A new report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) this week finds that global coal consumption has risen to a new high. Despite longstanding claims from countless green organisations, including the IEA itself, that coal is on its way to being phased out, replaced by the “unstoppable” rise of green energy, it seems the green ‘transition’ remains further away than was predicted. And this has dealt yet another blow to green hopes invested in China, where, it turns out, much of the growth in coal use has occurred.
The Guardian‘s activist-cum-energy-correspondent, Jillian Ambrose was first to the scene. ‘Coal use to reach new peak – and remain at near-record levels for years,’ she wailed. In a very short piece that rambles off on tangents about Russia and the U.K.’s closure of the Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal power station in September, we learn that “consumption of the fossil fuel is now on track to rise to a new peak of 8.77 billion tonnes by the end of the year – and could remain at near-record levels until 2027”.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Interesting how those opposing the net zero agenda over a decade and more have been portrayed as ignoring reality, accused of sticking their heads in the sand. But it’s increasingly evident that the real Cnuts here (as in the King) are the net zero fanatics.
It is Western hubris, propagated by Arts and Humanities graduates, that believed it could remake the global economy in its own image.
Mad isn’t it – western worlds outsources virtually all its manufacturing to China, then wonders why China has to keep building power stations… hmmmm
Excellent article by Ben Pile.
Here is a public comment from today’s news about a Swedish company offering cheap deals for UK heat pumps that it says are “gaining in popularity”:
—“What a pile of lies: ‘Heat pumps are gaining in popularity’!
No, they are being forced on you as they are crap just like EVs ,wind and solar.
If it has to be forced, it’s crap.
Went from paying £75 a month with hot water from my coal fire to £152 a month without hot water. Add the hot water and it shoots up to near £350 and I’m a single widower. No value for money, complete waste of money, and having to run them 365 24/7 is not economical, it’s the opposite!”
Many people are taken in by the argument that “for every 1 kW you put into a heat pump you get 4 kW worth of heat out”. It sounds great until you factor in the difference in purchase price between 1 kW of energy from gas and 1 kW of energy from electricity, and then there’s the difference in installation costs for the equipment, which can be thousands. You’re never going to get that money back through the claimed energy savings.
Add to that the fact that your heat pump will do nothing when you get a power blackout, the fact that existing users say their homes never get warm enough, the external fan noise, and the need for an old-fashioned immersion heater to provide water that’s hot enough to kill off legionella, and it’s hard to imagine why anyone would go for a heat pump. Unless it’s to show off their green credentials, that is.
All good points!
First law of thermodynamics, energy can never be created or destroyed, only changed in its state.
Translations are generally, you don’t get something for nothing and/or you dont get more out than you put in!
So 4kw out for 1kw in is physically impossible
It’s a shame that good people are being conned it this way to push an agenda.
Saying that, nuclear fusion is an exception to the rule, you can get more out than you put in, but, the materials you put in will still, eventually, run out!
Don’t forget that the outside air is the source of some of the energy, in the form of heat. Which explains why heat pumps work better when there’s more heat outside and struggle in colder climates like Scotland’s. (We had air conditioning in our last place, and the handbook actually stated that it cools better when outside conditions are cool and heats better when outside conditions are warm!)
Yep. The clue’s in the name. It pumps heat from outside to inside. If there’s not so much heat outside it has to work harder to make a difference inside.
I think there are air-source and ground-source heat pumps. Given that they are pumping heat energy into the house from the outside is the outside cooling effect noticeable on the garden/near environment?
It is not so much the cold but the humidity, which causes icing of the pump. Other colder countries have drier air then we do so they work better.
Yes, ours had a heating element to de-ice the external unit when that happened.
You might want to reevaluate that – I understand a heat pump does have a positive coefficient as described, however it’s still not economically as viable apart from quite specific circumstances. So you can use 1kw of electric energy to transfer 4kw of heat energy from outside to inside, as all you are doing is transferring it from one place to another. AC works exactly the same in reverse.
Thermodynamics wants a quiet word…
You can’t win, you can’t break even, and you can’t even break even.
Aye, ye get nowt f’ nowt!
Exactly. If any of these technologies were as good as they pretend they are, they wouldn’t need subsidies or mandates. We would all be taking them on voluntarily
The problem is that these green scribblers and our governments, and countless outfits like the IEA are going to take a long time to process the reality that was predicted decades ago, and much harm is going to be done while we wait for them to catch up
Miliband won’t catch up. He will die on his green hill, and do his level best to take us with him. The deindustrialisation of the West is Miliband’s objective. In his eyes, it acts as a counter measure to the continued industrialisation of China, India, and elsewhere.
Miliband’s only goal is the monetization of Miliband.
Farage should ask Starmer In the House of Commons what is the point of the UK trying to achieve Net Zero unilaterally in the face of this global energy reality. Starmer would of course answer with a lie but that would be one more nail in his coffin.
The answer would obviously be something like The international reputation of the UK demands that it leads the way to Net Zero by becoming a clean energy superpower.
All readily available from the UN phrase book.
Neither Starmer nor Milliband are concerned with energy, or even economic, reality. They are globalist ideologues which means their strategy is a matter of belief and hope, rather than cold hard facts and risk/benefit calculation. In particular they have shown they do not admit errors or failings, but instead double down no matter the impact on the country’s industry or population.
I love the optimism of the report, saying that global coal consumption will peak in 2024 then plateau. Sure it will!
We have populated the establishment with graduates from our despicably poor quality universities. And the result is dire polices and poverty. Get used to it, westerners. At least the collapse might make us less attractive to immigrants we don’t want or need.