Just How Stupid Is Climate Progress?

You can’t make this stuff up.

U.S. Coal Generation Drops 19 Percent In One Year, Leaving Coal With 36 Percent Share Of Electricity

By Stephen Lacey on May 14, 2012 at 9:27 am
Power generation from coal is falling quickly. According to new figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coal made up 36 percent of U.S. electricity in the first quarter of 2012 — down from 44.6 percent in the first quarter of 2011.
That stunning drop, which represented almost a 20 percent decline in coal generation over the last year, was primarily due to low natural gas (methane) prices. As EIA explains, natural gas generation will climb steadily this year, while coal will see a double-digit drop by the end of 2012:

The continued decline in domestic coal generation is good news for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions from the fossil fuel sector are expected to decline by almost 3 percent this year — continuing the 1.9 percent decrease seen in 2011. 

Last time I checked, methane was a hydrocarbon, and burning it released the only two greenhouse gases of any significance – H2O and CO2.

However, the exploration for and mining of methane often causes its inadvertent release into the atmosphere. Greenies are normally terrified of methane and believe it frequently leads to mass extinctions. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/08/18/u-s-carbon-emissions-exploded-in-2010-largest-single-year-rise-in-22-years/

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Just How Stupid Is Climate Progress?

  1. OTTH, Methane is CH4, which produces 1 molecule of CO2 & 2 molecules of H2O per, whereas coal is mostly Carbon (with some volatiles) which prodices a far higher proportion of the far less damaging and unhealthy CO2.

    Water is our enemy.

  2. bubbagyro says:

    Did Stephen Lacey attend high school? OR did he attend some H.S. but played hooky and smoked dope during his “science” class? Or was it “ecology” class.

  3. tmitsss says:

    As stupid as Nancy Pelosi

    “I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels,” she said at one point. Natural gas “is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels,” she said at another.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/08/25/fuel-for-debate-pelosi-suggests-natural-gas-isnt-a-fossil-fuel/

    • Glacierman says:

      Awesome. Now I understand why she gets elected in California. They relate to each other.

    • bubbagyro says:

      She is actually right! Nancy may be an idiot savant!!!

      It is clear to me that oil and gas are NOT from “fossils”, but are from natural, abiogenic sources. This has been a running debate for 30 years since the Russians proposed it (and have taken commercial advantage of the reality). Recent discoveries have proven it to me, that oil and NG are inorganically derived from carbonate, iron, and water at moderate crustal depth.

      I guess the only true “fossil” fuel is peat or aged dung. This may be what she is referring to. A genius! She meant stop using poop for cooking!

      • Tommy Gold at Cornell proposed this in the 1970s.

      • bubbagyro says:

        Correct! It had become a moot debate ([the Russians went on to ignore the “consensus” and discovered their oil and gas reserves deep down, below any putative tectonic burial level of biota, and have made a pretty penny because of it. N. Vietnam, also] until the massive methane-ethane-propane seas of Titan were discovered by the Cassini-Huygens probe. Some “Dinosaur Oil” proponents have actually explained this by saying that there were dinosaurs on Titan eons ago.

        I think the unnamed 800 X 800 Kilometer Sea of Titan should be named “Fossil Sea”.

  4. Dan Kurt says:

    Abiogenic oil formation hypotheses were proposed in the 19th century. Three noteworthy individuals who did so were Alexander von Humboldt, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev and the French chemist Marcellin Berthelot. The Russians never abandoned the hypothesis.

    Dan Kurt

    • bubbagyro says:

      Dan: You are correct. The Russians (actually Ukrainians), though, brought the scientific method to completion by demonstrating high yield in the laboratory using just carbonate, Fe/Ni/Co catalysis, and water under pressure and temperature consistent with the crust conditions. They actually did the experiments and showed the polymerization of methane to the higher hydrocarbons. They also showed, classically, the physics to be consistent and explanatory of the hypothesis. The scientific method always needs experimentation in order to attempt falsification of the hypothesis. Experiments in the brain or on the computer, like the pseudo scientists of warm-earther fame do, count for zilch.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s