Comments on: Is the World Bank Coal-fused? http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:34:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10583 Robert Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:50:19 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10583 "Due to the use of this technology and choice of unit sizes, the thermal efficiency of the project (LHV, gross) will be higher by about 70%, 30% and 20% as compared to the average thermal efficiency (LHV, gross) of coal based power plants in India, across the globe and OECD. Therefore, the project will result in reducing the average carbon emissions of India’s electricity generation system per unit of electricity supply." If you believe Jevon's paradox this will lead to an overall increase in coal use and CO2 emitted. I am very sketical of efficiency-based arguments, whichever continent they are applied to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox “Due to the use of this technology and choice of unit sizes, the thermal efficiency of the project (LHV, gross) will be higher by about 70%, 30% and 20% as compared to the average thermal efficiency (LHV, gross) of coal based power plants in India, across the globe and OECD. Therefore, the project will result in reducing the average carbon emissions of India’s electricity generation system per unit of electricity supply.”

If you believe Jevon’s paradox this will lead to an overall increase in coal use and CO2 emitted. I am very sketical of efficiency-based arguments, whichever continent they are applied to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

]]> By: Ben http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10585 Ben Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:27:27 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10585 I don't like how you (all the authors) link entire sentences. It is poor formatting. Please correct this behaviour. I don’t like how you (all the authors) link entire sentences. It is poor formatting. Please correct this behaviour.

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10586 Joe Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:07:11 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10586 Ben: Please provide a link from a recognized authority on this matter. Robert: Jevon's paradox is bunk. It is an assertion. Studies show it isn't true. Ben: Please provide a link from a recognized authority on this matter.

Robert: Jevon’s paradox is bunk. It is an assertion. Studies show it isn’t true.

]]> By: John Mashey http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10588 John Mashey Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:49:31 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10588 Jevons is worth an essay of its own, given how often it is (wrongly) invoked to claim there's no use in getting more efficient in energy use over the coming decades. Jevons is worth an essay of its own, given how often it is (wrongly) invoked to claim there’s no use in getting more efficient in energy use over the coming decades.

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10592 Robert Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:33:30 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10592 Joe, "Jevon’s paradox is bunk. It is an assertion. Studies show it isn’t true." I think in the broadest sense Jevon’s paradox is bunk. It is an assertion. Studies show it isn’t true. is bound to be true. If I can save money on my gas bill by using a more efficient boiler then I am likely to use it on something equally pointless like a trip to the Canaries. The way our economy is set up at the moment, we are in a cycle where higher efficiency -> more economic growth -> more fossil fuel used. You would need to change the economic rules drastically by pricing or capping carbon to change it. Looked at another way, if we were 100% inefficient in our use of coal, we would never have started mining it and the industrial revolution would not have happened. Joe,

“Jevon’s paradox is bunk. It is an assertion. Studies show it isn’t true.”

I think in the broadest sense Jevon’s paradox is bunk. It is an assertion. Studies show it isn’t true. is bound to be true. If I can save money on my gas bill by using a more efficient boiler then I am likely to use it on something equally pointless like a trip to the Canaries. The way our economy is set up at the moment, we are in a cycle where higher efficiency -> more economic growth -> more fossil fuel used. You would need to change the economic rules drastically by pricing or capping carbon to change it.

Looked at another way, if we were 100% inefficient in our use of coal, we would never have started mining it and the industrial revolution would not have happened.

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10593 Robert Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:34:47 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10593 (sorry, let's try again) Joe, “Jevon’s paradox is bunk. It is an assertion. Studies show it isn’t true.” I think in the broadest sense Jevon’s paradox is bound to be true. If I can save money on my gas bill by using a more efficient boiler then I am likely to use it on something equally pointless like a trip to the Canaries. The way our economy is set up at the moment, we are in a cycle where higher efficiency -> more economic growth -> more fossil fuel used. You would need to change the economic rules drastically by pricing or capping carbon to change it. Looked at another way, if we were 100% inefficient in our use of coal, we would never have started mining it and the industrial revolution would not have happened. (sorry, let’s try again)

Joe,

“Jevon’s paradox is bunk. It is an assertion. Studies show it isn’t true.”

I think in the broadest sense Jevon’s paradox is bound to be true. If I can save money on my gas bill by using a more efficient boiler then I am likely to use it on something equally pointless like a trip to the Canaries. The way our economy is set up at the moment, we are in a cycle where higher efficiency -> more economic growth -> more fossil fuel used. You would need to change the economic rules drastically by pricing or capping carbon to change it.

Looked at another way, if we were 100% inefficient in our use of coal, we would never have started mining it and the industrial revolution would not have happened.

]]> By: Paul K http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10594 Paul K Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:50:58 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10594 Robert, In the last five years we've replaced the old furnace, almost doubled our cars' mpg, insulated the attic and bought a high efficiency stove and refrigerator. I assure you none of the savings is going toward a trip to the Canaries. Robert,
In the last five years we’ve replaced the old furnace, almost doubled our cars’ mpg, insulated the attic and bought a high efficiency stove and refrigerator. I assure you none of the savings is going toward a trip to the Canaries.

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10597 Joe Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:43:14 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10597 But he misses the point. The money saved on fuel is 100% energy. Most things you'd spend it on are only about 8% energy by cost. But he misses the point. The money saved on fuel is 100% energy. Most things you’d spend it on are only about 8% energy by cost.

]]> By: John Mashey http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10602 John Mashey Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:59:34 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10602 Suppose you use X of some resource to achieve Y benefit. Suppose the efficiency doubles, so that you achieve Y with only .5X. Do you still use X to achieve 2Y? or is Y sufficient, and you now have an extra .5X to spend on something else? ==== But, realistically, if you decide that in the future, you will have only .5X available, in which case you will either achieve .5Y, or else you'd *better* double efficiency just to maintain Y. Given Peak Fossil, I'd suggest this latter case is more to the point. Claiming Jevons wholescale seems a large over-generalization. Suppose you use X of some resource to achieve Y benefit.

Suppose the efficiency doubles, so that you achieve Y with only .5X.

Do you still use X to achieve 2Y?

or is Y sufficient, and you now have an extra .5X to spend on something else?

====
But, realistically, if you decide that in the future, you will have only .5X available, in which case you will either achieve .5Y, or else you’d *better* double efficiency just to maintain Y.

Given Peak Fossil, I’d suggest this latter case is more to the point. Claiming Jevons wholescale seems a large over-generalization.

]]> By: Paul K http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10603 Paul K Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:48:22 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10603 The World Bank decision appears to be based on an overall reduction in carbon intensity from supercritical coal plants. What are the pros and cons of using this metric in terms of reducing CO2 or replacing fossil fuels? The World Bank decision appears to be based on an overall reduction in carbon intensity from supercritical coal plants. What are the pros and cons of using this metric in terms of reducing CO2 or replacing fossil fuels?

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10604 Robert Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:46:22 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10604 Joe "But he misses the point. The money saved on fuel is 100% energy. Most things you’d spend it on are only about 8% energy by cost." No. I think you are being too simplistic about how an economy works. If I save money then I have a choice of spending it on something else or saving it. If I save it then the bank I save it in lends it out in a highly leveraged way so that someone else can spend it. Whatever I do with the cash just ends up generating more economic activity, and being efficient just accelerates the process. So then the question becomes: what is the relationship between economic activity and energy use (currently a proxy for CO2 emissions)? I would argue that there is pretty much a one-to-one relationship, although this isn't very obvious when you engage in some apparently carbon-neutral activity such as a round of golf. Unfortunately, in doing so, you are at the pinacle of a pyramid of economic acivity which results in more Chinese making more clubs to be shipped round the world, earning more income which they spend on cars, heating, meat and so on. Locally it means more cash for the people who maintain the course and staff the bars. Ultimately all this cash trickles down and gets spent on basic things like fuel and food. The only way to really cut emissions is to reduce your level of economic activity. Earn less. Spend less. Buy less stuff. Throw away less stuff. Consume fewer resources and burn less fossil fuel (preferably none). Obviously this is not fashionable and marks you out as some sort of subversive commie b*****d. Efficiency improvements make sense as part of some wider plan, based around a hard decision to cut fossil fuel use globally and develop low-carbon energy sources. But in isolation efficiency change will achieve nothing. Joe

“But he misses the point. The money saved on fuel is 100% energy. Most things you’d spend it on are only about 8% energy by cost.”

No. I think you are being too simplistic about how an economy works. If I save money then I have a choice of spending it on something else or saving it. If I save it then the bank I save it in lends it out in a highly leveraged way so that someone else can spend it. Whatever I do with the cash just ends up generating more economic activity, and being efficient just accelerates the process.

So then the question becomes: what is the relationship between economic activity and energy use (currently a proxy for CO2 emissions)? I would argue that there is pretty much a one-to-one relationship, although this isn’t very obvious when you engage in some apparently carbon-neutral activity such as a round of golf. Unfortunately, in doing so, you are at the pinacle of a pyramid of economic acivity which results in more Chinese making more clubs to be shipped round the world, earning more income which they spend on cars, heating, meat and so on. Locally it means more cash for the people who maintain the course and staff the bars. Ultimately all this cash trickles down and gets spent on basic things like fuel and food.

The only way to really cut emissions is to reduce your level of economic activity. Earn less. Spend less. Buy less stuff. Throw away less stuff. Consume fewer resources and burn less fossil fuel (preferably none). Obviously this is not fashionable and marks you out as some sort of subversive commie b*****d.

Efficiency improvements make sense as part of some wider plan, based around a hard decision to cut fossil fuel use globally and develop low-carbon energy sources. But in isolation efficiency change will achieve nothing.

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10612 Robert Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:53:56 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10612 One further thought. The last 200 years of history back up what I am saying. As our machines have become smaller, more sophisticated and above all MORE EFFICIENT their numbers have multiplied. And so have ours. Global population has increased tenfold in 200 years; primary energy consumption by far, far more. There is absolutely nothing in the historical record to suggest that further efficiency gains will magically reduce energy consumption and much to suggest the opposite. Think also of Maslow's pyramid. Half the world's population are right down there on level 1, living on less than $2 a day. Spare energy = more food = more population. One further thought. The last 200 years of history back up what I am saying. As our machines have become smaller, more sophisticated and above all MORE EFFICIENT their numbers have multiplied. And so have ours. Global population has increased tenfold in 200 years; primary energy consumption by far, far more. There is absolutely nothing in the historical record to suggest that further efficiency gains will magically reduce energy consumption and much to suggest the opposite.

Think also of Maslow’s pyramid. Half the world’s population are right down there on level 1, living on less than $2 a day. Spare energy = more food = more population.

]]> By: Paul K http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10618 Paul K Wed, 09 Apr 2008 01:06:09 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10618 Robert, History teaches that birth rates decrease when prosperity increases. Robert,
History teaches that birth rates decrease when prosperity increases.

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10638 Robert Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:23:29 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/is-the-world-bank-coal-fused/#comment-10638 Even that argument is flawed. Globally we are adding 200,000+ people each day and in these days of porous borders many of them migrate to wherever they can scratch the best living. The UK is a good example. The fertility rate is about 1.75 but nevertheless our population rises each year due to immigration and people living longer. Moreover, the fertility rate has started rising again due as immigrant families statistically have more children. I am sure you are seeing the same effects in the US, which also has a rising population. Certainly no room for complacency on the population front. We replaced (net) all of the victims of the Asian Tsunami in less than 36 hours! Even that argument is flawed. Globally we are adding 200,000+ people each day and in these days of porous borders many of them migrate to wherever they can scratch the best living. The UK is a good example. The fertility rate is about 1.75 but nevertheless our population rises each year due to immigration and people living longer. Moreover, the fertility rate has started rising again due as immigrant families statistically have more children. I am sure you are seeing the same effects in the US, which also has a rising population.

Certainly no room for complacency on the population front. We replaced (net) all of the victims of the Asian Tsunami in less than 36 hours!

]]>