Tag Archives: Natural Gas

Tangled Up In Green Industrial Policy II: Rewarding Idle Capital

06 Saturday Apr 2024

Posted by in Energy, Global Warming, Industrial Policy

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A week ago I posted about electrification and particularly EV mandates, one strand of government industrial policy under which non-favored sectors of the economy must labor. This post examines a related industrial policy: manipulation of power generation by government policymakers in favor of renewable energy technologies, while fossil fuels are targeted for oblivion. These interventions are a reaction to an overwrought climate crisis narrative, but they present many obstacles, oversights and risks of their own. Chief among them is whether the power grid will be capable of meeting current and future demand for power while relying heavily on variable resources: wind and sunshine.

Like almost everything I write, this post is too long! Here is a guide to what follows. Scroll down to whatever sections might be of interest:

  • Malinvestment: Idle capital
  • Key Considerations to chew on
  • False Premises: zero CO2? Low cost?
  • Imposed Cost: what and how much?
  • Supporting Growth: with renewables?
  • Resource Constraints: they’re tight!
  • Technological Advance: patience!
  • The Presumed Elephant: CO2 costs
  • Conclusion

Malinvestment

The intermittency of wind and solar power creates a fundamental problem of physically idle capital, which leaves the economy short of its production possibilities. To clarify, capital invested in wind and solar facilities is often idle in two critical ways. First, wind and solar assets have relatively low rates of utilization because of their variability, or intermittency. Second, neither provides “dispatchable” power: it is not “on call” in any sense during those idle periods, which are not entirely predictable. Wind and solar assets therefore contribute less value to the electric grid than dispatchable sources of power having equivalent capacity and utilization.

Is “idle capital” a reasonable characterization? Consider the shipping concerns that are now experimenting with sails on cargo ships. What is the economic value of such a ship without back-up power? Can you imagine them drifting in the equatorial calms for days on end? Even light winds would slow the transport of goods significantly. Idle capital might be bad enough, but a degree of idleness allows flexibility and risk mitigation in many applications. Idle, non–dispatchable capital, however, is unproductive capital.

Likewise, solar-powered signage can underperform or fail over the course of several dark, wintry days, even with battery backup. The signage is more reliable and valuable when it is backed-up by another power source. Again, idle, non-dispatchable capital is unproductive capital.

The pursuit of net-zero carbon emissions via wind and solar power creates idle capital, which increasingly lacks adequate backup power. That should be a priority, but it’s not. This misguided effort is funded from both private investment and public subsidies, but the former is very much contingent on the latter. That’s because the flood of subsidies is what allows private investors to profit from idle capital. Rent-enabled investments like these crowd out genuinely productive capital formation, which is not limited to power plants that might otherwise use fossil fuels.

Creating idle or unemployed physical capital is malinvestment, and it diminishes future economic growth. The surge in this activity began in earnest during the era of negative real interest rates. Today, in an era of higher rates, taxpayers can expect an even greater burden, as can ratepayers whose power providers are guaranteed returns on their regulated rate bases.

Key Consideration

The forced transition to net zero will be futile, but especially if wind and solar energy are the primary focus. Keep the following in mind:

  • The demand for electricity is expected to soar, and soon! Policymakers have high hopes for EVs, and while adoption rates might fall well short of their goals, they’re doing their clumsy best to force EVs down our throats with mandates. But facilitating EV charging presents difficulties. Lionel Shriver states the obvious: “Going Electric Requires Electricity”. Reliable electricity!
  • Perhaps more impressive than prospects for EVs is the expected growth in power demand from data centers required by the explosion of artificial intelligence applications across many industries. It’s happening now! This will be magnified with the advent of artificial general intelligence (AGI).
  • Dispatchable power sources are needed to back-up unreliable wind and solar power to ensure service continuity. Maintaining backup power carries a huge “imposed cost” at the margin for wind and solar. At present, that would entail CO2 emissions, violating the net zero dictum.
  • Perhaps worse than the cost of backup power would be the cost borne by users under the complete elimination of certain dispatchable power sources. An imposed cost then takes the form of outages. Users are placed at risk of losing power at home, at the office and factories, at stores, in transit, and at hospitals at peak hours or under potentially dangerous circumstances like frigid or hot weather.
  • Historically, dispatchable power has allowed utilities to provide reliable electricity on-demand. Just flip the switch! This may become a thing of the past.
  • Wind and solar power are sometimes available when they’re not needed, in which case the power goes unused because we lack effective power storage technology.
  • Wind and solar power facilities operate at low rates of utilization, yet new facilities are always touted at their full nameplate capacity. Capacity factors for wind turbines averaged almost 36% in the U.S. in 2022, while solar facilities averaged only about 24%. This compared with nuclear power at almost 93%, natural gas (66%), and coal (48%). Obviously, the low capacity factors for wind and solar reflect their variable nature, rather than dispatchable responses to fluctuations in power demand.
  • Low utilization and variability are underemphasized or omitted by those promoting wind and solar plant in the media and often in discussions of public policy, and no wonder! We hear a great deal about “additions to capacity”, which overstate the actual power-generating potential by factors of three to four times. Here is a typical example.
  • Wind and solar power are far more heavily subsidized than fossil fuels. This is true in absolute terms and especially on the basis of actual power output, which reveals their overwhelmingly uneconomic nature. From the link above, here are Mitch Rolling and Isaac Orr on this point:
    • “In 2022, wind and solar generators received three and eighteen times more subsidies per MWh, respectively, than natural gas, coal, and nuclear generators combined. Solar is the clear leader, receiving anywhere from $50 to $80 per MWh over the last five years, whereas wind is a distant second at $8 to $10 per MWh …. Renewable energy sources like wind and solar are largely dependent on these subsidies, which have been ongoing for 30 years with no end in sight.”
  • The first-order burden of subsidies falls on taxpayers. The second-order burdens manifest in an unstable grid and higher power costs. But just to be clear, subsidies are paid by governments to producers or consumers to reduce the cost of activity favored by policymakers. However, the International Monetary Fund frequently cites “subsidy” figures that include staff estimates of unaddressed externalities. These are based on highly-simplified models and subject to great uncertainty, of course, especially when dollar values are assigned to categories like “climate change”. Despite what alarmists would have us believe, the extent and consequences of climate change are not settled scientific issues, let alone the dollar cost.
  • Wind and solar power are extremely land- and/or sea-intensive. For example, Casey Handmer estimates that a one-Gigawatt data center, if powered by solar panels, would need a footprint of 20,000 acres. 
  • Solar installations are associated with a significant heat island effect: “We found temperatures over a PV plant were regularly 3–4 °C warmer than wildlands at night….”
  • Wind and solar power both represent major hazards to wildlife both during and after construction.
    • In addition to the destruction of habitat both on- and offshore, turbine blades create noise, electromagnetism, and migration barriers. Wind farms have been associated with significant bird and bat fatalities. Collisions with moving blades are one thing, but changes to the winds and air pressure around turbines are also a danger to avian species.
    • There is a strong likelihood that offshore wind development is endangering whales and dolphins.
    • Solar farms present dangers to waterfowl. These creatures are tricked into diving toward what they believe to be bodies of water, only to crash into the panels.
  • The production of wind and solar equipment requires the intensive use of scarce resources, including environmentally-sensitive materials. Extracting these materials often requires the excavation of massive amounts of rock subject to extensive processing. Mining and processing rely heavily on diesel fuel. Net zero? No.
  • Wind and solar facilities often present major threats of toxicity at disposal, or even sooner. A recent hail storm in Texas literally destroyed a solar farm, and the smashed panels have prompted concerns not only about solar “sustainability”, but also that harsh chemicals may be leaking into the local environment.
  • The transmission of power is costly, but that cost is magnified by the broad spatial distribution of wind and solar generating units. Transmission from offshore facilities is particularly complex. And high voltage lines run into tremendous local opposition and regulatory scrutiny.
  • When wind turbines and solar panels are idle, so are the transmission facilities needed to reach them. Thus, low utilization and the variability of those units drives up the capital needed for power and power transmission.
  • There is also an acute shortage of transformers, which presents a major bottleneck to grid development and stability.
  • While zero carbon is the ostensible goal, zero carbon nuclear power has been neglected by our industrial planners. That neglect plays off exaggerated fears about safety. Fortunately, there is a growing realization that nuclear power may be surest way to carbon reductions while meeting growth in power demand. In fact, new data centers will go off-grid with their own modular reactors.
  • At the Shriver link, he notes the smothering nature of power regulation, which obstructs the objective of providing reliable power and any hope of achieving net zero.
  • The Biden administration has resisted the substitution of low CO2 emitting power sources for high CO2 emitting sources. For example, natural gas is more energy efficient in a variety of applications than other fuel sources. Yet policymakers seem determined to discourage the production and use of natural gas.

False Premises

Wind and solar energy are touted by the federal government as zero carbon and low-cost technologies, but both claims are false. Extracting the needed resources, fabricating, installing, connecting, and ultimately disposing of these facilities is high in carbon emissions.

The claim that wind and solar have a cost advantage over traditional power sources is based on misleading comparisons. First, putting claims about the cost of carbon aside, it goes without saying that the cost of replacing already operational coal or natural gas generating capacity with new wind and solar facilities is greater than doing nothing.

The hope among net zero advocates is that existing fossil fuel generating plant can be decommissioned as more renewables come on-line. Again, this thinking ignores the variable nature of renewable power. Dispatchable backup power is required to reliably meet power demand. Otherwise, fluctuating power supplies undermine the economy’s productive capacity, leading to declines in output, income, health, and well being. That is costly, but so is maintaining and adding back-up capacity. Costs of wind and solar should account for this necessity. It implies that wind and solar generating units carry a high cost at the margin.

Imposed Costs

A “grid report card” from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy notes the conceptual flaw in comparing the levelized cost (à la Lazard) of a variable resource with one capable of steady and dispatchable performance. From the report, here is the crux of the imposed-cost problem:

“… the more renewable generation facilities you build, the more it costs the system to make up for their variability, and the less value they provide to electricity markets.”

A committment to variable wind and solar power along with back-up capacity also implies that some capital will be idle regardless of wind and solar conditions. This is part of the imposed cost of wind and solar built into the accounting below. But while back-up power facilities will have idle periods, it is dispatchable and serves an insurance function, so it has value even when idle in preserving the stability of the grid. For that matter, sole reliance on dispatchable power sources requires excess capacity to serve an insurance function of a similar kind.

The Mackinac report card uses estimates of imposed cost from an Institute for Energy Research to construct the following comparison (expand the view or try clicking the image for a better view):

The figures shown in this table are somewhat dated, but the Mackinac authors use updated costs for Michigan from the Center of the American Experiment. These are shown below in terms of average costs per MWh through 2050, but the labels require some additional explanation.

The two bars on the left show costs for existing coal ($33/MWh) and gas-powered ($22) plants. The third and fourth bars are for new wind ($180) and solar ($278) installations. The fifth and sixth bars are for new nuclear reactors (a light water reactor ($74) and a small modular reactor($185)). Finally, the last two bars are for a new coal plant ($106) and a natural gas plant ($64), both with carbon capture and storage (CCS). It’s no surprise that existing coal and gas facilities are the most cost effective. Natural gas is by far the least costly of the new installations, followed by the light water reactor and coal.

The Mackinac “report card” is instructive in several ways. It provides a detailed analysis of different types of power generation across five dimensions, including reliability, cost, cleanliness, and market feasibility (the latter because some types of power (hydro, geothermal) have geographic limits. Natural gas comes out the clear winner on the report card because it is plentiful, energy dense, dispatchable, clean burning, and low-cost.

Supporting Growth

Growth in the demand for power cannot be met with variable resources without dispatchable backup or intolerable service interruptions. Unreliable power would seriously undermine the case for EVs, which is already tenuous at best. Data centers and other large users will go off-grid before they stand for it. This would represent a flat-out market rejection of renewable investments, ESGs be damned!

Casey Handmer makes some interesting projections of the power requirements of data centers supporting not just AI, but AGI, which he discusses in “How To Feed the AIs”. Here is his darkly humorous closing paragraph, predicated on meeting power demands from AGI via solar:

“It seems that AGI will create an irresistibly strong economic forcing function to pave the entire world with solar panels – including the oceans. We should probably think about how we want this to play out. At current rates of progress, we have about 20 years before paving is complete.”

Resource Constraints

Efforts to force a transition to wind and solar power will lead to more dramatic cost disadvantages than shown in the Mackinac report. By “forcing” a transition, I mean aggressive policies of mandates and subsidies favoring these renewables. These policies would effectuate a gross misallocation of resources. Many of the commodities needed to fabricate the components of wind and solar installations are already quite scarce, particularly on the domestic U.S. front. Inflating the demand for these commodities will result in shortages and escalating costs, magnifying the disadvantages of wind and solar power in real economic terms.

To put a finer point on the infeasibility of the net zero effort, Simon P. Michaux produced a comparative analysis in 2022 of the existing power mix versus a hypothetical power mix of renewable energy sources performing an equal amount of work, but at net-zero carbon emissions (the link is a PowerPoint summary). In the renewable energy scenario, he calculated the total quantities of various resources needed to achieve the objective over one generation of the “new” grid (to last 20 -30 years). He then calculated the numbers of years of mining or extraction needed to produce those quantities based on 2019 rates of production. Take a look at the results in the right-most column:

Those are sobering numbers. Granted, they are based on 2019 wind and solar technology. However, it’s clear that phasing out fossil fuels using today’s wind and solar technology would be out of the question within the lifetime of anyone currently living on the planet. Michaux seems to have a talent for understatement:

“Current thinking has seriously underestimated the scale of the task ahead.”

He also emphasizes the upward price pressure we’re likely to witness in the years ahead across a range of commodities.

Technological Breakthroughs

Michaux’s analysis assumes static technology, but there may come a time in the not-too-distant future when advances in wind and solar power and battery storage allow them to compete with hydrocarbons and nuclear power on a true economic basis. The best way to enable real energy breakthroughs is through market-driven economic growth. Energy production and growth is hampered, however, when governments strong-arm taxpayers, electricity buyers, and traditional energy producers while rewarding renewable developers with subsidies.

We know that improvements will come across a range of technologies. We’ve already seen reductions in the costs of solar panels themselves. Battery technology has a long way to go, but it has improved and might some day be capable of substantial smoothing in the delivery of renewable power. Collection of solar power in space is another possibility, as the feasibility of beaming power to earth has been demonstrated. This solution might also have advantages in terms of transmission depending on the locations and dispersion of collection points on earth, and it would certainly be less land intensive than solar power is today. Carbon capture and carbon conversion are advancing technologies, making net zero a more feasible possibility for traditional sources of power. Nuclear power is zero carbon, but like almost everything else, constructing plants is not. Nevertheless, fission reactors have made great strides in terms of safety and efficiency. Nuclear fusion development is still in its infancy, but there have been notable advances of late.

Some or all of these technologies will experience breakthroughs that could lead to a true, zero-carbon energy future. The timeline is highly uncertain, but it’s likely to be faster than anything like the estimates in Michaux’s analysis. Who knows? Perhaps AI will help lead us to the answers.

A Presumed Elephant

This post and my previous post have emphasized two glaring instances of government failure on their own terms: a headlong plunge into unreliable renewable energy, and forced electrification done prematurely and wrong. Some would protest that I left the veritable “elephant in the room”: the presumed external or spillover costs associated with CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. Renewables and electrification are both intended to prevent those costs.

External costs were not ignored, of course. Externalities were discussed explicitly in several different contexts such as the mining of new materials, EV tire wear, the substitution of “cleaner” fuels for others, toxicity at disposal, and the exaggerated reductions in CO2 from EVs when the “long tailpipe” problem is ignored. However, I noted explicitly that estimates of unaddressed externalities are often highly speculative and uncertain, and especially the costs of CO2 emissions. They should not be included in comparisons of subsidies.

Therefore, the costs of various power generating technologies shown above do not account for estimates of externalities. If you’re inclined, other SCC posts on the CO2 “elephant” can be found here.

Conclusion

Power demand is expected to soar given the coming explosion in AI applications, and especially if the heavily-subsidized and mandated transition to EVs comes to pass. But that growth in demand will not and cannot be met by relying on renewable energy sources. Their variability implies substantial idle capacity, higher costs, and service interruptions. Such a massive deployment of idle capital would represents an enormous waste of resources, but the sad fact is it’s been underway for some time.

In the years ahead, the net-zero objective will prove representative of a bumbling effort at industrial planning. Costs will be driven higher, including the cost inflicted by outages and environmental damage. Ratepayers, taxpayers, and innocents will share these burdens. Travis Fisher is spot on when he says the grid is becoming a “dangerous liability” thanks to wounds inflicted by subsidies, regulations, and mandates.

As Charles Glasser put it on Instapundit:

“The National Electrical Grid is teetering on collapse. The shift away from full-time available power (like fossil fuels, LNG, etc.) to so-called ‘green’ sources has deeply impacted reliability.”

“Also, as more whale-killing off-shore wind farms are planned, the Biden administration forgot to plan for the thousands of miles of transmission lines that will be needed. And in a perfect example of leftist autophagy, there is considerable opposition from enviro-groups who will tie up the construction of wind farms and transmission lines in court for decades.”

Meanwhile, better alternatives to wind and solar have been routinely discouraged. The substantial reductions in carbon emissions achieved in the U.S. over the past 15 years were caused primarily by the substitution of natural gas for coal in power generation. Much more of that is possible. The Biden Administration, however, wishes to prevent that substitution in favor of greater reliance on high-cost, unreliable renewables. And the Administration wishes to do so without adequately backing up those variable power sources with dispatchable capacity. Likewise, nuclear power has been shunted aside, despite its safety, low risk, and dispatchability. However, there are signs of progress in attitudes toward bringing more nuclear power on-line.

Industrial policy usually meets with failure, and net zero via wind and solar power will be no exception. Like forced electrification, unreliable power fails on its own terms. Net zero ain’t gonna happen any time soon, and not even by 2050. That is, it won’t happen unless net zero is faked through mechanisms like fraudulent carbon credits (and there might not be adequate faking capacity for that!). Full-scale net-zero investment in wind and solar power, battery capacity, and incremental transmission facilities will drive the cost of power upward, undermining economic growth. Finally, wind and solar are not the environmental panacea so often promised. Quite the contrary: mining of the necessary minerals, component fabrication, installation, and even operation all have negative environmental impacts. Disposal at the end of their useful lives might be even worse. And the presumed environmental gains … reduced atmospheric carbon concentrations and lower temperatures, are more scare story than science.

Postscript: here’s where climate alarmism has left us, and this is from a candidate for the U.S. Senate (she deleted the tweet after an avalanche of well-deserved ridicule):

Bill Gates, Wayward Climate Nerd

17 Wednesday Nov 2021

Posted by in Climate, Energy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bill Gates’ considerable philanthropic efforts through the Gates Foundation are well known. Much of the foundation’s activity has focused on disease control and nutrition around the globe. Education reform has also been a priority. Many of these projects are laudable, though I’m repulsed by a few (see here and here). During the coronavirus pandemic, Gates has spoken approvingly of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (lockdown measures), which are both coercive and ineffective (and see here). He has earned the enmity of anti-vaxers, of course, though I’m not anti-vax as long as the jabs are voluntary. The Gates Foundation funded the World Health Organization’s effort to provide guidance on digital vaccine passports, which is a de facto endorsement of discrimination based on vaccination status. His priorities for addressing climate change also raise some troubling issues, a few of which I address below.

Squeezing Policy from a Definition

Gates put a special Malthusian twist on a TED Talk he did back in 2010 using an equation for carbon dioxide emissions, which he’s reprised over the years. It gained a lot of notice in 2016 when a few sticklers noticed that his claim to have “discovered” the equation was false. The equation is:

CO2 = P x S x E x C,

where P = People, S = Services per person, E = Energy per service, and C = CO2 per energy unit.

This equation first appeared as the so-called Kaya Identity in a scientific review in 2002. Such an equation can be helpful in organizing one’s thoughts, but it has no operational implications in and of itself. At one level it is superficial: we could write a similar identity for almost anything, like the quantity of alcohol consumed in a year, which must equal the population times the ounces of alcohol per drink times the number of drinks per person. At a deeper level, it can be tempting to build theories around such equations, and there is no question that any theory about CO2 must at least preserve the identity.

There’s an obvious temptation to treat an equation like this as something that can be manipulated by policy, despite the possibility of behavioral links across components that might lead to unintended consequences. This is where Gates gets into trouble.

Reality Checks

As David Solway writes, Gates’ jumped to the conclusion that population drives carbon emissions, reinforcing a likely perspective that the human population is unsustainable. His benevolent solution? A healthier population won’t breed as fast, so he prescribes more vaccinations (voluntary?) and improved health care. For good measure, he added a third prong: better “reproductive health services”. Let’s see… what share of the 0.9 -1.4 billion reduction in world population Gates prescribed in 2016 would have come from terminated pregnancies?

In fact, healthier people might or might not want more children, but lower child mortality in the developing world would reduce certain economic incentives for high fertility. Another reliable association is between income and child bearing: an increase in “services per person” is likely to lead to smaller families, but that wasn’t given any emphasis by Gates. Income growth is simply not part of the narrative! Yet income growth does something else: it allows us to more easily afford the research and investments required for advanced technologies, including cleaner energy. These things take time, however.

Solway points to other weaknesses in Gates’ interpretation of the Kaya Identity. For example, efforts to slow population growth are not reliably associated with “services per person”, fuel efficiency, or carbon efficiency. In other words, carbon emissions may be powerfully influenced by factors other than population. China is a case in point.

Centralized industrial and social planning is generally ill-suited to advancing human well being. It’s especially suspect if the sole objective is to reduce carbon emissions. But Gates knows that lowering emissions without a corresponding drop in real income requires continuing technological advances and/or more efficient decisions about which technologies to deploy. He is a big advocate of developing cheap hydrogen power, which is far from a reality. He is also excited about carbon capture technologies, which are still in their infancy.

Renewables like wind and solar power play a large part in Gates’ vision. Those technologies cannot deliver a reliable flow of power, however, without either adequate backup capacity or a dramatic advance in battery technology. Gates over-promotes wind and solar, but I give him credit for acknowledging their intermittency. He attempts to come to grips with it by advocating nuclear backup, but it’s just not clear that he has integrated the incremental cost of the necessary backup capacity with other direct costs of these renewables… not to mention the considerable environmental costs imposed by wind and solar (see the “back-to-nature” photo at the top for a cogent illustration). Power storage at scale is still a long way off, and its cost will be significant as well.

We could deploy existing energy technologies to greater advantage with respect to carbon efficiency. We’ve already reduced CO2 emissions in the U.S. by substituting natural gas for less carbon-efficient fuels, but the Biden Administration would rather discourage its use. Gates deserves credit for recognizing the huge role that nuclear energy can play in providing zero-carbon power. Despite that, he still can’t quite bring himself to admit the boneheadedness of heavy reliance on intermittent renewables.

Bill’s “Green Premium”

Gates seems to have deemphasized the Kaya Identity more recently. Instead, his focus has shifted to the so-called “green premium”, or the incremental cost of using zero-carbon technology relative to a traditional source. Needless to say, the premium is large for truly zero-carbon sources, but Gates emphasizes the importance of using the green premium to guide development even in the here and now.

That’s fine, but it’s not clear that he gives adequate consideration to cases in which emissions, while not eliminated, can be reduced at a negative incremental cost via appropriate substitution. That describes the transition to natural gas from other fuels. This is something that markets can do without the assistance of ham-handed interventionists. Gates prefers nuclear power and says natural gas is “not a real bridge technology” to a zero carbon future. That’s short-sighted and reflects an absolutist mindset that ignores both the economic and political environment. The thinking is that if it’s not zero emissions, it’s not worth doing.

Gates emphasizes the need to sharply reduce the range of green premia on various technologies to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. But the goal of net-zero emissions 2050 is based on the highly unlikely proposition that global catastrophe awaits failing net-zero. In fact, the predicted consequences of doing nothing are based on drastic and outdated carbon growth scenarios and rudimentary carbon-forcing models that have proven to be severely biased to the upside in terms of predicting global temperature trends.

The idea that 2050 is some kind of “deadline” is a wholly arbitrary determination. Furthermore, the absolutism with which such goals are stated belies a failure to properly assess the true costs and benefits of carbon-based energy. If we so much as accept the notion that fossil fuels have external costs, we are then expected to accept that zero carbon emissions is optimal. This is not “science”; it is doctrine propped-up by bizarre and false scare stories. It involves massive efforts to manipulate opinion and coerce behavior based upon shoddy forecasts produced by committee. Even carbon capture technology is considered “problematic” because it implies that someone, somewhere, will use a process that emits CO2. That’s a ridiculous bogeyman, of course, and even Gates supports development of carbon capture.

Conclusion

I’ve never felt any real antipathy for Bill Gates as a person. He built a fortune, and I used his company’s software for most of my career. In some ways I still prefer it to macOS. I believe Gates is sincere in his efforts to help humanity even if his efforts are misdirected. He seems to reside on the less crazy end of the spectrum of climate alarmists. He’s putting a great deal of his private resources toward development of technologies that, if successful, might actually lead to less coercion by those attempting to transform private energy decisions. Nevertheless, there is menace in some of the solutions to which Gates clings. They require concerted action on the part of central authorities that would commandeer private resources and abrogate liberty. His assertion that the world is over-populated is both dubious and dangerous. You can offer free health care, but a conviction that the population must be thinned can lead to far more radical and monstrous initiatives.

The “green premium” promoted by Gates is an indirect measure of how far we must go to achieve parity in the pricing of carbon and non-carbon energy sources, as if parity should be an objective of public policy. That proposition is based on bad economics, fraudulent analyses of trends in carbon concentrations and climate trends, and a purposely incomplete menu of technological alternatives. Yes, the green premium highlights various technological challenges, but it is also a direct measure of how much intervention via taxes or subsidies are necessary to achieve parity. Is that a temptation to policymakers? Or does it represent a daunting political barrier? It’s pretty clear that the “median voter” does not view climate change as the only priority.

Green Climate Policy Wreaks Poverty

03 Friday Sep 2021

Posted by in Climate science, Environmental Fascism

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Have no doubt: climate change warriors are at battle with humanity itself, ostensibly on behalf of the natural world. They would have us believe that their efforts to eliminate the use of fossil fuels are necessary to keep our planet from becoming a blazing hothouse. However, the global temperature changes we’ve witnessed over the past 150 years, based on the latest Assessment Report (AR6) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are well within the range of historical variation.

“Remodeled” History

Jennifer Marohasy posted an informative discussion of the IPCC’s conclusions last month, putting them into a broader climatological context and focusing in particular on measurement issues. In short, discussing “global” temperatures with any exactitude is something of a sham. Moreover, the local temperature series upon which the global calculations are based have been “remodeled.” They are not direct observations. I don’t think it’s too crude to say they’ve been manipulated because the changed records are almost always in one direction: to “cool” the past.

Judith Curry is succinct in her criticism of the approach to climate change adopted by alarmist policymakers and many climate researchers: 

“In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions. The complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change is being kept away from the policy and public debate. The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.”

We need a little more honesty!

The Real Victims

I want to focus here on some of the likely casualties of the war on fossil fuels. Those are, without a doubt, the world’s poor, who are being consigned by climate activists to a future of abject suffering. Joel Kotkin and Hügo Krüger are spot-on in their recent piece on the inhumane implications of anti-carbon ideology.

Energy-poor areas of the world are now denied avenues through which to enhance their peoples’ well being. Attempts to fund fossil-fuel power projects are regularly stymied by western governments and financial institutions in the interests of staving off political backlash from greens. Meanwhile, far more prosperous nations power their economies with traditional carbon-based energy sources. Most conspicuously, China continues to fuel its rapid growth with coal and other fossil fuels, getting little pushback from climate activists. If you’re wondering how the composition of energy output has evolved, this time-lapse chart is a pretty good guide.

One of the most incredible aspects of this situation is how nuclear energy has been spurned, despite its status as a proven and safe solution to carbon-free power. This excellent thread by Michael Schellenberger covers the object lesson in bad public policy offered by the proposed closing of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California.

In both the U.S. and other parts of the world, as Kotkin and Krüger note, it is not just the high up-front costs that lead to the rejection of these nuclear projects. The green lobby and renewable energy interests are now so powerful that nuclear energy is hardly considered. Much the same is true of low-carbon natural gas: 

“Sadly, the combination of virtue-signaling companies and directives shaped by green activists in rich countries – often based on wildly exaggerated projections, notes former Barack Obama advisor Steve Koonin – make such a gradual, technically feasible transition all but impossible. Instead, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that developing countries will be able to tap even their own gas.”

Energy is the lifeblood of every economy. Inadequate power creates obstacles to almost any form of production and renders some kinds of production impossible. And ironically, the environmental consequences of “energy poverty” are dire. Many under-developed economies are largely dependent on deforestation for energy. Without a reliable power grid and cheap energy, consumers must burn open fires in their homes for heat and cooking, a practice responsible for 50% of child pneumonia deaths worldwide, according to Kotkin and Krüger.

Green Environmental Degradation

Typically, under-developed countries are reliant on the extraction of natural resources demanded by the developed world:

“The shift to renewables in the West, for example, has increased focus on developing countries as prime sources for critical metals – copper, lithium, and rare-earth minerals, in particular – that could lead to the devastation of much of the remaining natural and agricultural landscape. … Lithium has led to the depletion of water resources in Latin America and the further entrenchment of child labor in the Democratic Republic of the Congoas the search for cobalt continues.”

Unfortunately, the damage is not solely due to dependence on resource extraction:

“The western greens, albeit unintentionally, are essentially turning the Third World into the place they send their dirty work. Already, notes environmental author Mike Shellenberger, Africans are stuck with loads of discarded, highly toxic solar panels that expose both the legions of rag-pickers and the land itself to environmental degradation – all in the name of environmentalism.”

Battering the Poor In the West

Again, wealthy countries are in far better shape to handle the sacrifices required by the climate calamitists, but it still won’t be easy. In fact, lower economic strata will suffer far more than technocrats, managers, and political elites. The environmental left leans on the insidious lever of energy costs in order to reduce demand, but making energy more costly takes a far larger bite out of the budgets of the poor. In another recent piece, “Jim Crow Returns to California,” Kotkin discusses the disparate impact these energy policies have on minorities. 

“This surge in prices derives from the state’s obsession — shared by the ruling tech oligarchs — with renewable energy and the elimination of fossil fuels. Yet as a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) report has shown, over-reliance on renewables is costly, because it requires the production of massive (and environmentally unfriendly) battery-storage capacity — the price of which is invariably passed on to the taxpayer.

This is not bad news for the tech oligarchs, who have been prominent among those profiting from ‘clean energy’ investments. But many other Californians, primarily those in the less temperate interior, find themselves falling into energy poverty or are dependent on state subsidies that raise electricity prices for businesses and the middle class. Black and Latino households are already forced to pay from 20 to 43% more of their household incomes on energy than white households. Last year, more than 4 million households in California (30% of the total) experienced energy poverty.”

Kotkin touches on other consequences of these misguided policies to minority and non-minority working people. In addition to jobs lost in the energy sector, a wide variety of wage earners will suffer as their employers attempt to deal with escalating energy costs. The immediate effects are bad enough, but in the long-run the greens’ plans would scale back the economy’s productive machinery in order to eliminate carbon emissions — net zero means real incomes will decline! 

Energy costs have a broad impact on consumer’s budgets. Almost every product imaginable is dependent on energy, and consumer prices will reflect the higher costs. In addition, the “green” effort to curtail development everywhere except in high-density transit corridors inflates the cost of housing, inflicting more damage on workers’ standards of living.

Tighten Your Belts

These problems won’t be confined to California if environmental leftists get their version of justice. Be prepared for economic stagnation for the world’s poor and a sharply reduced standard of living in the developed world, but quite unnecessarily. We’ll all pay in the long run, but the poor will pay much more in relative terms.

The Futility and Falsehoods of Climate Heroics

01 Tuesday Jun 2021

Posted by in Climate science, Environmental Fascism, Global Warming, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The world’s gone far astray in attempts to battle climate change through forced reductions in carbon emissions. Last Wednesday, in an outrageously stupid ruling,a Dutch court ordered Royal Dutch Shell to reduce its emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. It has nothing to do with Shell’s historical record on the environment. Rather, the Court said Shell’s existing climate action plans did not meet “the company’s own responsibility for achieving a CO2 reduction.” The decision will be appealed, but it appears that “industry agreements” under the Netherlands’ Climate Act of 2019 are in dispute.

Later that same day, a shareholder dissident group supporting corporate action on climate change won at least two ExxonMobil board seats. And then we have the story of John Kerry’s effort to stop major banks from lending to the fossil fuel industry. Together with the Biden Administration’s other actions on energy policy, we are witnessing the greatest attack on conventional power sources in history, and we’ll all pay dearly for it. 

The Central Planner’s Conceit

Technological advance is a great thing, and we’ve seen it in the development of safe nuclear power generation, but the environmental left has successfully placed roadblocks in the way of its deployment. Instead, they favor the mandated adoption of what amount to beta versions of technologies that might never be economic and create extreme environmental hazards of their own (see here, here, here, and here). To private adopters, green energy installations are often subsidized by the government, disguising their underlying inefficiencies. These premature beta versions are then embedded in our base of productive capital and often remain even as they are made obsolete by subsequent advances. The “putty-clay” nature of technology decisions should caution us against premature adoptions of this kind. This is just one of the many curses of central planning.

Not only have our leftist planners forced the deployment of inferior technologies: they are actively seeking to bring more viable alternatives to ruination. I mentioned nuclear power and even natural gas offer a path for reducing carbon emissions, yet climate alarmists wage war against it as much as other fossil fuels. We have Kerry’s plot to deny funding for the fossil fuel industry and even activist “woke” investors, attempting to override management expertise and divert internal resources to green energy. It’s not as if renewable energy sources are not already part of these energy firms’ development portfolios. Allocations of capital and staff to these projects are usually dependent upon a company’s professional and technical expertise, market forces, and (less propitiously) incentives decreed by the government. Yet, the activist investors are there to impose their will.

Placing Faith and Fate In Models

All these attempts to remake our energy complex and the economy are based on the presumed external costs associated with carbon emissions. Those costs, and the potential savings achievable through the mitigation efforts of government and private greenies around the globe, have been wildly exaggerated.

The first thing to understand about the climate “science” relied upon by the environmental left is that it is almost exclusively model-dependent. In other words, it is based on mathematical relationships specified by the researchers. Their projections depend on those specs, the selection of parameter values, and the scenarios to which they are subjected. The models are usually calibrated to be roughly consistent with outcomes over some historical time period, but as modelers in almost any field can attest, that is not hard to do. It’s still possible to produce extreme results out-of-sample. The point is that these models are generally not estimated statistically from a lengthy sample of historical data. Even when sound statistical methodologies are employed, the samples are blinkingly short on climatological timescales. That means they are highly sample-specific and likely to propagate large errors out-of-sample. But most of these are what might be called “toy models” specified by the researcher. And what are often billed as “findings” are merely projections based on scenarios that are themselves manufactured by imaginative climate “researchers” cum grant-seeking partisans. In fact, it’s much worse than that because even historical climate data is subject to manipulation, but that’s a topic for another day.

Key Assumptions

What follows are basic components of the climate apocalypse narrative as supported by “the science” of man-made or anthropomorphic global warming (AGW):

(A) The first kind of model output to consider is the increase in atmospheric carbon concentration over time, measured in parts per million (PPM). This is a function of many natural processes, including volcanism and other kinds of outgassing from oceans and decomposing biomass, as well absorption by carbon sinks like vegetation and various geological materials. But the primary focus is human carbon generating activity, which depends on the carbon-intensity of production technology. As Ross McKitrick shows (see chart below), projections from these kinds of models have demonstrated significant upside bias over the years. Whether that is because of slower than expected economic growth, unexpected technological efficiencies, an increase in the service-orientation of economic activity worldwide, or feedback from carbon-induced greening or other processes, most of the models have over-predicted atmospheric carbon PPM. Those errors tend to increase with the passage of time, of course.

(B) Most of the models promoted by climate alarmists are carbon forcing models, meaning that carbon emissions are the primary driver of global temperatures and other phenomena like storm strength and increases in sea level. With increases in carbon concentration predicted by the models in (A) above, the next stage of models predicts that temperatures must rise. But the models tend to run “hot.” This chart shows the mean of several prominent global temperature series contrasted with 1990 projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The following is even more revealing, as it shows the dispersion of various model runs relative to three different global temperature series:

And here’s another, which is a more “stylized” view, showing ranges of predictions. The gaps show errors of fairly large magnitude relative to the mean trend of actual temperatures of 0.11 degrees Celsius per decade.

(C) Climate sensitivity to “radiative forcing” is a key assumption underlying all of the forecasts of AGW. A simple explanation is that a stronger greenhouse effect, and increases in the atmosphere’s carbon concentration, cause more solar energy to be “trapped” within our “greenhouse,” and less is radiated back into space. Climate sensitivity is usually measured in degrees Celsius relative to a doubling of atmospheric carbon. 

And how large is the climate’s sensitivity to a doubling of carbon PPM? The IPCC says it’s in a range of 1.5C to 4.5C. However, findings published by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry are close to the low end of that range, and are those found by the author of the paper described here. 

In separate efforts, Finnish and Japanese researchers have asserted that the primary cause of recent warming is an increase in low cloud cover, which the Japanese team attributes to increases in the Earth’s bombardment by cosmic rays due to a weakening magnetic field. The Finnish authors note that most of the models used by the climate establishment ignore cloud formation, an omission they believe leads to a massive overstatement (10x) of sensitivity to carbon forcings. Furthermore, they assert that carbon forcings are mainly attributable to ocean discharge as opposed to human activity.

(D) Estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) per ton of emissions are used as a rationale for carbon abatement efforts. The SCC was pioneered by economist William Nordhaus in the 1990s, and today there are a number of prominent models that produce distributions of possible SCC values, which tend to have high dispersion and extremely long upper tails. Of course, the highest estimates are driven by the same assumptions about extreme climate sensitivities discussed above. The Biden Administration is using an SCC of $51 per ton. Some recommend the adoption of even higher values for regulatory purposes in order to achieve net-zero emissions at an early date, revealing the manipulative purposes to which the SCC concept is put. This is a raw attempt to usurp economic power, not any sort of exercise in optimization, as this admission from a “climate expert” shows. In the midst of a barrage of false climate propaganda (hurricanes! wildfires!), he tells 60 Minutes that an acceptable limit on warming of 1.5C is just a number they “chose” as a “tipping point.”

As a measurement exercise, more realistic climate sensitivities yield much lower SCCs. McKitrick presents a chart from Lewis-Curry comparing their estimates of the SCC at lower climate sensitivities to an average of earlier estimates used by IPCC:

High levels of the SCC are used as a rationale for high-cost carbon abatement efforts. If the SCC is overstated, however, then costly abatements represent waste. And there is no guarantee that spending an amount on abatements equal to the SCC will eliminate the presumed cost of a ton’s worth of anthropomorphic warming. Again, there are strong reasons to believe that the warming experienced over the past several decades has had multiple causes, and human carbon emissions might have played a relatively minor role. 

Crisis Is King

Some people just aren’t happy unless they have a crisis over which to harangue the rest of us. But try as they might, the vast resources dedicated to carbon reduction are largely wasted. I hesitate to say their effort is quixotic because they want more windmills and are completely lacking in gallantry. As McKitrick notes, it takes many years for abatement to have a meaningful impact on carbon concentrations, and since emissions mix globally, unilateral efforts are practically worthless. Worse yet, the resource costs of abatement and lost economic growth are unacceptable, especially when some of the most promising alternative sources of “clean” energy are dismissed by activists. So we forego economic growth, rush to adopt immature energy alternatives, and make very little progress toward the stated goals of the climate alarmists.