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.
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.
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.
Historically, "wildness" has been an environmental "tonic" but in the way Thoreau thought. Thoreau inadvertently helped construct the idea of wilderness, which allows traditional urban environmentalists to accept degradation of the "human" environment (near where they live) so long as there are national parks and other area preserved for their wildness (defined as off-limits to human habitation). The idea of wilderness walks hand in hand with environmental destruction.
In addition to energy realism, here's a life long environmentalist's take on environmental realism. Yes, we are losing our fellow creatures, but not to global warming and climate change. They are insignificant compared to the habitat loss, the crowding out of our fellow creatures by the growth in human population and human affluence. Human development, especially of our coastal areas, wetlands, and tropical forests, threatens wildlife. Habitat loss and habitat degradation has always been the main reason for biodiversity and bio-abundance loss, always. If Henry David Thoreau and other esteemed conservationists are right, the ongoing loss may also be responsible for much more than death of non-human species, perhaps the death of our compassion and empathy for all life, including humankind. Thoreau wrote, "We need the tonic of wildness." Mahatma Gandhi wrote "What we are doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what we are doing to ourselves and to one another" and "Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed."
The green transition is market driven, and these market driven forces are real and increasing, mostly because there's lots of $$$ to be made by the false claims that wind and solar can replace the more dense and less destructive to the environment, dispatchable energy, nuclear and fossil fuels. There's lots of $$$ to be made by developing every square meter of land for human use, and no $$$ to be made by the conservation and preservation that traditional environmentalists have always promoted. The climate activists have diverted attention and $$$ away from what we're losing, how we're losing it, and, and from traditional environmentalism. Instead, they, and most of the media, headline climate activists' obsession with small changes in temperature and their promotion of natural weather variation as climate crisis. Much of "the $9 trillion globally over the last decade spent on wind, solar, electric vehicles, energy storage, electrified heat and power grids, the renewable transition..." would have better been spent on environmental education, conservation, and preservation of natural habitat. I'm heart sick by the neglect, even maligning of traditional environmentalism and its goals that enrich not only biodiversity, but human consciousness, compassion, and empathy.
If you equate modern living with owning more and more stuff including more cars, bigger houses, second houses, more of everything, then yes, I disagree. Read Steven Pinker's books, Enlightenment Now and The Better Angels of Our Nature about human flourishing and taking responsibility to help the less fortunate.. As Dale and Linda McIntyre in their post state, we could have made a wonderful difference for so many with that 9 trillion dollars, addressing the needs of so many hundreds of millions of people that are hurting so badly. Pielke quotes about their need for energy for so many things we takes for granted. Pinker reminds us that education, especially for women, is the key to helping the underdeveloped world to flourish, partly by limiting their population growth. I think people can actually be happier and humanity better served without more and bigger, which might also. at the same time, allow other species to survive. PInker is no socialist or egalitarian, but he beautifully shows how the better angels of our nature include compassion for all sentient beings.
Of course one person's minimalist lifestyle is another's gross excess. I disagree with any thinking that considers wealth "ours", and argues for distribution to more deserving people and causes. You can voluntarily live as you please, unless that inspires you to put arbitrary limits on others.
There is nothing worse for the environment than renewables, and its all because of Robert Bryce's "Iron Law of Power Density".
He did a couple posts on that last year that need to be widely spread.
I did a quick napkin calc when someone was pushing the idea of Solar to hydrogen to output for 400MW AI centers here in southern Alberta, using AESO capacity factors for solar in Alberta and the end to end efficiency of solar electrons to hydrogen through electrolysis to storage and then generation and came up with at lease 120 sq miles of panels for a single 400MW AI datacenter to have reliable 24/7 power.
Never going to happen but the only way it will is by destroying all that is left of the natural world.
Need to not waste another penny or piece of dirt on ruinables.
Dear Mr. Allen, I agree entirely that the hysterical fear of CO2 and its dogma about renewables, with their land-hungry consequences, have sucked all the oxygen out of the room for "traditional" environmentalism. I will never forget seeing a video showing forest clearing for a palm oil plantation in Indonesia. The palm oil was intended for "bio-diesel" for polishing the halos of European BMW drivers. On this video, as the bulldozers approached the last twenty trees remaining from this stand of forest, a terrified orangutan could be seen leaping frantically from tree to tree, looking for safety and finding none. Heart-breaking. And $9 trillion could have done a lot of good in this world. Every hungry child in Africa could have had a square meal for every day of the last decade. Instead that enormous sum was, in my opinion, squandered on an "energy transition" that was fundamentally unsound.
Yes some refreshing realism is finally beginning to service. Frustrating that the world continues to throw money at solutions that won’t have a meaningful impact on climate or emissions. Just think what the world would be like if those same trillions were spent on making fossil fuels less harmful to the environment and nuclear energy. Sad !
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Historically, "wildness" has been an environmental "tonic" but in the way Thoreau thought. Thoreau inadvertently helped construct the idea of wilderness, which allows traditional urban environmentalists to accept degradation of the "human" environment (near where they live) so long as there are national parks and other area preserved for their wildness (defined as off-limits to human habitation). The idea of wilderness walks hand in hand with environmental destruction.
In addition to energy realism, here's a life long environmentalist's take on environmental realism. Yes, we are losing our fellow creatures, but not to global warming and climate change. They are insignificant compared to the habitat loss, the crowding out of our fellow creatures by the growth in human population and human affluence. Human development, especially of our coastal areas, wetlands, and tropical forests, threatens wildlife. Habitat loss and habitat degradation has always been the main reason for biodiversity and bio-abundance loss, always. If Henry David Thoreau and other esteemed conservationists are right, the ongoing loss may also be responsible for much more than death of non-human species, perhaps the death of our compassion and empathy for all life, including humankind. Thoreau wrote, "We need the tonic of wildness." Mahatma Gandhi wrote "What we are doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what we are doing to ourselves and to one another" and "Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed."
The green transition is market driven, and these market driven forces are real and increasing, mostly because there's lots of $$$ to be made by the false claims that wind and solar can replace the more dense and less destructive to the environment, dispatchable energy, nuclear and fossil fuels. There's lots of $$$ to be made by developing every square meter of land for human use, and no $$$ to be made by the conservation and preservation that traditional environmentalists have always promoted. The climate activists have diverted attention and $$$ away from what we're losing, how we're losing it, and, and from traditional environmentalism. Instead, they, and most of the media, headline climate activists' obsession with small changes in temperature and their promotion of natural weather variation as climate crisis. Much of "the $9 trillion globally over the last decade spent on wind, solar, electric vehicles, energy storage, electrified heat and power grids, the renewable transition..." would have better been spent on environmental education, conservation, and preservation of natural habitat. I'm heart sick by the neglect, even maligning of traditional environmentalism and its goals that enrich not only biodiversity, but human consciousness, compassion, and empathy.
Careful, claiming that scaling back on modern living in the name of compassion might not be compassionate.
If you equate modern living with owning more and more stuff including more cars, bigger houses, second houses, more of everything, then yes, I disagree. Read Steven Pinker's books, Enlightenment Now and The Better Angels of Our Nature about human flourishing and taking responsibility to help the less fortunate.. As Dale and Linda McIntyre in their post state, we could have made a wonderful difference for so many with that 9 trillion dollars, addressing the needs of so many hundreds of millions of people that are hurting so badly. Pielke quotes about their need for energy for so many things we takes for granted. Pinker reminds us that education, especially for women, is the key to helping the underdeveloped world to flourish, partly by limiting their population growth. I think people can actually be happier and humanity better served without more and bigger, which might also. at the same time, allow other species to survive. PInker is no socialist or egalitarian, but he beautifully shows how the better angels of our nature include compassion for all sentient beings.
Of course one person's minimalist lifestyle is another's gross excess. I disagree with any thinking that considers wealth "ours", and argues for distribution to more deserving people and causes. You can voluntarily live as you please, unless that inspires you to put arbitrary limits on others.
There is nothing worse for the environment than renewables, and its all because of Robert Bryce's "Iron Law of Power Density".
He did a couple posts on that last year that need to be widely spread.
I did a quick napkin calc when someone was pushing the idea of Solar to hydrogen to output for 400MW AI centers here in southern Alberta, using AESO capacity factors for solar in Alberta and the end to end efficiency of solar electrons to hydrogen through electrolysis to storage and then generation and came up with at lease 120 sq miles of panels for a single 400MW AI datacenter to have reliable 24/7 power.
Never going to happen but the only way it will is by destroying all that is left of the natural world.
Need to not waste another penny or piece of dirt on ruinables.
Dear Mr. Allen, I agree entirely that the hysterical fear of CO2 and its dogma about renewables, with their land-hungry consequences, have sucked all the oxygen out of the room for "traditional" environmentalism. I will never forget seeing a video showing forest clearing for a palm oil plantation in Indonesia. The palm oil was intended for "bio-diesel" for polishing the halos of European BMW drivers. On this video, as the bulldozers approached the last twenty trees remaining from this stand of forest, a terrified orangutan could be seen leaping frantically from tree to tree, looking for safety and finding none. Heart-breaking. And $9 trillion could have done a lot of good in this world. Every hungry child in Africa could have had a square meal for every day of the last decade. Instead that enormous sum was, in my opinion, squandered on an "energy transition" that was fundamentally unsound.
I always keep the following on a computer monitor- this more than 10 year old orangutan photo URL, so heartbreaking like the video you describe-
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/CllgCJlDTRPcXwWjQsjdgRKSDVQNCSdQnMjLFLWVRmDPSKCNqfmvLVXCsFwmDdmZsrdpWjPVllV
Yes some refreshing realism is finally beginning to service. Frustrating that the world continues to throw money at solutions that won’t have a meaningful impact on climate or emissions. Just think what the world would be like if those same trillions were spent on making fossil fuels less harmful to the environment and nuclear energy. Sad !