing to Emotional Response or “attitude” that which is a logic syllogism or a basic statement of facts. So if someone says “the moon is made of cheese” and you point to a moon rock analysis saying it is just a rock, they take offense at the ‘attack’. Never understood that one… but it is.

    So per Roger: He has not gone so far as to be insulting anyone. Just politely (if a bit riddled with snideitude) asserted I am in error and he is possessed of superior skill. OK, a kind of an “insult by assertion of superiority”, but one I don’t feel slighted by as I am equally certain my information base, skill base, and understanding is superior to his.

    Really, the only difference between our two behaviours is that I typically just doggedly keep pointing the person at formal sources, post the data, and try to connect the dots (and avoid the snide remarks of personal aggrandizement, generally, but even there not always…). I will sometimes “Be the mirror” and reflect their “style” back at them, which can annoy some folks (especially the slow learners) and I’ll likely do that here as the sniditude is a but annoying. But some of that is my fault for not taking the time to do a complete and overwhelming exposition, which I can’t do at the moment. Oh Well, reality sucks sometimes.

    The only real negative, from my POV, out of the whole thing is that now I have about 20 hours of “work” to do to make a giant posting about coal economics to make my case, that I do not have the time to do. I’m working out of State for the next 1/2 week or so. But we’ll see what I can do to “correct the errors” Roger makes. It may have to come in “bits & pieces”, and that usually causes folks to end up in a “Yest BUT!!!” cycle of protests that “I’ve forgotten something” (that either they have wrong, or was just not in that part of the exposition and is en queue…) and delays the understanding of the whole.

    Oh Well. Life of a blog operator and all that ;-)

  56. josh from sedona says:

    @EM
    …. I posted a link to POD, they covered the whole resource depletion thing pretty well.
    I was initially very worried about the imminent doom from peak oil, and decided to investigate, doing due diligence I listened to both sides; the sceptics made more sense, so I changed my mind.

  57. E.M.Smith says:

    @Roger:

    First, a reminder: “It isn’t about me”. It almost never is. It is only about basic demonstrable facts, and how they can be shown to interact. It isn’t my “opinion”, it is how things connect in the real world. Unfortunately, in the field of economics, many things actually act contrary to what is popularly believed and most often reality is very contrary to what is politically desired; so getting folks to see that reality can be hard.

    So I’m going to give it another try on coal economics. But it will come in “bits and pieces” as time permits when working and living “on the road”. Please bear with.

    E.M., your blog, your right to opine as you like. I am always interested in reading what an academic economics major has to say on any energy topic, since oil, gas, coal, and nuclear were my field for the first 25 years of my career.

    Thank you for giving me your “permission” to have opinions… so nice of you to “bestow” that… But I’m not really an academic. Yes, I have taught at college level, but it was computers / technical not Econ. Though I did study the economics of energy, minerals, resources, etc. as a specific area at University. Meadows et.al. “The Limits To Growth” set the stage for most of the “Running Out!!!” panic of the ’70s to today. It is seriously flawed and was largely written for political advantage of The Greens. The reality is we are not “running out”. The basic reasons are:

    1) What is a resource depends on human ingenuity, and that is unlimited. As pointed out above, we did not run out of horsepower via horses. Also note that the Stone Age did not end for lack of stones.

    2) As I’ve explained a couple of times above AND in the link provided (but you seem to have ignored): What is an ECONOMICAL RESOURCE is not the same as a RESERVE. The “Reserves” vary with the price and are ONLY a price driven concept. The actual resources we can use are typically much much greater, and will be used when the price rises (sometimes just a little bit). So anyone who says “We are Running Out!!!! of reserves” is fundamentally WRONG and often an idiot. (See Meadows et.al who, by their book & assertion had us run out of almost everything by now, including NO remaining natural gas in 10 years… after 1970… which clearly didn’t happen.)

    3) The more the price rises, the more you can extract a “scarce resource” from ever more diffuse sources. This inevitably increases the reserves, sometimes exponentially. Let’s take copper as an example. Originally we found this as native copper on the surface. Very little of that and our “reserves” were near zero. Then we learned how to get it from nearly pure copper ore. “Reserves” expanded a lot to include deposits of those ores of “almost all copper minerals”. As those were exhausted, we learned how to extract copper from more dilute ores, and now even down to ores with parts per million of copper. There isn’t much copper as pure native copper. There’s a lot more as pure copper compounds in ores. The amount of available copper increases exponentially with each stop to more dilute ores. As you get to using float concentration and heap leach extraction to get out the PPM ore metal content, another exponential increase in “reserves” happens. Similarly gold, silver, and other metals. With oil, the same thing happens. Oil seeps were first, then shallow wells. Now we are drilling miles deep wells at sea. Each layer of depth finding ever more recoverable oil. We also now economically extract oil from shale and tar sands; and another giant expansion of “reserves” happened. Canada Tar Sands are gigantic, and the Venezuelan “heavy sour” that once was “useless” is now a major “reserve”. The same thing happens with coal. One example:

    https://www.worldcoal.com/coal/31032014/coal_discovered_in_north_sea_674/

    Huge coal deposits discovered in North Sea
    World Coal, Monday, 31 March 2014 16:45

    Scientists have discovered large coal deposits under the North Sea that could power Britain for hundreds of years.

    North Sea coal
    “We think there are between three trillion and 23 trillion tonnes of coal buried under the North Sea,” explained Dermot Roddy, former professor of energy at Newcastle University.

    “This is thousands of times greater than all the oil and gas we have taken out so far, which totals around six billion tonnes. If we could extract just a few per cent of that coal it would be enough to power the UK for decades or centuries.”

    Offshore oil and gas
    Data from seismic tests and boreholes shows that the North Sea seabed contains up to 20 layers of coal, most of which can be reached with the technology already in place to extract offshore oil and gas.

    Roddy, who is now chief technical officer at energy company Five Quarter Energy Holdings, will be leading the billion pound exploration and extraction project to reach the untapped coal reserves under the North Sea. Plans to sink the first boreholes by the end of 2014 will be revealed at a conference held by the Royal Academy of Engineering in London.

    Tynemouth drilling

    The plan is for a rig offshore Tynemouth to begin vertical boring hundreds of metres down, before taking a horizontal direction out to sea, reaching an estimated two billion tonnes of coal just off the coast.

    Between three and 23 trillion tonnes lie further out to sea. Roddy explained: “We’ve been aware of this for a long time but the fact that there’s a lot of coal doesn’t really matter if there’s no way of getting at it.”

    And, as long as other coal is dirt cheap to mine, nobody will spend the time, money or effort to “figure it out”, but IFF coal ever rises in price, they will, and those trillions of tons of “Economic Resource” will become “reserves”.

    BTW, one known way is in place gassification to make synthesis gas, producer gas, or or similar fuel gasses. There are others as the article notes.

    We are NOT running out of coal. At All. there’s vast amounts of it we can mine at affordable costs. But we don’t as long as other coal is cheaper and is enough to meet demands for coal. We also don’t mine it due to market distortions BY GOVERNMENT INTERVENTIONS. Like, oh, banning it or banning the use of it, OR requiring that Solar Power get first dibs on the market forcing coal plants to close for the day and making them 2 x as costly to run and using much less coal driving down the price paid for coal… Lower prices for coal indicate more supply than demand, that is the opposite of “running out of coal”. Lower supply than demand causes prices to rise…

    Typically, and to be expected, your analysis above misses all the crucial points.

    Your sniditude does not improve your appearance. You might try just an enumeration of points you believe are in error (but are most likely just being rejected due to prior predjudice). Note: See, I can be snide too. “Be the mirror” and all… think on that… and the low value of being snide and snippy.

    I won’t delve into all the errors, that would be impolite on another’s blog.

    Bald assertion of unstated “errors”: Value of statement, zero. Information content of statement ZERO. Usefulness of statement ZERO. Sniditude content? 100%

    I will leave it at this: nobody cares how much uranium is extractable, nor from where, when fuel costs are immaterial to decisions to build or not build nuclear plants.

    This is in error. You asserted we were “Running out!!!” of coal. I showed we are not, and then also showed, as a teaching example, how the process of “reserves” vs “resource” works with the Uranium example as the more extreme one (so easier to grasp – which you apparently did not…)

    LOTS of folks care how much “economic resource” exists as it is the actual amount of a material available to you. It determines in many cases the value of developing new technologies or new markets. It also puts the lie to assertions of “running out of reserves” – which you did not want to hear so just ignored reality. (see, I can do the subtle “insult by asserting stupidity” thing too. The value is zero, but just wanted you to see that knife can cut both ways… so maybe don’t use it, eh?)

    China, India, and dozens of other countries ARE building more nuclear plants. Huge numbers of them. So clearly they care about from where their fuel will come.

    They know that they have centuries of cheap fuel for cheap nuclear power. So they are using it. “We” are building stupid, hard to manage, and expensive unreliable Wind & Solar due to political machinations to make $Millionaire Senators & Donor Class while falling in line with the WEF takeover of The West. Demonstrating that fact matters, and folks do care about it.

    But, utility companies are keenly aware of the coal shortages, and when; this plays a major role in them not building coal-fired plants in the US. It is stupid to build a plant where the feedstock runs out before the plant’s expected life occurs. The price of coal ($14 per short ton in Wyoming) must decrease substantially before a new coal fired power plant can expect to be profitable in the foreseeable future due to low electricity prices from wind and solar PV.

    Just so wrong. There is NO coal shortage. There is a glut. You can see this from the downward slope of coal prices over the years. Then citing the most dirt cheap Wyoming pit mine coal price to justify the assertion of a shortage? Did you not do ANY homework? It can cost more to SHIP the Wyoming coal than to mine it! Please read this (and understand it…) before making that embarrassing assertion again.

    https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/prices-and-outlook.php

    The average annual sale prices of coal at mines by main rank of coal in 2021, in dollars per short ton (2,000 pounds) were:
    bituminous
    $61.28
    subbituminous
    $14.18
    lignite
    $20.10
    anthracite
    $107.08

    So Wyoming produces a nice cheap coal at one of the lowest prices out there. It is a better fuel than lignite (common in Texas and used for power there due to low shipping costs); but is far far away from power sucking cities. So sells cheap.

    So cheap that in many cases a power plant was built at the mine site and the electricity was moved over wires as that was cheaper than hauling the coal. This was a great solution until The Government Regulations said the day / night cycle of solar had to be met with cycling the coal and gas plants to accommodate it, moving the inefficiencies of solar onto the coal and gas plants and raising their costs while reducing their revenues. Also forcing a cut in coal demand during the daytime and forcing the mines to run inefficiently too.

    None of those cost increases was due to a “shortage of coal” but due to an excess of mandated and subsidized solar and wind.

    Coal prices at surface mines are generally lower than prices at underground mines. In locations where coal beds are thick and near the surface, such as in Wyoming, mining costs and coal prices tend to be lower than in locations where the beds are thinner and deeper, such as in Appalachia. The higher cost of coal from underground mines reflects the more difficult mining conditions and the need for more miners.

    PRICE is more about quality of coal, method of mining, and transportation costs. Not supply of coal available.

    Coal transportation costs can be significant

    Once coal is mined, it must be transported to consumers. Transportation costs add to the delivered price of coal. In some cases, such as in long-distance shipments of Wyoming subbituminous coal to power plants in the eastern United States, transportation costs are more than the price of coal at the mine.

    Most coal is transported by train, barge, truck, or a combination of these modes. All of these transportation modes use diesel fuel. Increases in oil and diesel fuel prices can significantly affect the cost of transportation, which affects the final delivered price of coal.

    In 2021, the national average sales price of coal (excluding anthracite) at coal mines was $31.99 per short ton
    , and the average delivered price of all coal delivered to the electric power sector was $37.32 per short ton. The difference is an average transportation cost of $5.33 per short ton, or about 14% of the average delivered price to the electric power sector.

    So you can see that the price of mined coal in Wyoming does NOT need to drop, as you asserted. It is already cheaper than the average (about $32/ton) by a lot and power plants are paying a lot higher prices than Wyoming coal due to it being far far away without cheap shipping options (river barge, slurry pipelines).

    None of which says much about how much coal we have that can be mined at a decent price. The question was about “Running Out!!!” of coal, and we are not, we have it to excess and at dirt cheap prices. So cheap, that shipping it costs more than mining it.

    As you correctly stated, higher coal prices result in more coal mined at a profit, while the opposite is also true. Coal prices are headed down, not up. There are good reasons so many coal-mining companies filed bankruptcy papers in the past decade.

    Here you come close to “getting it”, then wiff the ball at the end.

    Coal prices going DOWN is the reason “reserves” are “shrinking”. The resource is still there and still available and we can use if for hundreds of years more: BUT due to shrinking demand (due to Government Intervention with subsidy of solar and wind and ‘use coal and gas to adapt to the Duck Curve’ raising their costs of running coal power plants AND saying the Government wants to put them out of business…) the “reserves” decrease with every decrease in demand and price.

    The coal mine bankruptcies are NOT due to lack of coal. They are due to Government Intervention In The Market.

    But, feel free to hold the opinions you like.

    Thank you for your permission to use my brain and think, don’t know what I would do without it… but note: These are not “opinions” and they are not held because it is something I “like”. There are facts, mechanisms, and results. I may not like any of them but “reality just is -E.M.S.” so I deal with reality. You are, of course, welcome to do the opposite as you like… (getting tired of the snark; yet? Think about how others see that in you… Just “being the mirror” here in the hopes you will see the light…)

    There’s a lot more in that coal economics link, but I have to get ready for work now.

    I’ll just point again at this link:

    https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/how-much-coal-is-left.php

    And ask that you scroll down to see the graph of recoverable reserves vs reserves at present mines. Notice “recoverable reserves” is much much larger than the bare sliver of current mines. 250 BILLION tons vs about 10 Billion (though it is hard to read, being so low). So current mines have about 25 times as much coal available as they are currently working. Nobody is running out of coal to mine… and about 430 Billion tons of “demonstrated reserve base” to develop whenever the time comes.

    Most of that coal has no mine anywhere near it. Why is pretty simple. Why go spending money to build a mine in Iowa or Kansas when there isn’t much need for it in the corn fields? It IS still there and it IS available, it is just a lot cheaper to mine closer to the demand and avoid the shipping costs.

    The scale of coal available is vast, covering a gigantic part of the USA. But not mined at present due largely to current government interventions in markets and transportation costs for coal farther from electrical generation plants (who use something like 92% of mined coal). So coal mines closest to electric demand locations are used, those deposits a bit further away are left “for another day”. Those far far away are left for another decade, or century.

    And just a reminder: Dropping coal prices do not mean we are “running out!!!” of coal. The opposite is true. They indicate dropping demand for coal and excess of supply; and that is largely due to Government Mandates for Solar and wind.

    More when I get a chance, IF I need to provide it.

  58. josh from sedona says:

    @EM
    if you haven’t, i’d suggest reading the paper cited…. might save some time.

    Click to access DavidRutledgeCoalGeology.pdf

  59. josh from sedona says:

    here’s the abstract

    An estimate for world coal production in the long run would be helpful for developing policies for alternative
    energy sources and for climate change. This production has often been estimated from reserves that are
    calculated from measurements of coal seams. We show that where the estimates based on reserves can be
    tested in mature coal regions, they have been too high, and that more accurate estimates can be made by
    curve fits to the production history. These curve fits indicate that total world production, including past and
    future production, will be 680 Gt. The historical range for these fits made on an annual basis from 1995 to
    2009 is 653 Gt to 749 Gt, 14% in percentage terms. The curve fits also indicate that 90% of the total production
    will have taken place by 2070. This gives the time scale for considering alternatives. This estimate for total
    production is somewhat less than the current reserves plus cumulative production, 1163 Gt, and very much
    less than the amount of coal that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, assumes is
    available for its scenarios. The maximum cumulative coal production through 2100 in an IPCC scenario is
    3500 Gt.
    © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserve

    …basically it sounds like 1 phd at caltech thinks the IPCC is being too conservative, and we need to panic now ;-)

  60. E.M.Smith says:

    @Josh:

    THE basic problem is the repeated reference to “reserves”. If nothing else gets through to folks, I hope it is the understanding that “reserves” is not an absolute physical quantity. It is a variable based on price. And do note that price is also a variable based on demand and technology available that is also variable over time.

    So here we have an opinion piece by one Ph.D. (as you pointed out) that is looking at a variable based on another variable based on a third variable; and from that wants to predict an actual physical quantity available to use without allowing for the variables changing. Fundamentally flawed.

    So yes, I could go through and look to nit-pick specific assumptions and sources of data and methodology and… and all of that is a complete waste of time when the fundamental assumptions, variables, and mechanisms are “all wrong” from the start.

    Fitting “future production” based on “past production” without consideration of past prices vs future prices and past technology vs expected future technology is just dumb.

    It is the same kind of crap that makes “Limits To Growth” a piece of trash scare mongering. By their “reasoning” there are zero whales alive today, there is no natural gas left in the world, we have run out of most key metals, and oil was gone a few years ago. They made those claims / predictions (that they insist are somehow OK if you call them “projections” instead…) and they were 100% wrong.

    All from looking in the rear view mirror to predict the future “reserves”. Sigh.

    FWIW, I’ve been fighting with the ignorance around this issue (reserves vs resource) since about 1973; so I don’t think anything is going to “save some time” ;-)

    There are people who hear “we have 10 years of reserves” and love to panic, so they do. Nothing much will get them to let go of their desired panic feelings, and attempts to get them to think instead of feel usually fail too. Especially on anything technical.

    Part of the beauty of markets is that actual reality keeps the supply coming. The failure of central planners is that they respond to such emotional pleas, fear and panic (plus greed of certain politicians to make money off the panic…) and often create the thing they feared.

    Oh Well.

    Oh, and The Left seems way more emotion driven than the rest of us, and also can’t handle dynamic models well. They can grasp “Bucket of reserves is 10, use is 2 a year and we have none in 5 years.” So 4th grade math they can handle. “Reserves is variable with price and the recoverable resource is 10,000 so no panic”, suddenly they can’t handle…

  61. Simon Derricutt says:

    For nuclear power stations of existing designs, around 3-5% of the available energy in the fuel gets extracted before the fuel is changed, and the waste (with around 95% of energy remaining) is either dumped (in the USA) or reprocessed to remove the unwanted isotopes (Europe and others) to make new fuel with a small addition of new material. Despite this, the fuel cost of the power produced is only around 5% of the total cost of producing the power. Most of the cost of nuclear power goes into paying back the loans to build it, and those costs are way higher than the engineering cost of building the plant because the regulatory burden is so high. It takes far longer to get the permissions to build than it does to actually build, and the regulations can change during the process thus extending the time before you start the site-work.

    Of course, it’s basically a good idea to build safe nuclear power. You do that by spending a lot of effort on the design, but once you’ve done that then you should build lots to that design, whereas what tends to happen is that someone wants to leave a legacy of building the largest plant in the world so that design effort goes into building one unit, which normally also runs over time and budget because unexpected problems turn up during build of the new design. See Hinkley C.

    Molten salt reactors instead can get most of the energy out of the fuel, with the bonus that the waste will be safer than the original ores in a century or so. The original Oak Ridge molten-salt reactor ran from when I was 5 to when I was 9 IIRC, and materials science has come a long way since then. Currently there’s a project to build them from Silicon Carbide, with around 100kW thermal or so, and these should be pretty cheap, safe, and reliable, as well as being mass-produced and easy to install and run. See what happens here – there are always claims that don’t pan out.

    Not a lot of point in going over what EM has already written, since he’s covered the supply/demand and the difference between how much stuff there is versus how much of it can be produced for a profit at current prices, thus that if you’re prepared to pay more for it the amount that can be produced at a profit rises and we don’t really know the real limits of what’s there.

    One of the claims is that wind and solar power are cheaper than fossil fuels. However, bids for new wind-farms at a guaranteed price per MWh in the UK had no takers and the price offered needs to rise (both build costs and maintenance costs are higher than originally expected). Solar power is gradually reducing in cost to produce per MWh, though if you want power 24/7/365 you need some dispatchable power to back it up too which puts the cost to the final customer up. If you can live with intermittent power that is only available when the weather is right, and doesn’t deliver during Dunkelflautes, then wind and solar can deliver cheap energy over a year based on the MWh cost, but what do you do when it’s not available? It’s instructive to look at the spot price of electricity during shortages, where the price goes way up into the thousands of dollars per MWh. Net result is that the more wind and solar you have on a grid, the higher the end-customer cost because of the extremely high cost of covering the times that they aren’t delivering and you need to use alternatives that sit idle most of the time but still need to be bought and maintained for the times they will be needed to avoid a grid blackout.

    There’s no shortage of fuel, even though problems occurred when the use of Russian sources was discouraged and the other suppliers couldn’t immediately increase their output. That produced price rises and shortages. Over time, that situation would normalise if allowed to. Thus why do we need to change over to renewables in the first place. See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/20/climate-driven-noble-cause-corruption-goes-way-back/ for a recent post there, though EM has covered that problem with adjustment of historical world temperature datasets a long time back. It is scientifically indefensible to “correct” data that doesn’t match the current theory, yet that is what has been done. Also, if you change the number and locations of the weather stations in a dataset, it is indefensible to then compare the datasets before and after the change and pretend that they are measuring the same thing. They aren’t. If you change the method of measurement, then that also invalidates a direct comparison. There’s a whole lot of cans of worms in the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis and the data used to back it.

    That’s not to say that burning oil and coal is a good thing, though we can now burn them without producing pollution. If we want heat, nuclear would be better, with less mining to do for the same quantity of energy. There may be better ways still to get the energy (we’re working on that), but our civilisation requires power 24/7/365 and thus weather-dependent generation is not a good idea. Is the increase in atmospheric CO2 because we’re burning fossil fuels, or because the ocean surface temperature has risen over the last 70 years or so and thus it’s outgassing dissolved CO2? We don’t know for sure why the temperature has risen, but in the deep past the temperatures always rose before the CO2 rose which implies that the temperature is causal to the CO2 changes, not the other way round.

    Thus looks like all that money being spent on renewables will make no measurable difference to the weather. Personally, I think the climate in1850 wasn’t ideal anyway, and a bit warmer is better for humans, and such warm periods have been times when civilisations flourished. Note also that the ice-caps on Mars have shrunk a bit over the last 70 years, too, and it’s amazing what the CO2 concentration on Earth can do.

  62. josh from sedona says:

    @simon
    well said and nice link….

  63. josh from sedona says:

    so, not the original article i saw, but references the same paper…. IIRC “a little bit more” was 110% of anthropogenic co2 emissions, or a 10% increase

    The world’s deadwood currently stores 73 billion tonnes of carbon. Our new research in Nature has, for the first time, calculated that 10.9 billion tonnes of this (around 15%) is released into the atmosphere and soil each year — a little more than the world’s emissions from burning fossil fuels.

    https://theconversation.com/decaying-forest-wood-releases-a-whopping-10-9-billion-tonnes-of-carbon-each-year-this-will-increase-under-climate-change-164406

    ….so my question is….. why not turn some of it into bio-char?

    https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/SS626

    “I’m not a smart man jenny…but I do know what bs smells like” -to paraphrase forrest gump

    IFFF co2 really is such a big deal, why not do something about it that makes sense?
    a. it isn’t…..

  64. josh from sedona says:

    oops, need to reread how to do blockquote….mea culpa

  65. E.M.Smith says:

    Josh:

    BTW, I have read it. The problems with it are numerous and would take days to properly demonstrate. A few of the biggest ones:

    There are a couple of definitions of “reserves” used, and he just throws away any ‘resources’ that do not fit the definition he likes. He does not address the point that reserves are based on PRICE.

    Notice that he used the UK as an example. He ignores the reality of “shipping coal to Newcastle” that became a running joke when USA cheap coal started to cripple the UK market.

    He ignores the HUGE global shifts in energy supply and manufacturing consumption. In particular, the shift of trains and ships from coal to oil, and the movement of manufacturing (so steel and electricity demand) first to post W.W.II USA (when our coal demand rose) and now to China (as their demand and production is spiking).

    Then, he attributes the reduction of production to reduced ability to mine, instead of to reduced demand from industry changes (and then reduced price for local coal causing “reserves” to drop as is to be expected. For example, $40/ton to mine coal becomes “worthless” when price drops to $32 / ton… ) He then treats this reduction in “reserves” as a real inability to mine instead of what it is, a change of price paid to mine.

    Then comes The Usual “fit a math model to the data and claim it is RUNNING OUT!!!”. First pioneered in Meadows et. al. and now he updates it to use a Logistics Model instead of a simple linear model. All without any consideration of the actual underlying realities. Doomed to fail the same way and for the same reasons.

    Yet the coal is still there, still available at a reasonable cost, and still enough for hundreds of years.

    He does note that almost all coal is used locally, but does not grasp that as industry moves from the UK to the USA and then from the USA / EU to China, coal mining moves with it. He fails to appreciate Resource Substitution as global OIL production displaces coal in motor use, heating uses, “petro”chemical production and more. Most “petro” chemicals were first made from coal, then from oil, and now from natural gas (via ‘producer gas’ or ‘synthesis gas). The coal did not run out, but it became more convenient to use an easier to handle feedstock.

    But hey, he got to use the Cool Kids words of “logit” and “probit” in HIS math model of “Running OUT!!!!” so got Gang Green Points for that…

    Yet the coal is still there, still waiting to be used should we ever need it or want to use it.

  66. josh from sedona says:

    @EM
    yeah…..
    roger’s initial invitation was to dispute the paper he linked…. i think you did that.
    I thought it was crap, rutledge decided to move the goalposts because the I.P.P.C numbers didn’t suit his thesis…. i mean seriously ippc is too generous??????
    so he went with 30% percent of ipcc estimates?????

    …that’s what i meant “save some time” why even bother to dispute the “national enquirer”?

  67. josh from sedona says:

    so, not the original article i saw, but references the same paper…. IIRC “a little bit more” was 110% of anthropogenic co2 emissions, or a 10% increase

    The world’s deadwood currently stores 73 billion tonnes of carbon. Our new research in Nature has, for the first time, calculated that 10.9 billion tonnes of this (around 15%) is released into the atmosphere and soil each year — a little more than the world’s emissions from burning fossil fuels.

    https://theconversation.com/decaying-forest-wood-releases-a-whopping-10-9-billion-tonnes-of-carbon-each-year-this-will-increase-under-climate-change-164406

    ….so my question is….. why not turn some of it into bio-char?

    https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/SS626

    “I’m not a smart man jenny…but I do know what bs smells like” -to paraphrase forrest gump

    IFFF co2 really is such a big deal, why not do something about it that makes sense?
    a. it isn’t…..

  68. josh from sedona says:

    testing,testing,testing 1 2

    here’s the abstract

    An estimate for world coal production in the long run would be helpful for developing policies for alternative
    energy sources and for climate change. This production has often been estimated from reserves that are
    calculated from measurements of coal seams. We show that where the estimates based on reserves can be
    tested in mature coal regions, they have been too high, and that more accurate estimates can be made by
    curve fits to the production history. These curve fits indicate that total world production, including past and
    future production, will be 680 Gt. The historical range for these fits made on an annual basis from 1995 to
    2009 is 653 Gt to 749 Gt, 14% in percentage terms. The curve fits also indicate that 90% of the total production
    will have taken place by 2070. This gives the time scale for considering alternatives. This estimate for total
    production is somewhat less than the current reserves plus cumulative production, 1163 Gt, and very much
    less than the amount of coal that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, assumes is
    available for its scenarios. The maximum cumulative coal production through 2100 in an IPCC scenario is
    3500 Gt.
    © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserve

    …basically it sounds like 1 phd at caltech thinks the IPCC is being too conservative, and we need to panic now ;-)

  69. josh from sedona says:

    @all
    sorry for the mess, but i’m getting it….

  70. Keith Macdonald says:

    @EM
    Re Newcastle and the UK as an example.

    Only last night I watched an episode of the BBC series “Great Railway Journeys”. By chance, this episode featured coal mining in the north-east of England. That was the first surprise (coal mining even getting a mention on the BBC). The second surprise was the interviewed local-expert saying that despite coal being mined intensively in the area for about 300 years, there was still about 75% of it underground and untouched.

    Coal mining in the UK started declining after 1945 when government investment had other priorities and cheaper sources were found abroad (like Poland and Russia). The final push-over-the-cliff came when unions went on strike in 1984. Previous strikes against earlier UK governments had held the country to ransom to stop pit closures and raise wages. But this time, Margaret Thatcher was in charge, famously combatative (see The Falklands), and “the environment” was used as an extra excuse alongside production costs and many pits being uneconomic.

    Now long enough ago to be part of the curriculum for English school history lessons.
    Here’s one version of the history according to the BBC
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zv8gdnb#z428mbk
    and another
    https://www.history.co.uk/article/how-thatcher-broke-the-miners-strike-but-at-what-cost.
    Not much taught in schools as an example of how deindustrialisation destroyed many communities in the North and Midlands of England.

    Ironically, of course, Newcastle (in Australia) still exports huge volumes of coal to China.

  71. Keith Macd, I was in UK mid 1980’s trying to interest the Blue Circle cement group to buy Australian coal. They had a large works at Northfleet where there was a large wharf that handled coal for the Northfleet power station. We could have landed coal in 60,000t Panama size ships at half the price the works was receiving coal by rail from the NCB. What did the brilliant directors due? They twisted the arm of the peers on the NCB and got a reduction of the price by 10-15% with an excuse that they were saving employment in the mines and the railways. Not long afterwards Blue Circle got into financial problems and sold off their interests in cement around the world and in UK. I think in USA CemMex was one of the buyers. In UK some works were privatised, some sold and others closed for Real Estate. UK now imports cement. Margaret Thatcher was very good for UK but the Tories that wanted her out were corrupt.
    BTW In Australia have have some pride that I actually sold coal to Newcastle in a tender for a state government contract.

  72. Canadian Friend says:

    Not really off topic and ,well, quite amusing,

    In google search results for ” suspension of Habeas Corpus” they gave me a Quora page, where I was able to read a few opinions even though I do not have a Quora account.

    and the following guy ( I will not post his name, just initails GW ) who apparently has had some of his articles published at Huffington post and a few other liberal media, posted the following comment which obviously is aimed at Trump and was written years ago ( not being a Quora member I cannot see the date )

    it is amusing because the guy – liberal, Trump hater – is wrong on almost everything!
    so wrong on everything, I could not stop laughing when I read his comment!

    here it is, without the first few paragraph describing habeas corpus and why it might be suspended, such as “invasion” and with my comments in double ((parenthesis))

    ” … The problem is that the Constitution doesn’t have an clear definition for what constitutes a “rebellion or invasion”. It may seem like that should be obvious, but someone looking for a loophole could find a lot of wiggle room.
    If there’s a serious and significant spate of civil unrest, which involves at least some violence, could that be considered a rebellion? If we have the kind of riots that the US saw in 1965, or 1967, or 1992 could an overzealous or power-hungry president declare that a rebellion? (( Fail#1 ; January 6 protests were wrongfully declared an insurrection by an over zealous and power hungry Biden and his Democrats, while the summer of 2020 where leftist set cities on fire were not declared any of that by Trump ))

    By the same token, anti-immigrationists have been declaring migrant caravans to constitute an invasion for many years. What if the president started locking up both those migrants and everyone who supported them, without charges or access to counsel?(( Fail #2 ; Biden and Democrats have been doing EXACTLY that to both Jan6 non-insurrectionists, and to anyone who tried to help Trump prove the 2020 election was rigged …Trump did none of that to the ultra violent BLM-Antifas of the summer of 2020)) He could argue that his duty was to protect the nation against invasions, and that required extraordinary measures.(( Fail #3; although not to stop an invasion, extraordinary measures have been taken by Biden to imprison innocent people, Trump never did ANY of that ))

    In any of these cases, we’d rely on the Supreme Court to smack down such creative interpretations. (( fail #4 and #5 ; Supreme court a few days ago agreed with crazy Biden + the crazy interpretations are all Biden’s and his flying monkeys, not Trump’s )) But if the President managed to pack the court with sufficiently friendly and loyal judges, it’s not hard to imagine that he could get away with it. (( Fail #6 ; Obama quickly installed very liberal judges, and then Biden quickly installed under qualified liberal Ketanji Brown and that is why he is getting away with it all and there is a lot in that ” all” ))

    Of course, America would never elect (( see Fail # 8 below )) such an authoritarian, power-hungry president , with such a total disregard for the rules and basic norms of civil society (( Fail # 7 ; Biden has total disregard for basic rules and is extremely authoritarian, Trump was not at all during his 4 years )) .
    And if we did, (( Fail #8 ; You did elect such a monster, his name is Joe Biden )) surely the other branches of government would discard their partisan loyalties and put the good of the country first.(( Fail # 9 this one is a HUGE HUMONGOUS GIGANTIC FAIL; the other branches and everything else and everyone else – CIA, FBI, DOJ etc etc – have not discarded their partisan loyalties, au contraire!!, their VERY Democrat partisan loyalties are on steroids and then have been boosted trough a supercharger ; they have created a two tiered hyper-tyrannical justice , where republicans get many years in prison or must pay many millions of dollars and thus be ruined for life, for either imaginary crimes or for the same crimes that Democrats get a slap on the hand for – if even that, – in fact some democrats are REWARDED for their crimes such as BLM who were paid tens of millions of $ after a violent protest where the police was not nice enough to them )) Which is good, because the nightmarish situation of a narcissistic strongman building a cult of personality and ruling the country with a teeny-tiny iron fist is just too nightmarish to contemplate.(( Fail# 10 ; the iron-fisted dictator nightmare is Biden, not Trump…Biden has taken the USA a hair trigger from a civil war in Texas, to name only one of his many tyrannical authoritarian insanities, that in comparison make Trump look like a soft kitten … Fail # 11 The tiny hand insult only confirms that your brain is smaller than Trump’s fist judging but how incapable of being right about anything you are. “

  73. Exile1981 says:

    I would categorize gas powered plants into 3 categories.
    1) Steam plants
    2) Simple Cycle
    3) Dual Cycle.

    Steam plants use natural gas burners to generate steam and that steam makes power in a steam turbine. Most of these plants are actually coal plants converted to run on natural gas. They ramp up a little faster than a coal plant but generally are more expensive to run than when they were coal plants.

    Simple Cycle – This is a gas turbine that runs on natural gas and directly generates power. They tend to be more expensive to run than the other types but can ramp from 0 to full power in under a couple minutes.

    Dual cycle – A gas turbine making electricity but then the waste heat is collected to make steam that is used to make more power. These are more cost effective than coal, more reliable and make good base load plant…. but they can be slow to ramp up and starting one cold is very slow.

    I used to work for a company that had all three types and fed a provincial grid. The only reason we had steam plants was we converted a coal plant over so as to keep it in service rather than have to shut it down once the anti coal mandate came in.

    Our dual cycle plants ran all the time as base load though one was designed to be able to fluctuate over a wider range of outputs so that one was used as a peaker plant.

    Then our Simple cycle plants would sit idle 75%+ of the time and come on when power demand spiked or when solar and wind output crashed, basically it was used to prevent a grid crash.

  74. E.M.Smith says:

    @Exile 1981:

    Thanks for that! I knew about simple gas turbines and compound (dual cycle) plants. Had not considered that “coal conversions” would just be gas fired steam turbines…

    Makes sense though. Just have to change the burners.

  75. jim2 says:

    The Call of the Cloud.

    “Today’s Cloud kind of looks exactly the same as the mainframe scenario,” Newport warns. “Companies have rushed to get on the cloud with the cool kids. I predict many companies will try to rush to reduce cloud expenditure and will find migrating onsite to be an expensive proposition if it’s even possible.

    https://slashdot.org/story/24/01/28/054252/is-cloud-the-new-mainframe

  76. Keith Macdonald says:

    WTF? of the day, a report from Tom’s Hardware:

    What happened?

    According to a recent report published by the Aargauer Zeitung (h/t Golem.de), around three million smart toothbrushes have been infected by hackers and enslaved into botnets. The source report says this sizable army of connected dental cleansing tools was used in a DDoS attack on a Swiss company’s website. The firm’s site collapsed under the strain of the attack, reportedly resulting in the loss of millions of Euros of business. In this particular case, the toothbrush botnet was thought to have been vulnerable due to its Java-based OS. No particular toothbrush brand was mentioned in the source report. Normally, the toothbrushes would have used their connectivity for tracking and improving user oral hygiene habits, but after a malware infection, these toothbrushes were press-ganged into a botnet.

    Not so smart after all, or just for dumb users? Or will these users get a knock at their front door from security forces that have come to arrest their toothbrushes?

    What should they do?

    Stefan Zuger from the Swiss branch of the global cybersecurity firm Fortinet provided the publication with a few tips on what people could do to protect their own toothbrushes — or other connected gadgetry like routers, set-top boxes, surveillance cameras, doorbells, baby monitors, washing machines, and so on. “Every device that is connected to the Internet is a potential target — or can be misused for an attack,” Zuger told the Swiss newspaper. The security expert also explained that every connected device was being continually probed for vulnerabilities by hackers, so there is a real arms race between device software/firmware makers and cyber criminals. Fortinet recently connected an ‘unprotected’ PC to the internet and found it took only 20 minutes before it became malware-ridden.

    Or just unplug it all and go back to “analogue” equipment with no USB/Ethernet ports?

  77. Keith Macdonald says:

    Maybe there is “good” grid-down/disruption as well?
    Sometimes the GEB back down.

    Farmers win: Major EU backdown on farming emissions and regulations

    Thousands of farmers in tractors and trucks protested in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Ireland, Sweden, Portugul, Greece and Spain. Farmers in Poland are planning to block the Ukrainian border. The French farmers held Paris under siege, blocking roads, pouring manure everywhere and leaving supermarket shelves empty, then after they won some concessions from President Macron, they kept on driving to Brussels and did it all again with help from farmers from other countries. The EU is the target.

    The thing that made this so potent was not just that the farmers had heavy equipment that moved obstacles and drove over barriers, they also had huge public support. Something like 80 to 90% of French citizens supported the farmers and were willing to put up with the inconvenience. Then to cap it off, EU elections are coming in June, and they only happen once every five years. The Greens look like they will do badly. That people like Geert Wilders can win in national elections must have shocked the politerati class. But right wing governments have been elected in Italy, Sweden, and Finland too.

    https://joannenova.com.au/2024/02/farmers-win-major-eu-backdown-on-farming-emissions-and-regulations/

  78. E.M.Smith says:

    @Keith:

    “What should they do?”

    Floss….

  79. Keith Macdonald says:

    Another bubble has burst.

    Once valued at $5.7BN, Vice Media stops publishing and nothing of value was lost.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/once-valued-57bn-vice-media-stops-publishing-and-nothing-value-was-lost

Anything to say?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.