Affordable electric energy seems correlated with population stabilization, presumably of long term importance to "sustainability".
As Germany's "Energiewende" was only possible with cheap Russian gas as backup, the elimination of their existing stable nuclear power fleet must have brought smiles of satisfaction in Moscow...as mission accomplished?
As the bribery propelled 1st gen solar and wind begins to need replacement, what are the forecasts? Is there enough room in Wyoming to bury all of the expiring turbine blades?
Solar is good up to about 15% of the grid power supply. It survives as a parasite on the base load power grid. If there is instantly available power to cover the intermittent shortfall of solar, it works. If not, solar is extremely expensive and unreliable. Just look at California.
The estimated $9 trillion cost for the global “transition” to renewables does not include the opportunity costs due to lost industry, jobs, tax revenue etc. (see Germany and UK as examples). It’s past time to provide our citizens with an accounting of the full cost of the attempted transition vs the actual effect on CO2 emissions.
Just curious. Has any compiled data for the growth in renewable electric production as a function of government support, direct and indirect? My cynical prediction is that as subsidies decline (and penalties on fossil fuels decrease) the growth in solar and wind electricity will slow significantly.
BTW, that Chris Wright quote of 13 barrels of oil per American per year is similar to one I have used in the past, but in per capita gallons per day. That is currently 2.4 gallons per person. And that includes not just personal use, but all secondary and tertiary uses, like delivery trucks, farming, manufacturing, and the military. That is an amazing number.
several years ago I looked at solar for my house. I was 70 or a little less. I liked the idea I liked the finances. with rebates it looked good. Two issue, I'm paying only 108 a moth for electricity. Based on that, my ROI was at least 20 years to 30. Not reasonable for someone ,my age. Unless one has a lot of disposal income, I find age a major impediment until the Boomers die off.
Dr Pielke, when dealing with petroleum liquids it's better to separate Crude oil and condensate from other liquids such as "natural gas liquids" (NGL), it's also important to understand that a significant fraction of NGL isn't burnt, it's used by the chemical industry as feedstock to make molecules that seldom decompose. If we use refinery runs as a cross check we can see crude oil and condensate production has plateaued, and what increases is NGLs and syncrudes from gas to liquids.
Another point: solar and wind have growth limits caused by intermittency and lack of inertia.
To paraphrase the previous administration, it's nice to have "the adults back in the room" about energy policy, as opposed to people full of wishful thinking.
Those who think we should export huge amounts of oil and gas (a move which moves oil prices down and gas prices up), fail to understand world wide AND US reserves are limited.
So are you saying no country should export any oil and gas (or any natural resources, really) since "reserves are limited"? Explain to me the exact policy that you are advocating.
I use small solar panels to power my outdoor cameras. Why? Not to reduce costs. Not to save the environment. But for convenience. I don’t have to constantly recharge batteries. About the only thing I’ve found useful for solar. When technology improves and the costs come way down, I don’t see the value on a larger scale.
I disagree with you on a carbon tax. This is a top down approach for a problem that doesn’t exist. And multiple analyses have shown it is not a good idea economically and otherwise, as the following analysis shows.
I vehemently oppose solar/wind on teh grid, but there are some extremely niche applications.
Our rocketry club uses 12V Pb-acid batteries to drive the launch system. They sit in the storage trailer out at the launch site, far from any electrical outlets. Having a solar panel on the trailer to recharge the launch system between launches saves hauling the batteries back and forth.
Decarbonization should not be an objective. Carbon dioxide is a critical component of the atmosphere necessary for life on our planet. More of it is a net benefit. The amount produced from human emissions is small compared to all sources. Warming is not an existential threat, but cooling certainly is, and the Holocene interglacial is not a permanent planetary feature.
Regardless of the increasing percentage of energy from carbon-free sources, total fossil fuel consumption is going up. Thus renewable growth is not keeping up with energy consumption growth. It seems very unlikely it ever will.
Regarding utility scale solar PV, I live in East Tennessee, where TVA is currently preparing an Integrated Resource Plan. While it contains a menu of scenarios and strategies for additional capacity, the interesting question is combined cycle gas/steam turbines versus the solar/simple cycle gas turbine combination. TVA says that their model favors the solar/simple approach, but they don’t show a head-to-head comparison, and I am skeptical. I would be interested whether THB or any readers know of an objective analysis of these 2 options.
"TVA says that their model favors the solar/simple approach, but they don’t show a head-to-head comparison, and I am skeptical. I would be interested whether THB or any readers know of an objective analysis of these 2 options."
Oh, my!
Simple-cycle ("peaking") gas turbines are dinosaurs. They aren't substantially cheaper in capital costs than combined-cycle natural gas power plants (that use both gas turbines and steam turbines). And they can't both provide electricity when needed and *demand* electricity, when too much electricity is available (like batteries can).
Per Google search AI:
"In 2023, the US electric power sector added 9,274 MW of new natural gas-fired turbine capacity, with 7,376 MW from combined cycle plants and 1,756 MW from simple-cycle plants, and no new steam turbines, to the power grid."
There's a reason that the simple-cycle installations were so low! They're 20th century technology.
There are a number of articles around that show that fuel consumption is not substantially different or actually higher under the solar/wind scenario because the gas/coal backup is less efficient than just supplying all needs with a steady running fossil system.
I had a list of five of them I posted somewhere or other...
Thank you for reporting on JPMorgan's Energy publication.
Note: chart titled, "Electrification is expensive compared to gas" shows that states or countries with higher percent of wind & solar have higher electricity prices.
Another item: JP Morgan has been publishing the Energy Report for 15 years and only exited the Net Zero Banking Alliance two months ago?
Saints be praised, as my Irish grandfather would have said. This post is a step away from the magical thinking which has dominated discourse on energy policy for the last 20 years. Energy secretary Wright must be a very smart man, because he agrees with me. (Joke.)
When all is said and done, the utility of any intermittent energy source is totally dependent on the limitations of energy storage. For both wind and solar, this means battery capacity. Any nation which lacks a national system capable of supplying its grid for a week of cloudy, windless weather is courting disaster to build out wind and solar to more than about 35% of peak grid requirements. And at present, such a massive battery storage system exists nowhere on earth.
I write mainly about US monetary policy, US fiscal policy, trade/industrial policy, and climate change policy.
I have my opinions about which US political party is by far the least bad and they are not hard to figure out, but I try to keep my analysis of the issues non-partisan.
Keynes said, “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
Affordable electric energy seems correlated with population stabilization, presumably of long term importance to "sustainability".
As Germany's "Energiewende" was only possible with cheap Russian gas as backup, the elimination of their existing stable nuclear power fleet must have brought smiles of satisfaction in Moscow...as mission accomplished?
As the bribery propelled 1st gen solar and wind begins to need replacement, what are the forecasts? Is there enough room in Wyoming to bury all of the expiring turbine blades?
Solar is good up to about 15% of the grid power supply. It survives as a parasite on the base load power grid. If there is instantly available power to cover the intermittent shortfall of solar, it works. If not, solar is extremely expensive and unreliable. Just look at California.
Will Milliband get to see any of this information and will he ignore it, if he does.
The estimated $9 trillion cost for the global “transition” to renewables does not include the opportunity costs due to lost industry, jobs, tax revenue etc. (see Germany and UK as examples). It’s past time to provide our citizens with an accounting of the full cost of the attempted transition vs the actual effect on CO2 emissions.
Enlightened observations!
Just curious. Has any compiled data for the growth in renewable electric production as a function of government support, direct and indirect? My cynical prediction is that as subsidies decline (and penalties on fossil fuels decrease) the growth in solar and wind electricity will slow significantly.
BTW, that Chris Wright quote of 13 barrels of oil per American per year is similar to one I have used in the past, but in per capita gallons per day. That is currently 2.4 gallons per person. And that includes not just personal use, but all secondary and tertiary uses, like delivery trucks, farming, manufacturing, and the military. That is an amazing number.
several years ago I looked at solar for my house. I was 70 or a little less. I liked the idea I liked the finances. with rebates it looked good. Two issue, I'm paying only 108 a moth for electricity. Based on that, my ROI was at least 20 years to 30. Not reasonable for someone ,my age. Unless one has a lot of disposal income, I find age a major impediment until the Boomers die off.
Get your kids to pay for it. :)
Dr Pielke, when dealing with petroleum liquids it's better to separate Crude oil and condensate from other liquids such as "natural gas liquids" (NGL), it's also important to understand that a significant fraction of NGL isn't burnt, it's used by the chemical industry as feedstock to make molecules that seldom decompose. If we use refinery runs as a cross check we can see crude oil and condensate production has plateaued, and what increases is NGLs and syncrudes from gas to liquids.
Another point: solar and wind have growth limits caused by intermittency and lack of inertia.
To paraphrase the previous administration, it's nice to have "the adults back in the room" about energy policy, as opposed to people full of wishful thinking.
Those who think fossil fuel reserves are eternal are definitely guilty of wishful thinking.
That's a nice strawman you have there. Who out there is exactly proposing "fossil fuel reserves are eternal"?
Those who think we should export huge amounts of oil and gas (a move which moves oil prices down and gas prices up), fail to understand world wide AND US reserves are limited.
So are you saying no country should export any oil and gas (or any natural resources, really) since "reserves are limited"? Explain to me the exact policy that you are advocating.
I use small solar panels to power my outdoor cameras. Why? Not to reduce costs. Not to save the environment. But for convenience. I don’t have to constantly recharge batteries. About the only thing I’ve found useful for solar. When technology improves and the costs come way down, I don’t see the value on a larger scale.
I disagree with you on a carbon tax. This is a top down approach for a problem that doesn’t exist. And multiple analyses have shown it is not a good idea economically and otherwise, as the following analysis shows.
https://democrats-waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/IER%20The%20Case%20Against%20A%20Carbon%20Tax%20%20Submission%20Ways%20and%20Means.pdf
I vehemently oppose solar/wind on teh grid, but there are some extremely niche applications.
Our rocketry club uses 12V Pb-acid batteries to drive the launch system. They sit in the storage trailer out at the launch site, far from any electrical outlets. Having a solar panel on the trailer to recharge the launch system between launches saves hauling the batteries back and forth.
Decarbonization should not be an objective. Carbon dioxide is a critical component of the atmosphere necessary for life on our planet. More of it is a net benefit. The amount produced from human emissions is small compared to all sources. Warming is not an existential threat, but cooling certainly is, and the Holocene interglacial is not a permanent planetary feature.
Exactly !! Well said. Far too much emphasis on decarbonization is still a faulty foundational part of studies like JP Morgan’s.
Regardless of the increasing percentage of energy from carbon-free sources, total fossil fuel consumption is going up. Thus renewable growth is not keeping up with energy consumption growth. It seems very unlikely it ever will.
Regarding utility scale solar PV, I live in East Tennessee, where TVA is currently preparing an Integrated Resource Plan. While it contains a menu of scenarios and strategies for additional capacity, the interesting question is combined cycle gas/steam turbines versus the solar/simple cycle gas turbine combination. TVA says that their model favors the solar/simple approach, but they don’t show a head-to-head comparison, and I am skeptical. I would be interested whether THB or any readers know of an objective analysis of these 2 options.
"TVA says that their model favors the solar/simple approach, but they don’t show a head-to-head comparison, and I am skeptical. I would be interested whether THB or any readers know of an objective analysis of these 2 options."
Oh, my!
Simple-cycle ("peaking") gas turbines are dinosaurs. They aren't substantially cheaper in capital costs than combined-cycle natural gas power plants (that use both gas turbines and steam turbines). And they can't both provide electricity when needed and *demand* electricity, when too much electricity is available (like batteries can).
Per Google search AI:
"In 2023, the US electric power sector added 9,274 MW of new natural gas-fired turbine capacity, with 7,376 MW from combined cycle plants and 1,756 MW from simple-cycle plants, and no new steam turbines, to the power grid."
There's a reason that the simple-cycle installations were so low! They're 20th century technology.
There are a number of articles around that show that fuel consumption is not substantially different or actually higher under the solar/wind scenario because the gas/coal backup is less efficient than just supplying all needs with a steady running fossil system.
I had a list of five of them I posted somewhere or other...
I'm betting there is a bunch of ludicrous assumptions appended to solar/simple cycle
Thank you for reporting on JPMorgan's Energy publication.
Note: chart titled, "Electrification is expensive compared to gas" shows that states or countries with higher percent of wind & solar have higher electricity prices.
Another item: JP Morgan has been publishing the Energy Report for 15 years and only exited the Net Zero Banking Alliance two months ago?
Saints be praised, as my Irish grandfather would have said. This post is a step away from the magical thinking which has dominated discourse on energy policy for the last 20 years. Energy secretary Wright must be a very smart man, because he agrees with me. (Joke.)
When all is said and done, the utility of any intermittent energy source is totally dependent on the limitations of energy storage. For both wind and solar, this means battery capacity. Any nation which lacks a national system capable of supplying its grid for a week of cloudy, windless weather is courting disaster to build out wind and solar to more than about 35% of peak grid requirements. And at present, such a massive battery storage system exists nowhere on earth.
Correct, although more LD transmission and a lot more nuclear in the mix reduces this problem but at a cost.
BTW, as you are not already a subscriber, may I invite you to subscribe (for free) to my substack, "Radical Centrist?"
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/
I write mainly about US monetary policy, US fiscal policy, trade/industrial policy, and climate change policy.
I have my opinions about which US political party is by far the least bad and they are not hard to figure out, but I try to keep my analysis of the issues non-partisan.
Keynes said, “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
I want to be that scribbler.
Thanks,
"such a massive battery storage system exists nowhere on earth".
No jurisdiction on earth could ever afford it, beyond a few minutes back up.
correction: . . . but NOT in the way Thoreau thought.