Today, we present a guest post written by Jeffrey Frankel, Harpel Professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and formerly a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. A shorter version appeared at Project Syndicate.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has amplified the importance of national security objectives when Western nations formulate energy policy. At the same time, they should not take their eye off the ball of reducing environmental damage and, in particular, slowing down greenhouse gas emissions. Both goals, geopolitical and environmental, are urgent. The national security and environmental objective should be evaluated together, rather than via separate “stove pipes.”
Some talk as if the two goals are necessarily in conflict — because, for example, fighting back against Moscow by boosting domestic US oil production would contribute to air pollution and global climate change. But there are plenty of steps that would benefit the environment and simultaneously further the geopolitical objective. The most obvious steps, especially for the EU, are sanctions that cut demand for imports of fossil fuels from Russia.
A review of different areas of energy policy can reveal more such steps. The account that follows emphasizes those choices that seem clearly win-win, as opposed to policy decisions where tradeoffs are acute and reasonable observers may come down on either side.
Here are some things to do and not to do.
- Don’t prolong the life of coal. Most clearly, end coal subsidies. The IMF has estimated that global energy subsidies (including oil and natural gas, along with coal), at either the producer or consumer end, run more than $5 trillion per year. Direct US fossil fuel subsidies alone have been conservatively estimated at $20 billion per year.
- Regulate natural gas. Continental Europe, unfortunately, has made itself dependent on gas pumped in from Russia. US shipments of LNG can help substitute in part for Russian gas. Reasonable people can disagree on whether there is a role for gas as a transition fuel – it emits half the carbon that coal does — and whether the geopolitics warrant building more long-lived LNG terminals. But if there is to be a renewal of the fracking boom — which reduced total US carbon emissions from 2007 to 2012 — careful regulation should drastically reduce the amount of methane released into the atmosphere as part of the process. This regulation need not be expensive.
- Don’t subsidize oil. Petroleum subsidies have been estimated at $1 ½ trillion per year, globally. If the US must open more federal lands to drilling, it should reverse the history of offering the leases to drillers at below-market rates.
- Go ahead and release emergency oil reserves. US President Joe Biden has announced releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a million barrels per day over the next six months. Presidents have in the past sometimes used the SPR for political purposes. But this time it has a genuine national security use. The release can help a bit to bridge over a temporary shortfall, giving suppliers and consumers of energy more time to adjust to the loss of Russian oil.
Some say the SPR isn’t big enough to put a dent in global oil prices. But one must take into account that the US move has been accompanied by similar releases of emergency stockpiles held by the UK, Germany, and many other countries, in particularl, coordinating members of the International Energy Agency, totaling 240 million barrels over the next six months.
Some economists also say the US does not need a SPR, especially now that the country is no longer a net importer of oil. But, even if one buys this view, it would not be an argument against a release of reserves; it would, rather, be an argument against refilling the SPR when the crisis has passed.
- Raise, don’t lower, taxes on retail petroleum products, such as the US gas tax, which should fund highway maintenance and other infrastructure “Gas tax holidays” have recently been declared by several US states, to cushion consumers from the painful effects of high global oil prices. Other countries are similarly trying to shield their consumers from energy price increases. These measures are understandable politically, but are terrible economics: they undermine drivers’ incentive to economize on their fuel consumption, benefiting Russia and hurting the environment. They are also bad for the budget.
- Keep up the momentum for renewables. Continuing the recent trend toward wind and solar power is important to both the geopolitical goal and environmental goal. Government subsidies can play a role, for example, to support research into storage technology. But another measure is less popular. The US and EU should lower, not raise, their tariffs and other protectionist barriers to imports of solar panels and turbines, imports that have helped bring down the costs of solar and wind power, respectively.
- Prolong nuclear power. One of the most misguided of energy policies anywhere currently is the choice by Germany to go ahead with plans to close its three remaining nuclear plants this year. The original decision in 2011, in response to the Fukushima disaster, to shut down all German nuclear power over the course of the intervening decade has led directly to increased reliance on coal, worsening carbon emissions, and increased dependence on fossil fuel imports from Russia. It is surprising that Germany would close its last three nuclear power plants later this year, rather than extending their lives and even trying to re-open the three that it closed in December.
Other countries assess the pros and cons of nuclear power differently. Fewer deaths resulted from the Japanese nuclear accident than arise from coal on average per day (in mining or burning it). Britain now plans to build eight new nuclear power plants this decade, partly to reduce dependence on oil imports in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine.
Of course, the best way to reduce demand for fossil fuels would be a carbon tax or system of auctioned tradeable permits (with the revenue used, e.g., to reduce distortionary taxes). Currently, such price mechanisms are impossible politically in the US. But 20 years ago we thought the same of the European Union, and today it has the Emissions Trading System.
Cutting demand for hydrocarbons hurts the earnings of all oil exporters, not just Russia. Some are innocent bystanders. But some are petrostates that are not entirely worthy of support from the United States and allies. (The perceived need to deploy US armed forces in the Gulf, for example, has had enormous costs.)
Is it coincidence that so many oil-exporting countries are autocracies? Not entirely. Studies of the natural resource curse conclude that societies built on the wealth of commodities in general, and oil in particular, tend to develop authoritarianism and other bad institutions One could speculate that, in the long run, perhaps it might be better all around, if the fossil fuel sector were to shrink worldwide.
This post written by Jeffrey Frankel.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-21/china-state-energy-giants-in-talks-for-shell-s-russian-gas-stake?sref=lAVQtUwz
China Energy Giants in Talks for Shell’s Russian Gas Stake
Cnooc, CNPC and Sinopec jointly discussing Sakhalin-2 purchase
Shell said in February it would exit ventures with Gazprom
China’s key state-run energy companies are in talks with Shell Plc to buy its stake in a major Russian gas export project, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Cnooc, CNPC and Sinopec Group are in joint discussions with Shell over the company’s 27.5% holding in the Sakhalin-2 liquefied natural gas venture after the European firm said it would exit Russian operations following the Ukraine invasion, said the people, who requested anonymity to discuss private details.
As to the pros and cons of nuclear power, here is one solution to waste disposal which seems to take the problem seriously:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
How come this old crank Frankel can do hyperlinks so easy, and for me it’s like trying to run a C++ program?? (crank used affectionately of course)
Tomorrow is GDP Day. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow tally puts growth at 0.4%, which could easily mean a negative reading. Blue Chip estimates include some negatives.
A drag from net exports and inventories (no the most common combination) and flat government spending combine with growing residential and non-residential investment and consumption to produce a near-zero growth forecast.
Below 200,000 jobless claims and above 400,000 job growth mean recession is still a risk for some time next year, but that won’t stop Chicken Little types.
*BEA: Real GDP decreased at 1.4% Annualized Rate in Q1*
Real gross domestic product (GDP) decreased at an annual rate of 1.4 percent in the first quarter of 2022, according to the “advance” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 6.9 percent….
The decrease in real GDP reflected decreases in private inventory investment, exports, federal government spending, and state and local government spending, while imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased. Personal consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential fixed investment, and residential fixed investment increased.
https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2022/04/bea-real-gdp-decreased-at-14-annualized.html
Inventories are way down. Sounds like stagflation.
Inventories is often seen as a transitory issue. Final demand did not do as poorly as production – which could mean it is time to restock the shelves.
‘Personal consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential fixed investment, and residential fixed investment increased.’
Private domestic demand rose but we saw decreases in net exports and government purchases. Maybe fiscal policy restraint right now is a bad idea.
I misunderstood the context when I said “stagflation.” Inventories skyrocketed in the leadup to Christmas due to supply fears, so they’re down mechanically now. You are right about inventories being volatile.
Personally I think lower gov’t spending right now is good timing given the inflation issue.
on inventories:
real private inventories grew by an inflation adjusted $158.7 billion in the quarter, after growing at an inflation adjusted $193.2 billion in the 4th quarter, and as a result, the $34.5 billion negative change in real inventory growth subtracted 0.43 percentage points from the 1st quarter’s growth rate, after a $259.9 billion increase in real inventory growth in the 4th quarter had added 5.82 percentage points to that quarter’s GDP….
point is that we “restocked shelves” both quarters, and there’s still a lot of downside in the inventory component if we don’t keep up the restocking pace…
errata for the above comment should be: the $34.5 billion negative change in real inventory growth subtracted 0.84 percentage points from the 1st quarter’s growth rate”
Buuut the Commerce Dept’s numbers are much better, showing inventory grew. I’d like to hear from you macro folk about how to tell the difference between these two takes.
A smaller inventory rise in one quarter than in the preceeding quarter registers as a drag in GDP. There was a very large gain in inventories in Q4, so it was pretty easy to guess even three months ago that unvenwould be a drag in Q1.
The drag from trade was large and not as easy to anticipate. Most forecasters expected a drag, but the drag was quite large.
GDP -1.4% (SAAR)
Real final sales to domestic purchasers +2.6%
‘Personal consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential fixed investment, and residential fixed investment increased.’
I had to repeat what Bill McBride hightlighted (see my reply to Andrew).
There is some troubling news in the GDP report; rel disposable income fell again. Not a surprise, and not a reliable recession predictor, but not good:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=ODUs
BEA *IS* Commerce and the BEA numbers are annualized. (Good one, Andrew!)
From the NY Times:
“In the first quarter, slower growth in inventories shaved close to a percentage point off G.D.P. growth. Companies raced to build up inventories in late 2021 to make sure supply-chain disruptions didn’t leave them with bare shelves during the holiday season. That meant they didn’t have to do as much restocking as usual in the new year.”
NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/28/business/economy/us-gdp-q1-2022.html?smid=url-copy
From the BEA:
“The decrease in private inventory investment was led by decreases in wholesale trade (mainly motor vehicles) and retail trade (notably, “other” retailers and motor vehicle dealers).”
https://www.bea.gov/news/2022/gross-domestic-product-first-quarter-2022-advance-estimate
Autos. I wonder if that’s more supply issues than anything.
They were only 1.8% off. My favorite is how the experts are saying consumer demand is very strong. Any stronger than that and maybe we can get GDP to negative 3%. Then they wonder how all the conspiracy theories start up and why folks like johnH don’t like most orthodox economists.
Consumer spending and private investment grew. The problem was fiscal restraint (ugh – why we hate Manchin) and a decline in net exports.
not enough pork in aggregate demand in 1q2022……..
Pork production only accounts for about 0.1% of U.S. GDP. So however fond you may be of piggies, they really can’t account for much of the swing in overall economic activity in Q1.
(“Dueling Banjos” playing in the background.)
You are now admitting you’re a pig!
And I hope you’ll forgive the spamming subcomments here, but:
‘“Accelerating inflation, a worker crisis, and the growing risk of a significant recession are the signature economic failures of the Biden administration,” Representative Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican, said in a news release on Thursday.’
“a worker crisis” = tight labor market. So Republicans are still pretending to be pro-business? Awkward.
They can’t get what happened on 1/6/2021 right so why would we expect clarity when it comes to economics from this crew?
Worker crisis. How 1984-ish.
Freedom is slavery.
Trump is smart and honest.
Democracy is not constitutional republicanism.
Apparently this would be the response to the cynical crowd on how you have a negative GDP with “strong consumer demand”:
https://twitter.com/jasonfurman/status/1519656260425207808
There’s other stuff closely related in Furman’s Twitter thread, where he appears to be patting himself on the back a great deal of the time. Furman doesn’t appear to be having self-esteem issues at the moment.
Jason is my go to guy of late.
One of the credit rating agencies said the yield curve put probability of recession at 20%, when the average (over many years) was about 11%.
I should have specified, that was for a model including various measures of the yield curve, not a specific one like 10yr-2yr or 10yr-3mo. Probably already understood, but…..
Don’t remember which bank, but one of the big ones, pointed recently to the 10y/1y. Showed that an inversion of 25 basis point lasting 4 weeks has been reliably correct about recession with a lead of several months. Nothing like that has happened. That bank, in the report I saw, simply offered a yes-or-no recession call, not odds.
You can derive odds from curve models, but I think the odds of the odds being useful are low. We keep coming up with new yield urve tools because they aren’t all as reliable as we’d like. Best of a bad lot.
Well, that and banks research departments need something to write about.
Like we talked about before, there are *no* good ways of predicting recessions yet. Yield curves have some valuable information (which is why we often look there) but we don’t yet know how to read the tea leaves properly.
https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/weekly-data-chinas-nuclear-pipeline-as-big-as-the-rest-of-the-worlds-combined
December 20, 2021
China’s nuclear pipeline as big as the rest of the world’s combined
By Nick Ferris
China was a country late to the nuclear power party. While the US and Europe began rapidly building nuclear capacity in the 1960s, the communist superpower did not connect its first nuclear power station to the grid until the early 1990s. Today, China leads the world for solar, wind, hydro and coal power generation, but it only has the third-largest nuclear power capacity, after the US and France.
This is about to change in dramatic fashion. It was reported in November 2021 that China planned to build 150 new reactors at a cost of $440bn (2.8trn yuan), which is more reactors than the rest of the world has built over the past 35 years….
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-03-11/NPC-deputy-China-masters-4th-generation-nuclear-technology-18j8Zq4aIus/index.html
March 11, 2022
NPC deputy: China masters 4th-generation nuclear technology
By Guo Meiping
China has mastered the fourth-generation nuclear technology, and the world’s first nuclear power plant using the technology has been connected to the national grid, Dong Baotong, vice chairman of the China Atomic Energy Authority and deputy to the 13th National People’s Congress (NPC), told China Media Group.
China’s homegrown high-temperature reactor is considered one of the safest as it will not melt under duress and carries no risk of radiation leakage, according to the China National Nuclear Corporation.
The plant, located in east China’s Shandong Province, entered operation in December. With 93.4 percent of material domestically sourced, the plant can meet the heat source demand in ethanol purification, petrochemical and hydrogen production, and other fields.
“The greatest benefit of the high-temperature gas reactor is its inherent safety feature,” Dong said. “It doesn’t need a big building or a thick containment vessel like other nuclear reactors.”
The NPC deputy said that in addition to generating electricity, nuclear technology will also be increasingly used in major projects in the aerospace industry to provide power support for spacecraft carrying out deep space exploration missions.
“Our Chang’e lunar missions can rely on solar power because they are within the solar system. Solar power can assist in Mars missions as well,” he said. “But if our spacecraft are exploring deep space where there is no solar power in the future, then nuclear power will almost be the only choice.”
The construction of China’s self-developed third-generation nuclear technology, Hualong One, is making steady progress. Four units at home and abroad have been connected to the grid and are generating electricity – two each in southeast China’s Fujian Province and Pakistan.
ltr, do you do anything other than government press releases?
Second.
On weekends he teaches brainwashing at a small vocational school:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58301575
An article in the sidebar of your link is about how accordion music can get you killed. Good old BBC.
I’ll have to take a gander in a few moments here. My Dad was a fan of British humor. I’m guessing it’s something along those lines. They gave us Benny Hill, I mean, that’s all the sophisticated culture I need.
Speaking of British humor, I missed the chance for the real sucker punch there (my lack of quick wit obviously, always thinking of funny lines 20 minutes later). I should have asked “You haven’t been watching accordion porn online a lot, have you??”
Andrew et al,
I also find ltr’s lack of any critical commentary on the numerous reports she sends us from official sources in the PRC. But it is also the case that she reports on and sometimes comments on other matters and from other sources, including various issues and sources in the US, including sometimes columns or portions from them by Paul Krugman, not a source from any government.
I generally skip her proPRC comments but do read the comments that make a real contribution.
The informational content of the ltr bot postings are not outright lies but generally useless for gaining true insights into a subject. The only true insights they give is some insight into what the Chinese government want its people to think. There is clearly a strong push for national pride and public discussion of problems are prohibited. Sort of like the Russian military. Lot of empty chest thumping – just don’t put it to a real test.
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-03-26/China-s-Hualong-One-nuclear-power-demonstration-project-completed-18HTWeOUHE4/index.html
March 26, 2022
China’s Hualong One nuclear power demonstration project fully operational
By Zheng Yibing
A demonstration project of Hualong One – China’s domestically developed third-generation nuclear power technology – has been fully completed with officials saying the second of its two units is ready for commercial operation in southeast China’s Fujian Province.
The second unit was connected to the grid two months ago and went through a comprehensive debug test in early February, according to its operator, China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC).
“It was examined during the Spring Festival and is in good condition now, and all its indicators meet the design requirements,” Xu Jinlong, deputy general manager of CNNC’s Fuqing nuclear power plant, said Friday.
The project’s landmark first unit started commercial operation on January 30, 2021. It finished its first refueling and overhaul early this month monitored by China’s National Nuclear Safety Administration.
CNNC said the annual electricity output of the two Hualong One reactors could be close to 20 billion kilowatt-hours, equal to that of 6.24 million tonnes of standard coal consumption and cutting more than 16.3 million tonnes of carbon emission.
The Hualong One technology, jointly developed by CNNC and China General Nuclear Power Corporation, has more than 700 patents and 120 software copyrights….
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s
November 2, 2021
China’s Climate Goals Hinge on a $440 Billion Nuclear Buildout
China is planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35.
By Dan Murtaugh and Krystal Chia – Bloomberg
Nuclear power once seemed like the world’s best hope for a carbon-neutral future. After decades of cost-overruns, public protests and disasters elsewhere, China has emerged as the world’s last great believer, with plans to generate an eye-popping amount of nuclear energy, quickly and at relatively low cost….
“Is it coincidence that so many oil-exporting countries are autocracies? Not entirely. Studies of the natural resource curse conclude that societies built on the wealth of commodities in general, and oil in particular, tend to develop authoritarianism and other bad institutions One could speculate that, in the long run, perhaps it might be better all around, if the fossil fuel sector were to shrink worldwide.”
Amen to that. There’s lots of evidence going back to the age of discovery that economies massively reliant on primary products (often in conjunction with slavery in the New World) result in bad institutions that last centuries. Sugarcane wasn’t much better than oil.
if the releases are executed the remaining reserve could supply about 25 days crude ‘input to usa refineries’.
usa has been watching europe become addicted to soviet energy since the late 1970’s, btw at that time we had soviet grain haulers parked in wisconsin and michigan ports picking up grain to feed the soviets.
as of todays energy info agency (eia) inventory report the us’ strategic petroleum reserve is down 81 million barrel year on year and that from november’s release order. the 180 more would bring the reserve to 373 million barrels, a figure to compare is ‘crude input to usa refineries” which is 15.5 million barrels per day in this report.
as to raising the cost to drill on federal land: the price of gasoline is inversely proportional to the president’s poll numbers.
last week usa exported 2.9 million barrels per day. this week 1.4 million per day. usa been an exporter since 11 march 2022!!
one last idea: the releases are sold at auction. that cash reduces the federal [cash] deficit. replenishing the reserve would raise the deficit. the congress has negative motive to refill the reserves.
The “strategic” arguments for these reserves is that we should have 6 months worth of oil import stored away just in case. Given that we actually are a net exporter of oil it makes no sense to have such a large strategic reserve. A much smaller reserve of specialized products that we still import and could not replace is the only thing that can be justified to use federal money on.
We should probably just give up federally funded reserves and simply demand that any company importing strategically important products (not just oil), must have an inventory of at least 6 months supply. That would give an incentive to source important products from within US.
It’s a nice list of proposals, even if they are totally infeasible politically.
Biden certainly understands this. Instead of celebrating higher prices as good for the climate, he immediately took steps to limit their damage. The lessons of Jimmy “turn down the thermostats” Carter have not been forgotten.
“ Are fuel riots the food riots of the 21st century?… Fuel riots are both common around the world and potentially politically potent, but it seems that we (researchers) are only just beginning to notice them.”
https://www.ids.ac.uk/opinions/are-fuel-riots-the-food-riots-of-the-21st-century/
Frankel would be well advised to couple his pie-in-the-sky proposals with ways to make his ideas politically acceptable.
JohnH,
There is only one part of Jeffrey’s proposals that is politically infeasible. It is his call for gasoline taxes to be raised. The rest of them look both reasonable and politically feasible. Gasoline taxes should be raised, but that is politically infeasible, and indeed the political push all over the country is for just the opposite, at least temporary gasoline tax cuts.
“Frankel would be well advised to couple his pie-in-the-sky proposals with ways to make his ideas politically acceptable.”
This is why NO ONE takes you seriously Johnny boy. It was a very good essay which did not deserve your usual soap box BS.
I thought protests and riots over fuel in India were well known. This is a country that has historically subsidized fuel to a great extent. Seems like people expect stability.
In the US, we are used to huge swings in gas station prices. Today’s gas station prices are lower than they were in recent history, when gas prices weren’t a major political issue. See Paul Krugman about this.
Right now, the issue is inflation overall.
There was this fellow named JohnH who would routinely criticize “prominent economists” for not being daring enough to propose bold progressive policy goals. But when Jeff Frankel does propose an excellent set of policy goals, THIS JohnH criticizes him for being so bold. Could these two Johns get together and stop contradicting themselves?
“US shipments of LNG can help substitute in part for Russian gas. Reasonable people can disagree on whether there is a role for gas as a transition fuel – it emits half the carbon that coal does — and whether the geopolitics warrant building more long-lived LNG terminals.”
The issue is that secondary METHANE emissions eat away the CO advantage of NG in case of LNG and even more in case of LNG from fracking, You could use coal instead of the latter, oldest good paper on this topic is from 2005. The only relatively clean source for NG in Europe is Russian pipeline gas because production in the Netherland and Norway decline or stagnate. To promote the use of LNG under the chosen headline is at least debatable.
The other aspect is of course volume of LNG production. Here numbers would help for a good argument.
“Prolong nuclear power. One of the most misguided of energy policies anywhere currently is the choice by Germany to go ahead with plans to close its three remaining nuclear plants this year.”
Back on earth, we have the situation in 2020 that the capacity factor of French NPPs drppped by whopping 13%, i.e. the annual production of 9 NPPs (!) was lost.
In winter 2021/22 the French had with moderate temperatures a capacity gap of 13 GW which BTW was covered by imports, largest contributor was Germany, which is despite shutting down NPPs Germany is a NET exporter of electricity, even in winter. Even pro-nuclear German or Swiss newspapers ask what is wrong with French nuclear power.
https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/atomkraft-was-ist-mit-frankreichs-kernreaktoren-los-a-ad1f8a26-5db6-4637-b5b8-52d4e3ecb440
https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/warum-die-franzosen-auf-einen-milden-winter-hoffen-muessen-ld.1663622?reduced=true
(the name of the Swiss URL is really funny.)
The issue is not the German decision to shut down NPPs, the issue is the unability of the French and Brits to run NPPs in a sufficient volume and with a sufficient reliability. These hard physical facts have been reported for years and discussing these facts make actually the important difference between a useful analysis and a personal opinion. To argue with German NPPs is a very cheap shot.
“The issue is not the German decision to shut down NPPs, the issue is the unability of the French and Brits to run NPPs in a sufficient volume and with a sufficient reliability.”
What about Brit and French ability to build or refurb their existing reactors? I mean, taking into account the bad politics surrounding nuclear?
Running in sufficient volume includes construction and maintenance for me. The reactor fleet in ALL western countries is very old and there is no chance to prolong the life of the reactors and to construct high numbers of replacement capacity at the same time.
The statemnet of the French government to build 14 new reactors until 2050 actually means a reduction of the reactor fleet by 60%.
NPPs die for basic economic reasons, even in China much more green reactor equivalents are built.
@ UlenRussky
It’s strange how a person with a German online moniker ALWAYS has two underlying messages in nearly every comment~~ “Russian aggression is not a threat worth troubling about” and/or “The Chinese government makes great policy decisions”.
I wonder how it always works out that way and why that would be?? Anyone with ideas of what’s going on here, with UlenRussky??
Moses,
I think you are overdoing this name calling of Ulenspiegel, although I understand he has ticked you off big time before, and once somebody ticks you off, you tend to be rather relentlessly personalistic and unforgiving, as one on the receiving end of this stuff from you I well know.
Anyway, I could be remembering incorrectly in my incipient senility, but I think Ulenspiegel has supported the shift of German government position taken by the new government to support Ukraine to more extent than was happening before with weapons and so on against the Russian invasion.
As it is, he represents a pecularly German point of view, including the anti-nuclear emphasis of his greendom. I think he is completelhy full of it to deny that Germany shutting down its nuclear power plants is an issue. It most cettainly is, and I publicly critiicized their government back when they hysterically made the decision to do so back at the time of the Fukushima incident, which led to a major increase in electricity prices throughout Europe and an increase in the use of coal, the worst thing around. it was irresponsible and stupid then, and it isi even worse now.
He is also way overdoing the danger of methane releases from fracking. I am not a big fan of fracking, but that danger has been way overhyped, especially in Europe, where they ptrobably should do more fracking then they do to help ease this natural gas shortage.
@ Barkley Junior
Aaaaawww, one of your many similarities with donald trump. accusing others of your biggest personal faults. I think 80%+ of the commenters here will see that comment for what it is, and anyone couldn’t even make it out of this comment thread to see you got in a quarrel with UlenRussky just below. I’d be careful if I were you arguing with UlenRussky. Even though you are too dumb to realize he’s not actually German, he’s very probably more knowledgeable about Europe than you are. We can guess this from the fact that the last roughly 10 weeks you’ve made a complete A$$ of yourself over Russian war tactics and Russian politics, after you had self-appointed yourself #1 expert on Russia, because a close relative of yours was watching Russian State TV, and the both of you were dumb enough to believe every word broadcast.
Herr Herzog,
get a beer and relax, Or come with hard data that prov me wrong.
With your current approach you look funny, not more.
“NPPs die for basic economic reasons”
That is spot on. At this time green energy is able to outcompete everything else – so it will. The massive expansion of NPP in China will be another one of their central planning mistakes, but on the ground a lot of expansion of green power is still going on because – money.
Reducing emissions of methane and ending the massive subsidies for fossil fuels are both sound proposals. Let’s note especially:
If the US must open more federal lands to drilling, it should reverse the history of offering the leases to drillers at below-market rates.
Macroduck gets this but alas we have this little chirping bird named Bruce Hall who thinks the oil and gas sector should continue to get leases at below market rates for some reason. Even conservative Greg Mankiw and his Pigou Club gets we should be imposing taxes on sectors that create negative externalities.
Another thing Biden got right. The last round of leases had a substantial price hike. Competence in the White House matters.
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-04-28/Chinese-mainland-records-1-503-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-19AMPrJR5GU/index.html
April 28, 2022
Chinese mainland records 1,503 new confirmed COVID-19 cases
The Chinese mainland recorded 1,503 new confirmed COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, with 1,494 linked to local transmissions and 9 from overseas, according to data from the National Health Commission on Thursday.
A total of 9,864 new asymptomatic cases were also recorded on Wednesday, and 208,195 asymptomatic patients remain under medical observation.
Confirmed cases on the Chinese mainland now total 208,584 with the death toll at 4,923.
Chinese mainland new locally transmitted cases
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-04-28/Chinese-mainland-records-1-503-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-19AMPrJR5GU/img/f16312de2d394c109f4dedcc78657676/f16312de2d394c109f4dedcc78657676.jpeg
Chinese mainland new imported cases
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-04-28/Chinese-mainland-records-1-503-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-19AMPrJR5GU/img/9be903c96c644c5a87144cb62d0bd759/9be903c96c644c5a87144cb62d0bd759.jpeg
Chinese mainland new asymptomatic cases
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-04-28/Chinese-mainland-records-1-503-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-19AMPrJR5GU/img/ed2a70589e7e42aaaee3a1120b1369a8/ed2a70589e7e42aaaee3a1120b1369a8.jpeg
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
April 27, 2022
Coronavirus
United States
Cases ( 82,888,247)
Deaths ( 1,019,774)
Deaths per million ( 3,048)
China
Cases ( 207,081)
Deaths ( 4,876)
Deaths per million ( 3)
Ulenspiegel claims: “The issue is not the German decision to shut down NPPs, the issue is the unability of the French and Brits to run NPPs in a sufficient volume and with a sufficient reliability. These hard physical facts have been reported for years and discussing these facts make actually the important difference between a useful analysis and a personal opinion. Running renewables, with the exception of hydro and thermal with “sufficient volume and with a sufficient reliability” is exactly their problem. Most renewables are inherently intermittent.
Germany learned this problem again in 2020 and 2021 when “Due to weather conditions, the share of renewables in the net electricity generation (the electricity mix coming from the socket) fell to 45.7 percent, compared to 50.0 percent in 2020. ” and in 2021 ” The monthly electricity generation of PV plants was higher than that of hard coal-fired power plants from March to August and higher than that of gas-fired power plants from April to October in 2021.”
However, “Together, solar and wind produced about 162 TWh in 2021, down by ca. 15 TWh compared to 2020. After an above-average wind year in 2020, 2021 was below average for wind and also for solar.”, but what happens in those other than April to October peak months? “Coal-fired power generation and nuclear power up again, gas-fired power generation down”
\From here: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2022/public-net-electricity-in-germany-in-2021-renewables-weaker-due-to-weather.html
Wiki tells us: “German electricity prices in 2020 were 31.47 euro cents per kW⋅h for residential customers (an increase of 126% since 2000),[8] and 17.8 euro cents per kW⋅h for non-residential customers (21.8 with taxes).” Translating prices to say residential are subsidizing commercial customers. “German households and small businesses pay the highest electricity price in Europe for many years in a row now.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany
All of this to worship at the alter of renewables electricity generation, because they are supposedly cheaper than traditional base load sources.
NO! Renewables prices are additive to base-load sources. To compare them assumes that renewable intermittency does not exist and/or adding more intermittency removes intermittency. No, again. Remember Texas?
Yes, I remember Texas. Texas decided that it should isolate its grid from the U.S./Canada grid, so when conventional sources of generation failed, at the same time gas delivery was sharply curtailed, Texans went without power.
The usual liars immediately lied, claiming that renewable energy was the cause of the problem. Poor infrastructure and poor policy were the problem.
So CoRev, are you a liar or a sucker who fell for lies from the usual liars?
The rest of your drivel is only partly based on lies, unlike the “Remember Texas” lin. Intermittent delivery is “a” problem, not “the” problem. Partisan opponents have decided to focus on Intermittency in their propaganda. Your repetition of the claim is evidence enough of that.
The Germany argument is pure Glenn Beck, shoving a bunch of unrelated facts together and pretending they amount to proof of something.
Oh, and you forgot to lie about climate change. Unless you claim climate change is no big deal (like Covid was, remember?), then all your other drivel amounts to an overstatement of the cost of preserving the livability of much of the world. Nothing more.
Not good to see you back here. You drag the average IQ of comments down sharply.
the point is solar and wind are obverse to ‘energy security’ and cannot be included in “base load”.
yeah tx getting “load” from elsewhere might have kept the natural gas pumps working to cover for slack availability* wind and solar watt.
*a technical term measure of system suitability.
I love it when people try to claim they know “the point” when all the really have identified is “a point.”
Note also the scramble to change the terms of the discussion. Covid claimed that “Renewables prices are additive to base-load sources” whatever that means, and that renewables have an intermittency problem. Now anonymous narrows the claim to wind and solar. Why? Because hydro-electric power doesn’t have intermittency problems unless somebody burns so much fossil fuel that the dams run dry. Covid tried to mislead us – what a surprise.
But even narrowing terms to wind and solar is mistaken – or dishonest – since off-shore wind generation is often quite steady.
The truth is, the right has built a big lie about renewables, just like they built a big lie about taxes, climate change, Black Lives Matter, the second Iraq War, the 2020 election, voter fraud… Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.
MD, ?an economist? , can’t seem to understand the concept of over all costs for delivery of electricity: ” Covid claimed that “Renewables prices are additive to base-load sources” whatever that means,…”
MD clearly doesn’t know what base-load is. Wiki defines it: “The baseload[1] (also base load) is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time, for example, one week. This demand can be met by unvarying power plants,[2] dispatchable generation,[3] or by a collection of smaller intermittent energy sources,[4] depending on which approach has the best mix of low cost, availability and high reliability in any particular market. The remainder of demand, varying throughout a day, is met by dispatchable generation which can be turned up or down quickly, such as load following power plants, peaking power plants, or energy storage.
Power plants that do not change their power output quickly, such as large coal or nuclear plants, are generally called baseload power plants.[2][5][6] Historically, most or all of baseload demand was met with baseload power plants, whereas new capacity based around renewables often employs flexible generation instead.[7] ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load
MD, additive means that to provide RELIABLY dispatchable generation,[3] or by a collection of smaller intermittent energy sources, in the new Green World of smaller intermittent energy sources is to have the backup readily available. Intermittent renewables DO NOT work without their stable on demand backup sources. Electricity costs are additive/include both the cost for renewables and their REQUIRED stable backups. To say otherwise is a lie and to think is to lie to oneself.
“So CoRev, are you a liar or a sucker who fell for lies from the usual liars?”
No CoRev is the lead liar in this crew.
Lucy, I notice that anyone who provides information (even with reference links) is a “liar” if it contradicts your beliefs. Your comments carry no weight because you simply resort to ad hominem retorts rather than actual debatable statements. Time to grow up or go back into your cave.
I accuse CoRev of lying because that is what he does. And of course each and every one of your comments are blatant lies. Then again CoRev is more adept at lying than you will ever be. Your lies are incredibly transparent. He at least tries to disguise his honesty with sprinklings of things that on the surface look intelligent.
So little boy – please try to grow up and accept basic reality.
Lucy, your new boss, Nina Jankowicz, demands that you comment on more sites. You are not calling enough people “liars”. How will you ever get that promotion in the Ministry of Truth if you don’t broaden your efforts?
https://nypost.com/2022/04/29/biden-disinfo-czar-nina-jankowicz-ripped-over-tiktok/
MD claims: “so when REQUIRED BACKUP conventional sources of generation failed, at the same time FOR INTERMITTENT SOURCES gas delivery was sharply curtailed ALSO DUE TO THE COLD, Texans went without power.”
MD also claims: “The usual liars immediately lied, claiming that renewable energy was the cause of the problem. Poor infrastructure and poor policy were the problem. ” Two lies have driven renewable sourced electricity: 1) Renewables can replace base-load. 2) Price reductions for renewables will lower consumer electricity costs. These policies drive focused investment on base-load sources., and move them to developing more intermittent renewable sources.
MD, you’ve been wrong about Climate, energy and more importantly economic policies. Wrong energy policies are leading to both the current inflation and threat of recession. This past year has been the starkest reminder of policy difference performance. Elections have consequences.
Only unthinking ideologues ignore evidence calling them lies. Germany, the poster child for implementing renewables, should have the cheapest electricity cost and not the highest.
So MD, are you a liar or a sucker who fell for lies from the usual liars?
“So MD, are you a liar or a sucker who fell for lies from the usual liars?”
ah yes – the I’m rubber and you’re glue canard. It seems you are sinking to Bruce Hall level of play school behavior.
“Germany learned this problem again in 2020 and 2021 when “Due to weather conditions, the share of renewables in the net electricity generation (the electricity mix coming from the socket) fell to 45.7 percent, compared to 50.0 percent in 2020. ” and in 2021”
The annual output of REs is average +/- 10 %, or a bad year after a good year means ~15% less. And? REs are quite cheap and you aim for enough capacity in a low outzput year. What is your point? That REs in Germany are affected by weather? And Germany has enough back up. It is still an exporter, especially in winter. 🙂
The point is that NPPs in Europe are NOT reliable and there is not enough back up, France has to import in winter. The construction rate will lead to a reduction of the French reactor fleet, the situation in the US is also dire.
““German electricity prices in 2020 were 31.47 euro cents per kW⋅h for residential customers (an increase of 126% since 2000),[8] and 17.8 euro cents per kW⋅h for non-residential customers (21.8 with taxes).” Translating prices to say residential are subsidizing commercial customers. “German households and small businesses pay the highest electricity price in Europe for many years in a row now.”
The prices stagnate now and will go down as the RE tax was a legacy issue. Electricity was always expensive in Germany that is not the issue, the subsidising of the industry is. And you provide of course no evidence that the French prices cover the costs. 🙂
The baselod argument is physical BS, it based on the assumption that baseload electricity is cheap, that is not longer true.
U.,
The French are completely correct to sneer at the idiotic position taken by the German government on nuclear power. They are being responsible and far sighted. Your government has looked like a bunch of irresponsible idiots since the decision to shut them down was made by Merkel, saddling the rest of Europe with higher electricity costs and an increased use of coal. Time to own up.
“The French are completely correct to sneer at the idiotic position taken by the German government on nuclear power.”
Then WTF do the French need in even moderate winters import of German electricity? You understqand what happended in 2011? What happened last winter? You understand that the French are unable to replace their NPPs? That their nuclaer companies are on life suppport?
Onbly somebody with the ability to blend out physical reality comes to your conclusion-. 🙂
And if we look at the global situation it is not better. Nuclaer power fights for the status quo (10% global generation), there is a good chance that it will even lose the next decade. PV and wind (also 10% of global gebneration in 2021) is exponentially growing, with NET additions of >60 reactor equivalents in 2020. REs will have between 30-40% market share around 2030-35. Investors vote with their feet, that is an economic argument you should understand. 🙂
Reality is a bitch:
http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/
That in plain English, no German essential. 🙂
I think your expectations were a little to high – CoRev doesn’t do coherent fact-based arguments. As “macroduck” suggested this is Fox-style throwing a lot of fancy sounding words together in sentences and be proud of it writing. But in contrast to at Faux “News” the audience here is not buying the BS. Thanks for setting the facts straight.
At best, wind and solar energy generation are transition systems that require huge amounts of toxic mining and land use. While “ltr” often sounds like an official Chinese Communist Party propaganda bureaucrat, he did point to the only really viable (economically, environmentally, and reliably) alternative to fossil fuels: latest generation nuclear power.
Wind farms create local climate disturbances, kill birds and bats, cause some people physiological and psychological problems, and have massive end-of-life disposal issues. Solar arrays require use of flat land that could be economically used for other purposes and have a history of leaking toxic chemicals into the land. Furthermore, the intermittent nature of wind and solar energy require either backup power generation facilities or massive battery arrays to release electricity when wind and solar arrays are insufficient to meet demand. These issues are only exacerbated by projected demand from a national EV fleet of vehicles.
While the SPR was not created as a national security facility, the availability of such oil provides a cushion for the US in the event of an oil supply disruption that could be used for refining fuel necessary to keep critical transportation running, especially aircraft and heavy military vehicles. It certainly is not sufficient for all domestic requirements. Failure to refill the SPR could be a serious problem in the future, especially with the government’s agenda against fossil fuels that is resulting in delays for approval of oil/natural gas exploration.
US refineries have been closing and investors and banks are increasingly reluctant to fund new oil/natural gas exploration because of the government’s stated antipathy toward those fuels. https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_biden-pledges-rapid-decline-fossil-fuel-use-us/6204848.html
Pathologically, the Biden Administration is perfectly fine with increased production from Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia. Apparently, pollution and additional CO2 from those sources doesn’t affect the USA, so all is good as long as the USA remains morally superior regardless of the cost to Americans.
The US energy department lists many of the products produced from raw wind and solar power.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products%20Made%20From%20Oil%20and%20Natural%20Gas%20Infographic.pdf
Did you even bother to READ what Frankel wrote before you launched into your usual chirping? Did not think so. We write a lot of words which have no insights, no integrity, etc. But all the creation of word salad should make to keep the price of lunch down.
Now, now, Lucy. Be specific. To what, specifically, do you object? Then I’ll provide you links to educate you.
• Wind power and solar power require huge amounts of toxic mining and land use?
• Latest generation of nuclear power is the most reliable alternative to fossil fuels?
• Wind farms cre ate local climate disturbances, kill birds and bats, cause some people physiological and psychological problems, and have massive end-of-life disposal issues?
• Solar arrays require use of flat land that could be economically used for other purposes and have a history of leaking toxic chemicals into the land
• Intermittent nature of wind and solar energy require either backup power generation facilities or massive battery arrays to release electricity when wind and solar arrays are insufficient to meet demand?
• The SPR would provide a cushion for refining emergency air and land transport fuel in the event of disruption?
• The government’s [has an] agenda against fossil fuels?
• US refineries have been closing and investors and banks are increasingly reluctant to fund new oil/natural gas exploration because of the government’s stated antipathy toward those fuels?
• The Biden Administration is perfectly fine with increased [oil] production from Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia?
Come on, man! Be specific. What is a “lie”?
Everything you write is a lie. Everything. No n- I’m not getting into your stupid tit for tat chirping. Go find some desperate dude with a girl’s name but o more worthless chirping for you troll.
“U.S. President Joe Biden announced a new goal of cutting U.S. greenhouse gas pollution by 50-52% by 2030 as he kicked off a virtual global summit on climate change with dozens of other world leaders.”
Everyone who understood the economics of this issue would applaud this long run goal. But not Bruce Hall who clearly has no effing idea of what is being discussed. I guess his MAGA hat is on so tight that whatever excuse he once had for brain cells has been squeezed out.
Lucy, Everyone who understood the economics of this issue would applaud this long run goal.
Everyone who buys into the fantasyland story of wind and solar power being the answer to a problem rather than being a problem. How’s that working for Europe now? As “ltr” mentions, why are the Chinese building all of those new nuclear reactors?
Oh, yeah, “global warming”. Sure. The source of all of the world’s ills. The primary belief of the Cult of GW.
So you did not read Frankel’s post after all? His recommendations never said wind and solar power were THE answer. But I guess little birdy Brucie has to change the topic for his latest stupid chirping. You are the most dishonest stupid and worthless troll I have ever seen. Take a bow.
Lucy, you’re too busy writing variation of “You’re a Liar!” responses to actually understand the issues being raised. I hope your new boss, Nina Jankowicz, appreciates your dedication.
Bierka was the name of Pavlov’s dog. from now on if I res[pond to one of your trolls I will address it to Bierka.
“Wind farms create local climate disturbances, kill birds and bats, cause some people physiological and psychological problems, and have massive end-of-life disposal issues. Solar arrays require use of flat land that could be economically used for other purposes and have a history of leaking toxic chemicals into the land.”
Did Charles Koch write these lies for you or what? Oh wait – there are some people with physiological and psychological problems over these issues. That would be MAGA hat wearers such as Bruce Hall. I would say this comment of yours is the most nonresponsive and dishonest babble ever. But then we have had to endure even worse from you quite often so maybe this does not even make the top 10.
Lucy, have you done a speck of research or do you just parrot what Biden’s new Ministry of Truth proclaims? And all without any actual reference to accepted materials. You should go back into your cave now. Predators come out in the evening.
Bruce Hall: “accepted materials”?
If you are an example of a “predator” that you speak of, I think pgl need not worry. You are, after all, the person who cited what I think of as the worst analysis ever…
I’m listening. As I just challenged pgl, be specific.
“And all without any actual reference to accepted materials.”
I think Bruce wants me to cite his usual Fox and Friends spin as reliable research. After all – that is his usual go to experts.
Menzie says: “…the person who cited what I think of as the worst analysis ever…”, and that’s after unthinkingly accepting the statement: “Warming of 0.8C, current temperature is ~0.1C above the Holocene maximum” of Figure 1 here: https://econbrowser.com/archives/2022/04/climate-change-and-mitigation-policies
After providing an economics example highlighting the absurdity of the claim he chose to accept the results of my example.
What part do you not accept? I accept that your specialty is economics; I don’t accept that your specialty is climate and environment.
• https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-power-found-to-affect-local-climate/
• https://www.americanexperiment.org/the-environmental-disaster-of-solar-energy/
• https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759376113/unfurling-the-waste-problem-caused-by-wind-energy
• https://therealdeal.com/tristate/2021/11/29/the-upstate-land-grab-behind-the-solar-power-boom/
I could go on with more links, but I shouldn’t have to. The list of issues I posted are all well known and of concern. Now you can argue that “based on economic analysis” there is more benefit than cost, but there are real societal and environmental costs which will grow exponentially in the next couple of decades. The if-come costs of hyped global warming is constantly used to justify very debatable policies.
So, let’s see how Europe thrives without fossil fuels. They are well down that road, much farther than the US.
“I don’t accept that your specialty is climate and environment.” Bruce Hall actually wrote this? Just wow!
I see climate change denier CoRev has had to stoop to the bottom of the barrel to defend utterly incompetent Bruce Hall. Pass the popcorn!
I checked out Bruce’s first link but did he?
What’s the right comparison?
So how should we understand these results? Keith and colleagues compared the climate changes caused by wind turbines with the climate changes that would have been caused by fossil fuel burned to make the same amount of electricity. But because carbon dioxide lasts for centuries or millennia in the atmosphere (unless we suck it out somehow), it’s hard to know over how many years to calculate the avoided carbon dioxide emissions. For the 20-year life of the turbines? Or for the few hundred years of supply of fossil fuels that could be burnt?
Bruce wants us to believe solar and wind cause vast global damages where as coal and oil have little costs. HIS OWN links tells just the opposite. Now is Bruce Hall the serial liar that everyone (not just me) say he is or is he too stupid to read his own links?
Bruce Hall’s 2nd link is from The Center of the American Experiment which is described here:
https://abetterminnesota.org/2019/06/the-truth-about-the-center-of-the-american-experiment/
Look – you have given Bruce Hall a LOT of latitude and all this troll does is lie over and over again. His posts are not only dishonest but incredibly stupid. I do not normally advocate banning even trolls but his dishonesty is beyond the pale. One dishonest post after another to the point that everyone here has realized he is a complete waste of time.
“I could go on with more links, but I shouldn’t have to. The list of issues I posted are all well known and of concern.”
His 1st link says just the opposite of what Bruce is writing. His NPR link (3rd one) notes most of what is used is reusable. A few blades are not? BFD. As I noted – his 2nd link is a pro-business lobbying group known to lie almost as much as Bruce Hall does.
Bruce says he could go on. Yes he can – with more lies. That is all he ever does.
I’m sorry but this troll needs to stop as he is wasting everyone’s time.
“This approach was first attempted by David Keith and colleagues in 2004. When they compared the climate in their model with and without extremely large wind farms (large enough to generate about twice the world’s total present electrical demand), they found that in addition to climate effects in the immediate vicinity of the wind farms, there were changes in climate all around the world.
There were regions of warming and cooling of about 0.5°C, and increases and decreases in precipitation by a few percent. A followup paper showed that these changes were mostly a result of changes in wind direction caused by the wind turbines. The model winds tended to shy away from the wind farms a little, so that downstream from the farms there would be regions of extra wind from the south, that would tend to be warmer, and regions of extra wind from the north, that would tend to be colder.
Vautard’s study agrees with this earlier work, in finding that the climate impacts of wind farms extend beyond the farms themselves and are caused by changes in the flow of the atmosphere that bring warming and cooling to different regions around the wind farms.”
Now, extrapolate that to a situation where wind farms are the predominant source of power as opposed to a small fraction.
The question was nothing but your usual babble so pardon me for ignoring your weird advances. Again – if you want to date a guy with a girl’s name go to your local bar and pray some ugly dude picks you up.
Aw, you call me Liar and I call you Lucy.
https://www.fotolip.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/lucy-australopithecus_576e3f93d2bbc.jpg
Aren’t ad hominems great?
Aren’t ad hominems great?
Wow – Bruce Hall provides us a picture of his new boyfriend. OK s/he is kind of ugly but that ain’t gonna help you in divorce court. I hope the sex is hot because EWWWW.
You say, like, three reasonable things, then blow it up with dumb partisan stuff. What’s the point?
Three things? I count only one several paragraphs down. And it certainly was NOT this lie:
“US refineries have been closing and investors and banks are increasingly reluctant to fund new oil/natural gas exploration because of the government’s stated antipathy toward those fuels.”
That was not stated in any of his links. And it makes zero economic sense given the high price of gasoline right now. Let’s see a rise in the price refineries get for their efforts and Bruce Hall thinks this leads to them closing? Yea – he is totally ignorant of basic economics but DAMN!
https://abc13.com/houston-refinery-lyondellbasell-news-closing-in/11777968/
A large refinery closing despite high demand and high prices.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-refiners-set-strong-start-050737106.html
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/11/18/4771-n18.html
Another large refinery just closed.
Funding for oil/natural gas is declining amid pressure from government on left-wing “environmental” groups.
“The four largest U.S. banks—J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America—provided the oil and gas sector with $181.2 billion of financing in 2021. That is 14.3 percent below the 2019 level, according to data in the 13th annual “Banking on Climate Chaos” study. Those four banks together account for one-quarter of all fossil fuel financing, according to the report.”
Yeah, nothing to see here.
Bruce,
What? It is “government pressure on left wing environmental groups” that is responsible for all these supposed declines in bank funding for oil and gas? You mean that if Trump were back in power and not pressuring them, the left wing environmental groups would be demanding that the banks fund oil and natural gas? How completely out of it are you?
You have found ONE refinery that is closing. This has been in the works since the pandemic – which you personally helped make worse. Way to go troll.
Oh gee – in the wake of weak oil demand from the pandemic the big banks decided to cut back a bit on oil investment. DUH.
And some study which you cannot be bothered to provide a link to? You are at least consistent – one meaningless and dishonest chirp after another. Brucie wanna a cracker?
https://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2022/03/Banking-on-Climate-Chaos-2022.pdf
Gee Brucie – it took my 2 second to find your little Banking on Climate Chaos study. Did you READ it? If you did – you might have realized its message is completely the opposite of the intellectual garbage you routinely write. So either you are too stupid to read your own links or you are indeed a serial liar. No other choices. No more chirping for you as you have exposed yourself to be the most dishonest troll ever.
Barkley Rosser
April 29, 2022 at 12:16 am
Bruce,
What? It is “government pressure on left wing environmental groups” that is responsible for all these supposed declines in bank funding for oil and gas?
Thanks Barkley. Brucie did not read his own link here as he is blatantly lying about what they said. But notice the declines in bank funding came in 2020 when Trump was President. Of course that was the year when the pandemic dramatically lowered the demand for oil. Something I have pointed out to Brucie boy many times. Of course telling him something is sort of like have a conversation with a dead tree.
I looked up what reliable sources said about refineries. This 2019 McKinsey report is one example:
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-and-gas/our-insights/global-refining-profiting-in-a-downstream-downturn#:~:text=Refiners%20have%20been%20able%20to%20count%20on%20steady,oil%20demand%20by%20about%201.2%20percent%20per%20year.
It certainly did not make the unsupported claim serial liar Bruce Hall made. It noted how the world would become more fuel efficient through 2035 but it predicted more refinery capacity not less. Now that was 2019 before the pandemic hit hard (in part because morons listened to Donald Trump and Bruce Hall but that is another horrific account of MAGA HAT wearing morons). Yes a drop in the demand for gasoline lowered the demand for refineries temporarily.
Look this is standard faire for Bruce Hall – he just makes up one lie after another in support of the MAGA crowd. Real research? Actual facts – Bruce Hall never does not. Ever.
LOL! So an older report is “reliable” versus actual closings?
I did note it was pre-pandemic. You on the other hand have nothing at all – except for that little report that you blatantly lied about. Read your own link troll – it says just the opposite of what you are asserting. Seriously Bruce – how effing stupid are you?
wind and solar are not so good at ‘energy security’….
solutions are not yet engineered.
Are you trying to be even dumber than Bruce Hall? If so – try harder.
Bierka, prove him wrong with real world examples. Remember Germany as an example where solar and wind are reduced for 5 months of the year.
It actually doesn’t matter what these idiots think and what fact-challenged sources they can dig out as a pretend cover for their lies.
The fact is that wind and solar are outcompeting all other sources of energy, so they will take over – only question is how fast. Fact is that energy storage technologies are available and will soon make the “intermittency” issue a “no-problem” issue – only question is how fast. Fact is that EVs are outcompeting ICE vehicles in any rational analysis the remaining problems as well as costs are being solved – only question is how soon we get to where the idea of being an ICE vehicle is as absurd as buying a Ford Model T for transportation.
Ivan claims: “Fact is that energy storage technologies are available and will soon make the “intermittency” issue a “no-problem” issue – ” The issue to Bierka was to show real world examples. The German requirement is to provide the -no problem- examples for the required 5 months when needed.
@CoRev
Maybe you should show us that real world case where the globe went completely black and not a a tiny little breeze of wind was felt for 5 months anywhere in Germany.
Those who engage in serious fact-based discussions of these issues are looking at storage capacity to deal with real world 50-year events with regards to sun and wind energy generation. In that once or twice in a lifetime event, we will cut electricity in rotating brownouts – you know almost as bad as when we have a storm, but with less global warming we will have fewer actual storms – so in the end people are better off even if storage doesn’t cover every imaginable real world fluctuation in weather.
Ivan provides an impossible hypothetical example “…where the globe went completely black and not a a tiny little breeze…”. Maybe in a unicorn-based world there would exist a world-wide grid. Going on with a lot of unsubstantiated claims, Ivan concludes with: “… so in the end people are better off even if storage doesn’t cover every imaginable real world fluctuation in weather.”
Really!?! In the US tell that to residents of Texas and California. In Europe tell that to the pensioners in Denmark, Germany and Belgium, etc. who are struggling to stay warm versus eat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics and
https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/23/why-energy-poverty-is-rising-among-low-income-households-in-the-eu
Boy, you really are grasping now. Renewables are aimed at addressing climate change, as well as a number of other forms of environmental damqge caused by fossil fuel extraction and use. Your answer? Change the subject to “security.” Who has an energy security problem? Texans, because of poor infrastructure maintenance in fossil fuel and electricity delivery. Delivery, not production.
And poor people. Who also have food insecurity, healthcare insecurity, shelter insecurity… That’s the result of poor social and economic policy, not renewable energy.
You gotta get smater with your red herrings.
Bruce, you are a stupid liar, not more.
Poor CoRev has had to step in and defend this moronic liar. At least CoRev tries to conceal the fact that he is spinning. Bruce is not quite that bright.
I have been doing something Bruce Hall never does – reading the 10-K filing for the leading oil multinational Exxon. Now Bruce Hall wants us believe oil companies are doing less investment because of Biden the Communist. Now there is a section called
Climate Change and the Energy Transition
Not a single mention of how this is adversely affecting the company or its future investment plans.
There is a section called
COVID-19
This is where they tell shareholders why 2020 sales were lower and profits turned negative.
But of course understanding what drives the decisions of the actual oil multinationals is not something Bruce Hall does as it gets in the way of his incessant partisan chirping.
Bruce,
Are you joining Moses Herzog in having major problems with gender? You already have the male pgl being “Lucy,” but now you join Moses in his fantasy that ltr is “he” when most of us are aware that she is none other than anne of the former Economists View. Have you decided to become a gender fluid person? Maybe your name is actually “Mary”?
Bruce clearly wants to date some dude with a woman’s name. Sorry Bruce – stupid trolls are not my type. BTW – I’m writing a little letter to your wife. You may want to hire a good divorce lawyer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/28/business/economy/us-gdp-q1-2022.html?smid=url-copy
April 28, 2022
The economy contracted in the first quarter, but underlying measures were solid.
The U.S. economy contracted in the first three months of the year, but strong consumer spending and continued business investment suggested that the recovery remained resilient.
Gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation, declined 0.4 percent in the first quarter, or 1.4 percent on an annualized basis, the Commerce Department said Thursday. That was down sharply from the 1.7 percent growth (6.9 percent annualized) in the final three months of 2021, and was the weakest quarter since the early days of the pandemic.
The decline was mostly a result of the two most volatile components of the quarterly reports: inventories and international trade. Lower government spending was also a drag on growth. Measures of underlying demand showed solid growth.
Most important, consumer spending, the engine of the U.S. economy, grew 0.7 percent in the first quarter despite the Omicron wave of the coronavirus, which restrained spending on restaurants, travel and similar services in January.
“Consumer spending is the aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean — it just keeps plowing ahead,” said Jay Bryson, chief economist for Wells Fargo.
But choppy waters may lie ahead….
— Ben Casselman
US Economy up and down in Q-1.
The US economy grew 3.6% in the first quarter of 2022, as compared to a year earlier. It also contracted 1.4% on a seasonally adjusted annualized basis, from the final period of last year.
Year-on-year, private consumption rose 4.7% (from +6.9% in Q-4 2021), capital investment +10.8% (from +9.6%), exports +4.1% (from +4.9%), imports +11.7% (from +9.6%), government spending -1.6% (from +0.1%), and the total domestic demand (DD) – an alternative measure of GDP – rose 7.1%, from +7.4%.
The private consumption expenditure deflator, the broadest measure of price changes (and one said to be favored by the Fed), rose 6.3%, after a 5.5% increase in Oct-Dec 2021.
A large share of the quarter-to-quarter decline in GDP was due to inventory build-up, but the main driver was a downturn in exports combined with an up-tick in imports. Both comprise a drag on GDP growth rates, but are a mathematical addition to domestic demand.
As is typically the case under Democratic administrations, government spending continued to slow, falling year-on-year for the fourth straight quarter.
Source: bea.gov
declining stimulus year on year.
That IMF link actually puts the annual cost of oil subsidies at $5.3 trillion when properly defined as:
We define energy subsidies as the difference between what consumers pay for energy and its “true costs,” plus a country’s normal value added or sales tax rate. These “true costs” of energy consumption include its supply costs and the damage that energy consumption inflicts on people and the environment. These damages, in turn, come from carbon emissions and hence global warming; the health effects of air pollution; and the effects on traffic congestion, traffic accidents, and road damage. Most of these externalities are borne by local populations, with the global warming component of energy subsidies only a fourth of the total (Chart 1).
As I have noted – even conservative economist Greg Mankiw agrees with this definition. Now the fact that chirping little bird Bruce Hall wants to deny these true costs proves only one thing – he has never even tried to learn even basic economics.
More from the IMF:
“The IMF has long argued that getting energy prices right can help national governments achieve their goals not only for the environment but also for inclusive growth and sound public finances. Increasing energy prices gradually and predictably to reflect their true costs would generate fiscal gains of about 3½ percent of GDP. The fiscal gains are less than the total amount of subsidies (6½ percent of GDP) because higher prices would drive down energy consumption. The fiscal gains from subsidy reform are sizeable and could be a game changer for fiscal policy in many countries. This would give room, for example, for governments to reduce some types of taxes (such as those imposed on labor) that weigh down growth; raise growth-enhancing public expenditure (e.g. for infrastructure, health and education); and finance targeted cash transfers for the poor. Furthermore, there would be appropriate incentives for investment in green technology because dirty energy would no longer be artificially cheap. The icing on the cake is that the benefits from subsidy reform example, from reduced pollution—would overwhelmingly accrue to local populations.”
Mankiw et al. have noted internalizing the true cost of using oil could allow government to reduce things like employment taxes as well as pay for things like infrastructure. Biden gets this but Trump never did. And of course that MAGA hat wearing little chirping birds are still trying to deny this well accepted reality.
‘true cost’ of petro-energy is much smaller than ‘true cost’ of lack of system thinking…..
would hardly pay for the subsidies much less the degraded quality of life.
it is too ‘technical’ for economists.
So you are saying the cost of negative externalities is tiny? You are as dumb as Bruce Hall. Way to go troll.
Well, it’s pretty clearly too technical for you, since all you’ve written is a couple unsubstantiatesd – and unclear – assertions with a buzzword or two in them. And, as you’ve demonstrated over and over, you have no grasp of what economists know. None.
At least you haven’t repeated any of Putin’s talking points here. Well, none that I’ve spotted.
Putin is threatening to invade Moldova now. Most members of our House are willing to stand up for this nation but 17 Trumpian traitors are saying Putin invading Moldova is OK by then. Who might those 17 be? You guessed it!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/boebert-greene-and-cawthorn-among-republicans-voting-against-supporting-moldova-s-democracy-amid-russia-threat/ar-AAWHJnX?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=22b85c06178a4a7b900fc7e2b905e20e
Interestingly and importantly, this is the day of Holocaust remembrance in Israel, while a country in which this day is always remembered as well is “China.” This of course should tell of the country China is.
The subsidy argument for O&G is incredibly misleading. Almost all of the “subsidy” is an attempt at accounting for negative externalities (e.g. pollution). The N American O&G industry pays very high taxes historically, particularly when one includes state production taxes that are a large source of funding for AK, ND, and Tx among others.
The problem with trying to tax or regulate the supply side to affect change is that the US hasn’t taxed everyone. What happens when you regulate your way out of domestic production, but are perfectly willing to import similar hydrocarbons from say Russia? The current situation in Europe! And don’t forget for years Permian producers were selling gas at a loss (often negative prices), which doesn’t happen in places like Russia/Kazakstan. That gas gets flared or worse, vented.
Aside from that, I agree with most of the piece. NG is only cleaner than coal if we prevent methane leaks. Without any economic grid sized means of storing electricity, we need hydrocarbons that can be used when the sun isn’t shining. There are some interesting ideas for kinetic storage (pump water up a damn, compressed air, etc), but they’re nowhere near cost competitive or scalable at this point. NG is a compliment to renewables, not its enemy. Nuclear can be fantastic, but it doesn’t actually dovetail well with renewables as it’s better used as baseload (i.e. keep it running all the time).
“The subsidy argument for O&G is incredibly misleading. Almost all of the “subsidy” is an attempt at accounting for negative externalities”.
If you are saying we should ignore the cost of negative externalities, you are almost as dumb as Bruce Hall. The IMF paper was clear and excellent analysis. Try actually reading and learning. DUH!
I’d appreciate it if someone as painfully stupid as you wouldn’t put words into my mouth while jabbering about learning to read.
Negative externalities are absolutely real, but targeting a small sector of producers is both ineffective and cognitive dissonance as a consumer. The oil industry knew about global warming years ago. So did anyone with half a brain. And guess what, we still consume it in every aspect of our lives. You’re typing on keys made of hydrocarbons, looking at a screen that was made with hydrocarbons, being powered by hydrocarbons, all of which were transported using hydrocarbons. And your entitled little monkey brain has the audacity to think, “yes, but I want all of that without a carbon footprint at the same cost! If they don’t do that for me, they’re evil!” Scan the room you’re in right now and attempt to guess what material every object you see was made out of, where that came from, and how it made its way to you. What’s the temperature of the room relative to the temperature outside? Is there a light on? Are you enjoying a coffee from Ethiopia and a banana from Ecuador? You are the problem. Pointing the finger at the producer doesn’t make your consumption more ethical. You are the parasite.
Your original comment missed the fact that Frankel did not include the externality costs. READ the IMF report as when they did, their estimate was 3 times what Frankel wrote. May I humbly suggest you actually read the entire report (I did). And sorry dude – your original comment was highly misleading the way it was written. Trying learning to write clearly next time. GEESH.
“Trying learning to write clearly next time.” < A microcosm of your intellect.
For those with a brain, Figure ES3 in the IMF report is worth considering. Note the "explicit subsidies" for North America are effectively zero.
“Trying learning to write clearly”
“The N American O&G industry pays very high taxes historically”
The US Federal income tax on oil profits is a mere 21%. Even the UAE charges 55%. Come on – are you working for Exxon or what?
Cost competitiveness ignores externalities. It is simply a biased standard. A Pigovian remedy has been avoided for years, and now the cost of that avoidance is growing quickly. Cost competitiveness even under Pigovian taxation would leave us in the soup, because of the failure to impose Pigovian remedies till now.
Gradualism, “market-based” solutions and the like simply ignore the nature of our environmental problems.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html?ref=opinion
Supporters of cap and trade point to the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments that capped sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-burning power plants — the main pollutants in acid rain — at levels below what they were in 1980. This legislation allowed power plants that reduced emissions to levels below the cap to sell the credit for these excess reductions to other utilities whose emissions were too high, thus giving plant owners a financial incentive to cut back their pollution. Sulfur emissions have been reduced by 43 percent in the two decades since. Great success? Hardly.
Because cap and trade is enforced through the selling and trading of permits, it actually perpetuates the pollution it is supposed to eliminate. If every polluter’s emissions fell below the incrementally lowered cap, then the price of pollution credits would collapse and the economic rationale to keep reducing pollution would disappear.
Worse yet, polluters’ lobbyists ensured that the clean air amendments allowed existing power plants to be “grandfathered,” avoiding many pollution regulations. These old plants would soon be retired anyway, the utilities claimed. That’s hardly been the case: Two-thirds of today’s coal-fired power plants were constructed before 1975.
Cap and trade also did little to improve public health. Coal emissions are still significant contributing factors in four of the five leading causes of mortality in the United States — and mercury, arsenic and various coal pollutants also cause birth defects, asthma and other ailments.
Yet cap-and-trade schemes are still being pursued in Copenhagen and Washington. (Though I head the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, I’m speaking only for myself.)
To compound matters, the Congressional carbon cap would also encourage “offsets” — alternatives to emission reductions, like planting trees on degraded land or avoiding deforestation in Brazil. Caps would be raised by the offset amount, even if such offsets are imaginary or unverifiable. Stopping deforestation in one area does not reduce demand for lumber or food-growing land, so deforestation simply moves elsewhere.
Once again, lobbyists are providing the real leadership on climate change legislation. Under the proposed law, some permits to pollute would be handed out free; and much of the money actually collected from permits would be used to pay for boondoggles like “clean coal” research. The House and Senate energy bills would only assure continued coal use, making it implausible that carbon dioxide emissions would decline sharply.
If that isn’t bad enough, Wall Street is poised to make billions of dollars in the “trade” part of cap-and-trade. The market for trading permits to emit carbon appears likely to be loosely regulated, to be open to speculators and to include derivatives. All the profits of this pollution trading system would be extracted from the public via increased energy prices.
There is a better alternative, one that would be more efficient and less costly than cap and trade: “fee and dividend.” Under this approach, a gradually rising carbon fee would be collected at the mine or port of entry for each fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas). The fee would be uniform, a certain number of dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in the fuel. The public would not directly pay any fee, but the price of goods would rise in proportion to how much carbon-emitting fuel is used in their production.
All of the collected fees would then be distributed to the public. Prudent people would use their dividend wisely, adjusting their lifestyle, choice of vehicle and so on. Those who do better than average in choosing less-polluting goods would receive more in the dividend than they pay in added costs….
— James Hansen
ltr,
Is it not the case that the PRC has introduced a cap and trade program? Does this mean that you are in disagreement with a PRC policy for once?
James Hansen is a very good scientist and a true expert on climate change. But he does not get how cap and trade done right can replicate what a Pigouvian tax would accomplish.
Then again we have mental midgets like Bruce Hall who blatantly ignores all externality costs.
I have long thought this proposal by James Hansen is compelling. I am still impressed, though the proposal was fiercely dismissed by Paul Krugman:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html?ref=opinion
December 7, 2009
Cap and Fade
By JAMES HANSEN
AT the international climate talks in Copenhagen, President Obama is expected to announce that the United States wants to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to about 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. But at the heart of his plan is cap and trade, a market-based approach that has been widely praised but does little to slow global warming or reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It merely allows polluters and Wall Street traders to fleece the public out of billions of dollars….
ltr,
It has generally been accepted that the cap and trade program in the US directed at SO2 emissions was largely successful in doing so while it was operational.
Bush41 did get it right. Alas Trumpian Republicans undermined these efforts as their adoring fans like Bruce Hall cheered Trump on.
“I have long thought this proposal by James Hansen is compelling. I am still impressed, though the proposal was fiercely dismissed by Paul Krugman”
Once again you misrepresent what Krugman wrote. He was NOT dismissing Pigouvian taxes at all. He was saying a well designed cap and trade program could have the same effect. Please stop with this faux controversy.
I am going to annoy several people here yet again by some awful name dropping, but I have repeatedly pointed out here, including above in this thread, that it is fantasy to push Pigovian taxes in the US. They are utterly and totally politically infeasible and are a waste of time even talking about here, even if they are virtuous in theory.
The name dropping is that I made this point in a person to person debate in front of a lot of environmental policymakers at a conference on global warming way over a decade ago with Joe Stiglitz. He is stuck in the mud, having been pushing Pigovian taxes for the last half century since the original Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were passed. just as we are having this fad for them now, with the unfortunately misinformed James Hansen piling on, they were the economics establishment view back then, with Joe one of the leaders of the pack. But the Congress went for a quantitative command and control approach, which still characterized the majority of US anti-pollutino policy.
So cap and trade arose as the modification of those old quantity command and control policies, trying to make them more cost effective, and it worked for SO2 and in some other cases, although some cap and trade programs have had problems. At that conference I mentioned there a bunch of people from the EU program, which had just had their major embarrassment of a collapse of carbon prices due them having had misinformation about emissions that got corrected. Joe made the mistake of accusing their program of involving”corruption,” which was seriously inaccurate and brought forth an outraged response by the knowledgeable participants. Nobody then was supporting his push for Pigovian taxes, and, really as somebody who was Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers to a POTUS, he really should have figured the political economy of this out by now.
“The N American O&G industry pays very high taxes historically, particularly when one includes state production taxes that are a large source of funding for AK, ND, and Tx among others.”
US taxes on oil profits are low by international standards. Yes we have other taxes but mind you much of the excise taxation is to pay for roads. Europe’s taxes are much higher than ours/
I’m sorry but this does not come close to being a thorough discussion of the economics. Now you might want to go off again as how I’m being so unfair to you but come on dude – if you put out incomplete comments like this – expect the rest of us to hold you to a higher standard.
I was over at Kevin Drum’s place seeing what he had to say about the GDP report and reading the comments when one of his readers advised me that Victor Davis Hanson was almost as crazy as Bruce Hall. Yep – this is one insane rant!
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2022/apr/28/victor-davis-hanson-why-america-doesnt-seem-to/
Well, we have a fair contingent of folks on this blog insisting women economists aren’t getting their voices heard. Here is the highly regarded Diane Swonk.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/as-the-u-s-economy-slows-down-fears-of-a-possible-recession-grow
I thought it was slightly humorous, she thought she was gonna answer that last question with a head nod. But overall a solid interview.
She is a good economist. Too bad she has to work for the corrupt accountants at Grant Thornton in order to be paid for her excellent sources. Then again it’s better than working for Mazars.
Then there’s energy policies meant to support genocide. I guess commenter ltr would tell us “it’s all in a day’s work” for the humanitarians in Beijing:
[ China ] instituted import tariffs on coal in 2014, charging 5% or 6% for different types of power plant coal, and 3% on anthracite and coking coal for steel-making.
“We see Russian coal as likely the main beneficiary,” Morgan Stanley analysts including Sara Chan said in a research note.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-cuts-coal-import-tariffs-073039320.html
Well, we can’t expect Beijing not to enthusiastically support mass murder can we?? It would be so out of character for them. It’s like Confucius once said: “You can take the villager out of the village, but you can’t take the amoralism out of the amoralist.”
Indonesia, China’s largest coal supplier, already enjoys zero import tariffs thanks to a previous deal. Australia does, as well, but China halted imports from the nation in 2020 amid a geopolitical spat. After Indonesia, Russia was China’s second-biggest supplier last year. Chinese buyers last month began paying for some Russian coal in yuan to avoid international financial institutions amid U.S. and European sanctions on Russia.
Indonesia, Australia, Colombia, South Africa all export a lot of coal. China could buy more from them if they wished.
This should be the energy future for the US.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-nuclear-energy-stories-watch-2022
Wind and solar are being heavily subsidized and electric companies are being forced to pay for wind/solar generated power when it is not needed and then to back up those sources when they are variably unavailable. Huge battery installations to smooth out power from wind/solar comes with its own set of problems. This bill of goods was sold as a panacea. It’s not.
I really am reticent to agree with you on something, for the simple reason that I think most of your statements are blatantly false. But I do think the batteries for electric cars (and other things) to store the energy are going to end up being a bigger problem, than most people are recognizing. What are we going to do when those batteries get old?? Like many of scientists’ “magical solutions”, I’ve yet to hear a satisfactory answer on that. And I’d genuinely love to see an answer/ guest blog post from Greg Nemet on the answer to solar batter waste and how it’s not being included in many of these figures and not included in these utopian visions of a solar power future.
*last sentence I obviously meant to type solar battery waste. This keyboard is 20 times better than my old ones, but I gotta remember to edit these before I click “reply”
Interesting the one time this troll did not blatantly lie was to praise a Biden initiative. Now I think we underestimate the potential damage from nuclear power but at least Bruce Hall has temporarily decided not to carry the water for “clean” (cough, cough) coal.
Big L, you really can be a moron without trying,
Bruce, remember” Huge battery installations to smooth out power from wind/solar” costs are not to be included when comparing base-load fossil fuel suppliers.
“Bruce, remember” Huge battery installations to smooth out power from wind/solar” costs are not to be included when comparing base-load fossil fuel suppliers.”
Look, in Germany until now only storage facilities are used whuich were built for BASELOAD power plants (lignite, coal, nuclear), these available storage faciliteis allow around 60% of the energy generation by RE. We are at around 50% now.
The relevant gedankenexperiment is to ask how much storage is essential in a 90% RE scenario and what is the chaepest way to provide it. The result is of course cheaper than NPPs. To argue with storage cost as savior for NPPs only indicates that you are clueless.
Try to understand the concept of uncorrlelated generation and how to get it….
Ulenspiegel, when you totally misunderstand a comment by: ” To argue with storage cost as savior for NPPs only indicates that you are clueless.” You used this term not I. Germany is showing itself to be the poster child for poor, poorest energy policy.
The big lie is (…) renewable is getting cheaper than (…) non-renewable source of electricity. These renewables get promoted by lying about actual costs. Blindly believing and repeating this big lie only indicates that you are clueless.
Unter,
You misconstrued what I wrote: in order to go full RE, massive battery installations would be required. The better [and far less environmentally intrusive] solution is to focus on latest generation nuclear power plants. No vast tracts of lands covered with wind farms and solar arrays.
Ltr is correct: China does have the right idea building all of those NPPs.
“massive battery installations would be required.”
No, in Europe they are already there, they are callled reservoirs. Norway has capacity of 80 TWh, Sweden 25 TWh, the Alps….
You need power transmission lines.
Ulenspiegel. your Norway reservoir example provides ~49 days of 100% backup for German electricity needs. The costs for the new generation (new because no existing grid is available) and the supporting grid should be applied to the renewable power generators. Adding those costs to their pricing will more fairly make cost/price comparisons.
BTW, I hope you understand Norway is not Germany, and that Norway’s weather conditions impacting wind/solar production usually also impact Germany. If you are assuming adding to existing hydro generation then the added German needs is still new generation. Norway’s and Sweden’s power needs would be fulfilled prior to Germany’s.
Then there’s energy policies meant to support genocide….
Well, we can’t expect Beijing not to enthusiastically support mass murder can we?? It would be so out of character for them. It’s like Confucius once said: “You can take the villager out of the village, but you can’t take the amoralism out of the amoralist.”
[ This is of course false, and this is definitive racism. ]
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2022/03/recession-talk#comment-271171
March 25, 2022
Han enslavers
Han enslavers
Han enslavers
Would the Han enslavers just torture
Would the Han enslavers just torture
Would the Han enslavers just torture
[ False and definitive racism. ]
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2022/04/what-to-make-of-the-chinese-sovereign-yield-curve#comment-273255
April 26, 2022
Also those are not slaves in Xinjiang, they are all volunteering to make lollipops for Han people because of the Han’s benevolence to them of allowing Uighurs to breathe….
[ False and definitive racism. Repeated racism, meant to endanger an entire people. ]
Cost estimate to move electric power generation away from fossil fuels [before recent inflation].
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-carbon-report/weaning-u-s-power-sector-off-fossil-fuels-would-cost-4-7-trillion-study-idUSKCN1TS0GX
Wood Mackenzie’s [experts in the energy sector] report focuses solely on what it would cost to green the U.S. power sector, a top contributor to greenhouse gas emissions – >>>but does not include costs for other sectors like transport, agriculture or manufacturing.<<<
Eliminating fossil fuels from the U.S. power sector, a key goal of the “Green New Deal” backed by many Democratic presidential candidates, would cost $4.7 trillion and pose massive economic and social challenges, according to a report released on Thursday by energy research firm Wood Mackenzie.
Wait, I’ll do it for pgl: “Liars!”
The combination of greenie policies in government and now in insurance companies spells the demise of Western oil production. That will make Russia and OPEC nations very happy. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/opec-countries
https://www.allianz.com/content/dam/onemarketing/azcom/Allianz_com/press/document/Allianz-SE-Media-Release_Allianz-reinforces-its-net-zero-commitment_20220429.pdf
If you can’t be insured, you’re not going to be operating. Ideology, once again, trumps reality.
The current drought in SW USA is pointed to as evidence of CO2 driven global warming. Then ‘splain this:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.177.7855&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Bruce, another study pointing to the effects of ENSO???? Where does the anthropogenic affect impact ENSO, which can be seen for millions of years in the climate reconstructions, while the AGW theory and records are only a few generations old? /sarc