So, reading the Enersection projections to 2030, Wind and Solar displace 0.6 TWh of coal which should reduce CO2 emissions by 600,000 tons from 4.8 MTons to 4.2 MTons or 12.5% compared with a target of 51% reduction.
EVs sales increase to 5 million per year out of 17 million car sales per year, with only a 2% increase in load on the grid. However there are 284 million cars in the US, so less than 2% of the base is going EV.
Reiterating Roger's observation on the EIA, I'm also a huge fan. Their data is comprehensive, up-to-date and unbiased. I might add that the IEA provides even better global data and forecasts while the BP Statistical Review of World Energy is also a great source of information. Alas, I've read recently that BP is considering ending their annual review in order to appear more in synch with their long term clean energy goals.
I’ve noticed that extreme weather events, “once in a hundred years “that are covered in the media which track record heat or the lack of precipitation are invariably linked to climate change.
But those that involve record cold, or an over-abundance of snow or rain are seldom, if ever linked to climate change in news stories.
It has been estimated that the cost of reaching Net Zero CO2equiv in the USA alone by 2050 exceeds some multiple of the current $23 trillion GDP; many multiples if grid reliability is a prerequisite that is satisfied with grid-scale battery backup. The question is begged, for what purpose? Estimates using the MAGGIC model peg a resulting decrease in global mean surface temperature of less than 0.2C over the ensuing 77 years between now and 2100. This avoided warmth, like the +1.1 C of warming from the end of the Little Ice Age until now, would have been beneficial to the biosphere as would have been the accompanying enhanced photosynthesis from additional CO2.
Using numbers from the IEA Net Zero by 2050, A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector and from the Princeton study that builds off of this IEA roadmap (Princeton NZA FINAL REPORT (29Oct2021) (1).pdf), 7.2% of the contiguous United States land area would be covered with wind farms, solar panels, and associated transmission lines. Materials for this “renewable” grid would exceed 633 million gigatons of copper, zinc, silicone, nickel, manganese, chromium, molybdenum, rare earth, and lithium. These numbers do not include the aluminum, steel, and concrete for this infrastructure. The scars on the earth would be enormous. Plus, the wind turbines, solar panels and batteries are likely to end up in landfills. Renewable energy is not green.
Net Zero and the demonizing of fossil fuels are resulting in energy poverty in developed economies and are preventing developing economies from rising out of abject poverty. Asking Africa to develop its coal resources for export to Europe while campaigning to deny African nations the use of their own coal for reliable, low-cost energy is the epitome of elite arrogance.
How to meet emission targets in the USA is the wrong objective. Rather it should be how to develop reliable, low-cost energy for the flourishing of our citizens.
some excellent comments here below on the damages of setting unreasonable targets. i would also add that all this charade is simply fertile territory for lobbyists, consultants who love to perpetuate the completely flawed framework. lastly South Korea has announced an important strategic reshuffling of their portfolio of energy sources: less wind and solar more nuclear. A very good sign....after the hangover effect is over some common sense and rationality kicks in.
Emission reduction targets are not supported by science, at least not good science. They are there simply to give the central planners something to shoot at. The world will not come to an end if these targets are not met, nor will the seas begin to fall and the earth cool if they are met. The inability of the climate models to simulate natural variation make the models - and the targets - useless. This is just an exercise in political control of society.
To those 20% who once they have seen it, cannot unsee it, this is a classical political ploy..... set the targets... knowing that they are going to fail to be achieved.... then blame industry, the people, the weather ,whatever..... Then they have their excuse to go ahead doubling down, doubling down and doubling down again with renewed vigour to destroy the fossil fuel industry, pour billions and billions more taxpayers money on the government boondoggle that is - renewables. You see the Left are never wrong in their "visions." It is just that industry, the people, the weather ,whatever has let them down. And they do it time and time again, seemingly unphased by the fact that they got it wrong in the first place. So predictable and so frustrating for the sceptics. 😒
At JPL where I worked so many years, the systems engineer kept track of all the subsystems and components for a spacecraft under design, and entered their volume, mass, power and data requirements in spreadsheets which revealed how close we were to design limits, or constraints. Systems engineers also analyzed the interconnection between subsystems and components to assure their compatibility. Systems engineers planning space missions need to assure that there is adequate propulsion, power and other resources to carry out the steps in the mission. In short, the systems engineer makes sure that the whole dang thing fits together and works. Systems engineers (not identified as such by name) organize activity in a thousand ways in our daily lives. The guy at Deli who sees the multitude of plates coming out over the high counter from the kitchen and assigns plates to waitresses to create a smooth delivery system is a systems engineer of sorts.
What I have noted in the governmental responses to the perceived threat of climate change is a severe lack of systems engineering. For anyone to plan for emissions reduction over some future period, they must start with demand for power and energy. How much, and when and where? With what constraints and uncertainties? And how dependent on market conditions? What is the present mix of sources, delivery systems and how does that fit demand patterns? What are the external factors that could impact projections? If emissions are to be reduced, how will the mix of sources change year by year, and how and why will this projected change take place due to market forces, government policy, and technology innovation? What are the barriers, inhibitors, even pitfalls? One of the things that jumps out at me is the current antipathy to natural gas. Unlike coal which is mainly carbon or gasoline which is has a lower (H/C) ratio natural gas (CH4) is a wonderful fuel. It can burn clean with little particulate matter and it emits two water molecules for every CO2 molecule. Natural gas offers us a great opportunity during the transition period to lower emissions to provide the people with energy while significantly reducing emissions compared to coal, diesel and gasoline. The thing missing from Mr. Biden's agenda is a year-by-year plan for power/energy demand supplied by identified resources with sequentially decreasing emissions with system engineering showing the feasibility of it all.
As Mark Silbert says below, the whole thing is "political BS". Biden has no intent, no vision, no serious belief that he can reduce emissions anywhere near what he claims. He just says what some of his constituency wants to hear.
And as Andy Riven suggests below, it seems likely that climate policy is connected to actual emissions by a wet noodle.
The government can wake up each morning, face east, and bid the sun to rise, but it cannot decree a 50% reaction in emissions in 10 years.
Then, there is yet a higher level of systems engineering involved at the big picture. Emissions are increasing (mostly due to China and India by the way).
Question 1: How will the level of yearly emissions play out over the next 80 years?
Question 2: What fraction of excess CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for each scenario in #1?
Question 3: How will the earth's climate respond to the excess CO2 in the atmosphere from #2?
Question 4: How will the changes in earth's climate from #3 affect human life and activity?
What we have here is uncertainty piled upon uncertainty. There are many people in high places and low (e.g. How dare you!) who think they know the answers to these questions. On what basis, I do no know. But ultimately it comes down to why people believe things. And those with the least specific knowledge, the least access to data and analysis, the least technical understanding, seem to be the most certain.
I am struggling to understand the purpose of this post. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of our energy system and the physics that underlay it knows that the 2025/2030 targets are unachievable and most of us agree that they are nothing more than political BS.
If this is a call for a more rational approach to energy and climate policy, just say so.
The longer I've been on the climate beat (starting in a big way in 1988) the clearer it has become that, at the planetary scale, it's hard to pick up any signal in greenhouse gas emissions that climate *policy* matters (whether anti action like Trump's or the opposite by Obama, Clinton or Biden). At the national scale, I suppose it could be argued that Dick Cheney was more responsible for CO2 reductions than anyone else by helping craft G W Bush's fracking-friendly energy policies, which helped gas supplant a lot of coal. I'd love your take on this question?
"Another beautiful theory, destroyed by an ugly fact". But, of course, the 'progressive' left always has "an alternate set of facts" - otherwise known as lies and fantasies
Natural gas and nuclear, plain and simple - but the hysterics clamouring for reduced emissions by and large oppose both - so the result is either missed targets or a return to a Neolithic lifestyle. The former is guaranteed, and the latter will only happen after the hysterics adopt it and convince sane people to join them. Not holding my breath.
My honest response to this is "Thank God!!" Hitting this "target" would - perhaps - inconvenience the Rich, but would severely constrain the Middle Class, and doom the Poor's hopes of ever climbing out of poverty. Our fragile grid would soon resemble that of a Third World country. Even CA's Governor has backed off from some of this lunacy in the face of a looming budget crunch.
A 50% reduction. by 2030 is unimaginable in the first place. And its a good thing that we are not on track for that because the only way to achieve it would be shut down the economy and blackout power to tens of millions of people. There is no evidence I have seen that suggests that such an extreme draconian reduction in emissions is needed, and even less evidence that it is possible. The problem seems to be that wild eyed graduates of certain U of California campuses with shaggy hair and floppy sandals believe things because they believe them. Which opens the door to why the broader question (way beyond this forum): Why do people believe things?
"A goal without a plan is just a wish.", Antoine de St. Exupery
The Administration has something less than half a plan: eliminate coal-fired generation by 2030. There appears to be no plan to replace the lost generating capacity plus add the additional capacity required by EVs and "all-electric everything".
Emissions were being reduced by substituting natural gas for coal generation, but the 2035 cutoff for gas generation eliminates incentive to invest in gas generators.
So, reading the Enersection projections to 2030, Wind and Solar displace 0.6 TWh of coal which should reduce CO2 emissions by 600,000 tons from 4.8 MTons to 4.2 MTons or 12.5% compared with a target of 51% reduction.
EVs sales increase to 5 million per year out of 17 million car sales per year, with only a 2% increase in load on the grid. However there are 284 million cars in the US, so less than 2% of the base is going EV.
For $360bn is this all we get?
Reiterating Roger's observation on the EIA, I'm also a huge fan. Their data is comprehensive, up-to-date and unbiased. I might add that the IEA provides even better global data and forecasts while the BP Statistical Review of World Energy is also a great source of information. Alas, I've read recently that BP is considering ending their annual review in order to appear more in synch with their long term clean energy goals.
I’ve noticed that extreme weather events, “once in a hundred years “that are covered in the media which track record heat or the lack of precipitation are invariably linked to climate change.
But those that involve record cold, or an over-abundance of snow or rain are seldom, if ever linked to climate change in news stories.
Why is that?
It has been estimated that the cost of reaching Net Zero CO2equiv in the USA alone by 2050 exceeds some multiple of the current $23 trillion GDP; many multiples if grid reliability is a prerequisite that is satisfied with grid-scale battery backup. The question is begged, for what purpose? Estimates using the MAGGIC model peg a resulting decrease in global mean surface temperature of less than 0.2C over the ensuing 77 years between now and 2100. This avoided warmth, like the +1.1 C of warming from the end of the Little Ice Age until now, would have been beneficial to the biosphere as would have been the accompanying enhanced photosynthesis from additional CO2.
Using numbers from the IEA Net Zero by 2050, A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector and from the Princeton study that builds off of this IEA roadmap (Princeton NZA FINAL REPORT (29Oct2021) (1).pdf), 7.2% of the contiguous United States land area would be covered with wind farms, solar panels, and associated transmission lines. Materials for this “renewable” grid would exceed 633 million gigatons of copper, zinc, silicone, nickel, manganese, chromium, molybdenum, rare earth, and lithium. These numbers do not include the aluminum, steel, and concrete for this infrastructure. The scars on the earth would be enormous. Plus, the wind turbines, solar panels and batteries are likely to end up in landfills. Renewable energy is not green.
Net Zero and the demonizing of fossil fuels are resulting in energy poverty in developed economies and are preventing developing economies from rising out of abject poverty. Asking Africa to develop its coal resources for export to Europe while campaigning to deny African nations the use of their own coal for reliable, low-cost energy is the epitome of elite arrogance.
How to meet emission targets in the USA is the wrong objective. Rather it should be how to develop reliable, low-cost energy for the flourishing of our citizens.
some excellent comments here below on the damages of setting unreasonable targets. i would also add that all this charade is simply fertile territory for lobbyists, consultants who love to perpetuate the completely flawed framework. lastly South Korea has announced an important strategic reshuffling of their portfolio of energy sources: less wind and solar more nuclear. A very good sign....after the hangover effect is over some common sense and rationality kicks in.
Emission reduction targets are not supported by science, at least not good science. They are there simply to give the central planners something to shoot at. The world will not come to an end if these targets are not met, nor will the seas begin to fall and the earth cool if they are met. The inability of the climate models to simulate natural variation make the models - and the targets - useless. This is just an exercise in political control of society.
To those 20% who once they have seen it, cannot unsee it, this is a classical political ploy..... set the targets... knowing that they are going to fail to be achieved.... then blame industry, the people, the weather ,whatever..... Then they have their excuse to go ahead doubling down, doubling down and doubling down again with renewed vigour to destroy the fossil fuel industry, pour billions and billions more taxpayers money on the government boondoggle that is - renewables. You see the Left are never wrong in their "visions." It is just that industry, the people, the weather ,whatever has let them down. And they do it time and time again, seemingly unphased by the fact that they got it wrong in the first place. So predictable and so frustrating for the sceptics. 😒
At JPL where I worked so many years, the systems engineer kept track of all the subsystems and components for a spacecraft under design, and entered their volume, mass, power and data requirements in spreadsheets which revealed how close we were to design limits, or constraints. Systems engineers also analyzed the interconnection between subsystems and components to assure their compatibility. Systems engineers planning space missions need to assure that there is adequate propulsion, power and other resources to carry out the steps in the mission. In short, the systems engineer makes sure that the whole dang thing fits together and works. Systems engineers (not identified as such by name) organize activity in a thousand ways in our daily lives. The guy at Deli who sees the multitude of plates coming out over the high counter from the kitchen and assigns plates to waitresses to create a smooth delivery system is a systems engineer of sorts.
What I have noted in the governmental responses to the perceived threat of climate change is a severe lack of systems engineering. For anyone to plan for emissions reduction over some future period, they must start with demand for power and energy. How much, and when and where? With what constraints and uncertainties? And how dependent on market conditions? What is the present mix of sources, delivery systems and how does that fit demand patterns? What are the external factors that could impact projections? If emissions are to be reduced, how will the mix of sources change year by year, and how and why will this projected change take place due to market forces, government policy, and technology innovation? What are the barriers, inhibitors, even pitfalls? One of the things that jumps out at me is the current antipathy to natural gas. Unlike coal which is mainly carbon or gasoline which is has a lower (H/C) ratio natural gas (CH4) is a wonderful fuel. It can burn clean with little particulate matter and it emits two water molecules for every CO2 molecule. Natural gas offers us a great opportunity during the transition period to lower emissions to provide the people with energy while significantly reducing emissions compared to coal, diesel and gasoline. The thing missing from Mr. Biden's agenda is a year-by-year plan for power/energy demand supplied by identified resources with sequentially decreasing emissions with system engineering showing the feasibility of it all.
As Mark Silbert says below, the whole thing is "political BS". Biden has no intent, no vision, no serious belief that he can reduce emissions anywhere near what he claims. He just says what some of his constituency wants to hear.
And as Andy Riven suggests below, it seems likely that climate policy is connected to actual emissions by a wet noodle.
The government can wake up each morning, face east, and bid the sun to rise, but it cannot decree a 50% reaction in emissions in 10 years.
Then, there is yet a higher level of systems engineering involved at the big picture. Emissions are increasing (mostly due to China and India by the way).
Question 1: How will the level of yearly emissions play out over the next 80 years?
Question 2: What fraction of excess CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for each scenario in #1?
Question 3: How will the earth's climate respond to the excess CO2 in the atmosphere from #2?
Question 4: How will the changes in earth's climate from #3 affect human life and activity?
What we have here is uncertainty piled upon uncertainty. There are many people in high places and low (e.g. How dare you!) who think they know the answers to these questions. On what basis, I do no know. But ultimately it comes down to why people believe things. And those with the least specific knowledge, the least access to data and analysis, the least technical understanding, seem to be the most certain.
I am struggling to understand the purpose of this post. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of our energy system and the physics that underlay it knows that the 2025/2030 targets are unachievable and most of us agree that they are nothing more than political BS.
If this is a call for a more rational approach to energy and climate policy, just say so.
The longer I've been on the climate beat (starting in a big way in 1988) the clearer it has become that, at the planetary scale, it's hard to pick up any signal in greenhouse gas emissions that climate *policy* matters (whether anti action like Trump's or the opposite by Obama, Clinton or Biden). At the national scale, I suppose it could be argued that Dick Cheney was more responsible for CO2 reductions than anyone else by helping craft G W Bush's fracking-friendly energy policies, which helped gas supplant a lot of coal. I'd love your take on this question?
"Another beautiful theory, destroyed by an ugly fact". But, of course, the 'progressive' left always has "an alternate set of facts" - otherwise known as lies and fantasies
Natural gas and nuclear, plain and simple - but the hysterics clamouring for reduced emissions by and large oppose both - so the result is either missed targets or a return to a Neolithic lifestyle. The former is guaranteed, and the latter will only happen after the hysterics adopt it and convince sane people to join them. Not holding my breath.
My honest response to this is "Thank God!!" Hitting this "target" would - perhaps - inconvenience the Rich, but would severely constrain the Middle Class, and doom the Poor's hopes of ever climbing out of poverty. Our fragile grid would soon resemble that of a Third World country. Even CA's Governor has backed off from some of this lunacy in the face of a looming budget crunch.
A 50% reduction. by 2030 is unimaginable in the first place. And its a good thing that we are not on track for that because the only way to achieve it would be shut down the economy and blackout power to tens of millions of people. There is no evidence I have seen that suggests that such an extreme draconian reduction in emissions is needed, and even less evidence that it is possible. The problem seems to be that wild eyed graduates of certain U of California campuses with shaggy hair and floppy sandals believe things because they believe them. Which opens the door to why the broader question (way beyond this forum): Why do people believe things?
"A goal without a plan is just a wish.", Antoine de St. Exupery
The Administration has something less than half a plan: eliminate coal-fired generation by 2030. There appears to be no plan to replace the lost generating capacity plus add the additional capacity required by EVs and "all-electric everything".
Emissions were being reduced by substituting natural gas for coal generation, but the 2035 cutoff for gas generation eliminates incentive to invest in gas generators.
So, lets be clear. These are not 'US targets'. These are the targets of the Biden administration. And pretty much no one else.