A reader asks “what’s changed over 11 years” in defending citation of a blogpost from 2012.
Well, one thing is “costs”, as technology and equipment have evolved. From NREL (2022).
Battery storage costs are also coming down fast, as discussed in this post. Here’s a graph showing the evolution of capital costs and projections from NREL (2021).
So, what’s changed since 2012. Not sure, but a lot’s changed since 2015. Costs of production and storage of energy from wind is way down. Presumably, incorporating the insecurity of supply from natural gas and/or oil are still high or possibly rising (due to climate change that raises the likelihood of freezing infrastructure in ERCOT, or disruption of oil production from places like Russia), so it seems the benefit/cost ratio for wind is rising over time.
But that’s just me, referring to data, instead of citing evidence from 11 year old blogposts.
(By the way, this reader is the same guy that said Trump’s April 2018 tariff action would cause a mere “blip” in soybean prices; they didn’t recover until after the 2020 election, in which Mr. Trump lost. I guess for some, 2 years is a “blip”).
A fundamental, bedrock principle is that the whale oil industry shall always be the source of fuel for domestic lighting needs for the next two centuries, and that the central importance of Nantucket and New Bedford to this great endeavor shall endure.
There have been some technical improvements/innovations that increased the energy capture by changing wing design. Its always very hard to predict those types of progress, although we know they are much more likely in new technology. Energy storage will likely get a huge cost saving when they begin using Sodium batteries for large scale static installations.
Another battery technology may be coming on line for mass storage (and some Tesla cars in a smaller form).
https://mjlst.lib.umn.edu/2023/04/14/a-new-iron-age-new-developments-in-battery-technology/
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/storage/form-energy-starts-work-on-its-iron-air-battery-plant/
https://techcrunch.com/2021/07/28/what-teslas-bet-on-iron-based-batteries-means-for-manufacturers/
The cost of these batteries is significantly less than lithium ion batteries and have a much longer life span. The drawback is somewhat less energy dense that LI batteries, by that’s offset by being less cost dense.
Another plus: recycling should be much easier than LI batteries.
“How many more deaths need occur before the liberal mind accepts their policy failures?”
CoRev keeps repeating the LIE that some green policy led to 246 deaths in Texas. Abbott is a greenie? No CoRev is a serial liar. Get used to it.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
Benjamin Franklin
The liberal mind is an amazement. Yours in particular.
You are the hardest working one of them all!
I keep noticing you are flat out ducking the point. You lied so I guess we should never expect someone like you to address that. It ain’t what little CoRev do.
Point? When have you made a point that was relevant to the substance?
The ignorant liberal mind is an amazement.
CoRev
May 31, 2023 at 12:54 pm
Point? When have you made a point that was relevant to the substance?
Huh – CoRev is looking in the mirror talking to himself!
What about bird deaths? Nothing to see here move along…
NREL (2022).
Published in Dec. 2022 whereas CoRev relies on a paper written in 2006. So make his recent research as being from 15 years ago.
“Battery Storage Costs for Utilities”
Nice post from last July. Did CoRev remember reading it? He certainly made a lot of dumb chirping comments but I guess he forgot this topic was already discussed.
This is CoRev’s defense of his LIE that the greenies in Texas caused those 246 deaths?
Texas House passes bill to curb renewable energy growth
Washington Examiner
Texas Republican House lawmakers voted Monday to approve legislation boosting coal and natural gas power to increase grid reliability, legislation critics argue will hurt the state’s leading renewable energy sector and drive up consumer costs.
A Washington Examiner article that notes only that the rightwingers in Texas went anti-green? Excuse me but the real reporting here noted how little Texas relied on wind power, how fossil fuel power failed, and how ERCOT had decided a long time ago to go off the national grid. Like we all know CoRev is nothing more than a sniveling little liar but his lies are so weak and transparent it is beyond belief.
“incorporating the insecurity of supply from natural gas and/or oil are still high or possibly rising (due to climate change that raises the likelihood of freezing infrastructure in ERCOT”
The real story behind those deaths in Feb. 2021 but of course little CoRev will never admit this reality.
Menzieprovides the weakest of response in reference to this question: “what conditions have changed in the past 11 years?” He further ignored the follow on statement: “The whole point of the article is to show that these added costs were and are still today not included in operational costs. IOW, the Levlelized Cost of Electricity is incomplete and accordingly inaccurate.
His response also completely ignores the specific scientific peer reviewed paper in that comment:
“Full Cost of Electricity ‘FCOE’ and Energy Returns ‘eROI’” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4000800 It show how current LCOE cost estimates are seriously flawed.
For the other weak arguers It show how current LCOE cost estimates are seriously flawed. The paper originated here:
Reprint of Peer-reviewed paper, DOI: 10.5539/jms.v12n1p96 https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jms/article/view/0/47241 Journal of Management and Sustainability; Vol. 12, No. 1; 2022 ISSN 1925-4725 24 Pages Posted: 16 Mar 2022 Last revised: 28 Aug 2022
Menzie starts his conclusion with: “So, what’s changed since 2012. Not sure, but a lot’s changed since 2015. Costs of production and storage of energy from wind is way down.
Wind Costs Really? Cost estimates base on LCOE????? Why are you changing the point of the argument while ignoring the contents of the original comment? Lowering costs of wind and solar on an electric grid that never needed it is like arguing lowered gasoline prices for Electric Vehicles is good for those EVs.
Just another weak debating trick. Y’ano like pointing out a typo (there is no figure 2 to another comment and thread), or LCOE is incomplete and flawed then claiming costs are cheaper using it.
The liberal mind is an amazement.
CoRev: (1) The article you cite in the “Journal of Sustainability and Management”, not to be confused with the “International Journal of Sustainability and Management”, which as an impact factor by Thomson Reuters of guess what? *It doesn’t have one!* So it’s peer reviewed but with so little prominence it’s hard to see. (2) The author has a total of two peer reviewed articles with a total of 14 citations (the other is in Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy). He’s also got one book on the Economics of the International Coal Trade.
Maybe a little improved on a blogpost from 11 years ago, but hardly convincing.
The lead author is Lars Schernikau. I posted part of his bio and it seems he works for companies in the fossil fuel sector. Biased?
Oh wait – I pointed this out to CoRev a while back. Yea – he is one sneaky little troll.
Menzie, so now you have improved your weak counter argument with the peer reviewed article on FCOE with a comment is in Journal “…so little prominence it’s hard to see.” But you still admit he has 14 citations and a book. That level of hypocritical contradiction makes you views even weaker. As well showing your own arrogance.
You still have not argued any points in t3e references, but then used the questionable LCOE model to address an unrelated point.
The arrogance of the liberal mind is an amazement.
CoRev: Really, for a guy(I assume) that doesn’t know what an RMSFE is, but still wants to argue forecasting performance, this is pretty rich.
Google Scholar turned up this:
https://iowaclimate.org/2022/07/25/rebutting-the-imfs-carbon-arbitrage-scheme/
For the record, we agree that
The world has on average warmed during the past 150 years, after a cooling period of the Little Ice Age, from ~1300 to ~1800 AD, not mentioning earlier climatic shifts.
CO2 and CH4 are green-house gases and have contributed, along with other climate forcings, to the measured global temperature increase during the past 150 years
Humans contribute to this measured warming, including but not limited due to the increase GHG concentration in the atmosphere (namely CO2 and CH4), which appear to be largely of anthropogenic origin over the past 150 years.
CoRev has argued the opposite over and over again. While this “author” does not have the best publication record and his works are rarely cited by others, at least he is not as brain dead as CoRev.
pgl: I agree, it would be very, very difficult to be as brain-dead as CoRev.
Wouldn’t it be fun to see a paper on forecasting co-authored by CoRev and JohnH?!
Menzie,how hard is it to discuss the subject matter? Apparently, it must be difficult. since you keep ignoring it to discuss the sources, peer review of those sources, the depth of experience of the author(s), etc. You have yet to touch on the actual contents. Thast’s just another form of denial.
The funniest attempt is to show cost estimates using the Measurement (not predictions) model, LCOE, at the center of the references. Also funny is the 1st reference claimed that windmills actually required electricity to function, and that functional use was not included in their operating costs. How many more examples of cost factors ignored by LCOE? How valid then are your estimates based upon this incomplete cost model?
The denying liberal mind is an amazement.
Ole Bark, bark claims: “CoRev has argued the opposite over and over again.” Show us where I have made such arguments. My arguments usually center around claims of amount of impact(s). I have never argued CO2 and CH4 are NOT green-house gases. Nor have I argued that green-house gases can NOT warm the atmosphere. Nor have i argued that: “Humans contribute to this measured warming, (I usually provide a list of the obvious sources starting with UHI…) including but not limited due to the increase GHG concentration in the atmosphere (namely CO2 and CH4),…” Note they are talking about the increase GHGs atmospheric concentration, and not the total amount in the atmosphere. When they say: “… which appear to be largely of anthropogenic origin…” They do NOT say ALL CO2 and CH4 areanthropogenic, as some of the leaders of the Green movement say.
Only the most gullible believe these Green leaders CO2 and CH4 targets which have shifted dramatically since the UK war, which had been laid at their feet by many of their constituents. New bovine fart, fertilizer, farm land, etc. targets are even more ludicrous than the previous targeted fossil fueled power plants and autos.
Knowledgeable climate folks can readily cite the numbers of GHGs in the atmosphere, the annual increase of them, the percentages of GHG are from natural and other sources, and the amount of temperature change in the past years. The climate ignorant can not, because it is a religion and not science.
The gullible, ignorant, lying, liberal mind is an amazement. Yours may be the most egregious example.
Menzie really!? You have yet to address any of the substance of my referenced article article http://www.aweo.org/windconsumption.html and from which the question: “what’s changed over 11 years” in defending citation of a blogpost from 2012. A blogpost which lists the electricity requirements windmills need to function. many of these fundtional needs come from the grid.
Since no one has actually read the reference I will list the conditions from the paper:
“Among the wind turbine functions that use electricity are the following:†
yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) — the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine
blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)
lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.
heating the blades — this may require 10%-20% of the turbine’s nominal (rated) power
heating and dehumidifying the nacelle — according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, “power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds”
oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox
hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)
thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) — 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost
magnetizing the stator — the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a “large” amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous “cage rotor” that encloses the generator shaft; at the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine’s rated capacity, in slower winds possibly much more
using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not,‡ particularly during important site tours or noise testing (keeping the blades feathered, ie, quiet)) — it seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning, along with the gears that increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind§”
So which of these functional conditions have changed?
It must be extremely uncomfortable for liberals to discuss substance, since so many comments have been so without it. The insubstantial liberal mind is an amazement.
Menzie and Ole Bark, bark, the references were about 2 things: 1) Windmills REQUIRE energy from the grid to work and those costs are not included, and 2) the current LCOE cost metric (not prediction) is incomplete and flawed. The3se simple and referenced issues have yet to be addressed in the article nor the comments.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
Benjamin Franklin
Reading is fundamental to following an argument, but not for the liberal mind. That is an amazement
CoRev: Math. If cost of electricity to run the windmill is constant, but cost of electricity production drops dramatically over time, how does the benefit-cost calculation change, and in which direction?
You are the master of irrelevancy.
Please go back to accusing me of “manipulating the data”….
Menzie, continuing to ignore the substance of the original comment and its references, and now adding incorrect conditionals to an analogy, is the epitome of irrelevancy. Who would do a cost benefit analysis on these egregiously WRONG assumptions? Your conditionals: “If cost of electricity to run the windmill is constant (its not constant), but cost of electricity production drops dramatically over time, (it hasn’t especially when calculated with the incomplete and flawed LCOE)…(followed by an asinine question about cost/benefit analysis with no benefits listed).” (Indicates my adds.)
Since you like analogies, here’s one that exemplifies you and your fellow brethren understanding: Heavier cars shed more microscopic rubber than lighter cars. Microscopic rubber is a probable health hazard. The cost of the small doughnut spare tires is going down, but they are only needed in emergencies. They also wear faster shedding more microscopic rubber and can neither run as fast nor as far as standard tires. We need more small doughnut spare tires in all cars. Will breathing problems and/or deaths increase? What is the cause?
That was actually closer to reality than your erroneous and simplistic example above in your article and in your cost benefit example.
Why do you continue to ignore the substance of the original comment? The only conclusion for these obvious actions is that consideration of facts threatens your Climate Change (still undefined) religious beliefs.
This debating approach is what you liberals prefer. It is an amazement that the liberal mind can not address the substance of issues.
so covid is worried about the electricity needs of a wind turbine? i guess all those nuclear plants and gas plants run by themselves. no electricity to power their equipment. no people to operate them safely?
during the texas freeze a couple of years ago, most of the power lost during the freeze was due to pipelines (nat gas and water) that froze. perhaps we should consider letting that equipment access electricity to keep the equipment warm enough to not fail? but according to covid, that should not be necessary. power generation equipment should not need access to additional power to operate! all those backup generators at the nat gas plants that failed? apparently not necessary. if we had only turned off the power to those plants, the blackout would have never occurred! brilliant logic by covid.
“But you still admit he has 14 citations and a book.”
Learn to use Google Scholar. He does not have that many publications and each of them are only cited once or twice in most cases. Very weak.
I wonder if CoRev ever heard of Google Scholar. I just checked out what the lead author has written and you covered it very well. Then again – credentials have never been that important to CoRev.
Have you read his book? Gee given its price – I doubt it. BTW – 3 reviews on Amazon is not that great.
Economics of the International Coal Trade: Why Coal Continues to Power the World
https://www.amazon.com/Economics-International-Coal-Trade-Continues/dp/3319465554
‘Apart from giving an in-depth overview of the global coal business, in this book the author argues that coal is far from “dead”. Some of my key messages are contrary to popular beliefs: (1) The importance of coal will further increase in absolute and likely even in relative terms for decades to come. (2) Man-made CO2 has no effect on global temperatures and combustion of fossil fuels does not influence the weather. (3) We cannot stop the advance of coal, we can only make this process as environmentally sustainable as humanly possible. Therefore, mankind needs to embrace coal as the “bridge” from the Oil Age to the Solar Age (through the “New Energy Revolution”). (4) Industrialized nations have to invest in coal and in all means to more efficiently burn coal in order to truly help the global environment and reduce global dust, SOX, and NOX emissions.’
Comment (2) is a lie and in fact that person who wrote this book has said so. No – I would not pay $200 for something written by a partisan who contradicts himself massively.
“Just another weak debating trick”
The truth is a weak debating trick? Oh no – the incessant LIES from CoRev is the right way to discuss a serious issue – NOT. CoRev – you have dug your hole so deeply, you might just strike OIL!
CoVid is engaging in standard “fake science” argumentation, in which:
* Any question about data quality disqualifies any data-based research – and there are always questions about data quality.
* Any article, regardless of quality, can amount to a complete refutation of any and all research on the topic in question.
* New research is ignored if older research is more convenient, and old research is ignored if new research is convenient.
* Qualifying statements in the research are sometimes ignored, sometimes the only thing that matters, depending on what’s convenient.
…and so on.
All of which Al Franken warned us of in his Nobel-Prize-winning book, “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”.
I don’t think you can even claim that covid puts up an argument. certainly not a coherent argument. one can only imagine the chaos the reigns in his mind.
the only thing I know for sure about covid is that he is a loud mouthed ignoramus about many things, including energy, climate change, medicine and economics. he is a cliff claven, only much, much less endearing. the only entertaining thing is he actually believes in his “gotcha” arguments, while the rest of us look on and laugh at the obvious stoooopidity of his claims.
Baffled relevance? Don’t just emote proving you have not even read the references.
The emotional liberal mind is an amazement.
This is you got? Emotions? Have your mommy change little CoRev’s diaper. DAMN!
Classic Fox approaches. Begin with the conclusion then work your way back to find any evidence in its favor by ignoring anything that doesn’t support that conclusion and ignoring any and all weaknesses of evidence in support of the preordained conclusion. If all else fails just make up “evidence”. Trying to have a scientific fact-based debate with such individuals is impossible – but it can be entertaining to get them tied up in nuts with their desperate attempts to change reality.
Ivan, an excellent example of this article’s value: “Begin with the conclusion then work your way back to find any evidence in its favor by ignoring anything that doesn’t support that conclusion and ignoring any and all weaknesses of evidence in support of the preordained conclusion.”
But the question, which started this article was centered on the failure of ALL costs being included when evaluating wind mills operations. Compounding the example of the original reference, the 2nd peer reviewed reference particularly called out the flaws of the LCOE cost model.
What did Menzie then do? He wrote an article completely based on the LCOE cost model and claimed wind mill costs were going down. How do we know?
Clearly you have not read the references, and then claim: ” Trying to have a scientific fact-based debate with such individuals is impossible – ” And I full agree with your final thought: “but it can be entertaining to get them tied up in nuts with their desperate attempts to change reality.”
Just as you have done.
The liberal mind is an amazement, as science is always trumped by their religious beliefs.
This is two years old, but may still be of interest.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/84774.pdf
Another look (source behind paywall)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-levelized-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us-by-technology/
A discussion of related costs.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59936-x
Brucie – while you are trying to be helpful, did you not notice your first link is the paper Dr. Chinn linked to?
Seriously folks – improve your reading skills.
Sorry, pgl. I thought they were different. But hey….
Menzie’s link: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf
My link: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/84774.pdf
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/84774.pdf
That was Menzie’s first link. Damn – you had a chance to re-read more carefully and yet still failed? YOU ARE TRULY STUPID.
Tyler Stehly and Patrick Duffy
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
December 2022
Brucie boy thinks this was published two years ago? Now Brucie – it was published less than 6 months ago. OK their data covers 2021 but that is a bit different.
pgl, yeah that was a good gotcha. Happy now?
• data two-years old
• published 6-months ago
Well, I guess that invalidates everything.
BTW, are you offering up anything?
BTW Moron – Menzie had TWO NREL links. Come on Brucie – your reading skills are at the level of a 2 year old. Get back to your preK classes.
Brucie’s last link:
Wind energy facilities uses the variable wind energy resource to generate electricity. Wind energy is presently the most widespread and economic renewable energy. While wind electricity supply is certainly less variable than solar photovoltaics, never available during nighttime and strongly affected by clouds and rain, but it still suffers from significant variations, over short as well as long time scales, because of the fluctuation of the wind energy resource. The further uptake of the wind and solar photovoltaic components in a grid depends on the variability of the two sources, and the way to compensate for this variability, for example, trough energy storage.
Oh my – what ever happened to CoRev putting in all caps INTERMITTENCY?
Oh Brucie – we get that which is why our host noted the cost of storage. DUH!
Gee, pgl, I’m so sorry that the published document offended you.
What are you offering up for discussion?
The discussions covered storage many posts ago. Come on Brucie – do learn to READ before you write yet another stupid comment. GEESH!
CoRev finally comes up with a recent paper:
En: Full Cost of Electricity ‘FCOE’ and Energy Returns ‘eROI’ De: Strom-Vollkosten ‘FCOE’ und Energierenditen ‘eROI’
Journal of Management and Sustainability
Dr. Lars Schernikau, William Smith and Rosemary Prof. Falcon
Energy policy and investors should not favor wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, gas, or coal but should support all energy systems in a manner which avoids energy shortage and energy poverty. All energy always requires taking resources from our planet and processing them, thus negatively impacting the environment. It must be humanity’s goal to minimize these negative impacts in a meaningful way through investments – not divestments – by increasing, not decreasing, energy and material efficiencies.
Of course that is what most states including Texas were doing. Relying on a mix of renewable and fossil fuels. Of course in CoRev’s warped view of things any reliance on renewables is evil socialism that kills people. Never mind those 246 deaths in Texas that CoRev dishonestly blamed on the meager use of wind power came from the fact that it was the failure of fossil fuels to deliver. So yea – CoRev comes out with a recent paper that either he did not read or he choose to misrepresent.
Ole Bark bark again shows his ignorance: “Energy policy and investors should not favor wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, gas, or coal but should support all energy systems in a manner which avoids energy shortage and energy poverty. …by increasing, not decreasing, energy and material efficiencies.”
NO! That is the opposite of what Texas, California and the liberal/progressive polices do. The many targeted renewables subsidies do favor them over thermal electricity sources. The results add intermittency/unreliability to the electricity grids, which is the opposite of adding efficiency.
Worse, adding solutions to solve the intermittency problems of these renewables, just adds more costs, and rises prices to grid customers. Show the examples where prices actually went down and stayed there. At least define the problem(s) your renewables are solving, how much change the renewable proposals provide. I’ll wait.
The ignorant, lying liberal mind is an amazement.
The language used is the language of advocacy, not science – should, must, investment, not divestment.
Those choices aren’t his to make. Those choices are up to the public, not advocates of particular policies.
CoVid has pretended to offer science, while offering something else entirely.
McQuack says: “Those choices aren’t his to make. Those choices are up to the public, not advocates of particular policies.”, and that’s what Texas is doing. I’ve shown their movement away from favoring renewables over other sources, but the critical point is making renewables actually PAY for their added cost on/to the ERCOT grid.
How many ways will the liberal mind ignore reality? It is an amazement.
“I’ve shown their movement away from favoring renewables over other sources”
I have put that graph up TWICE and it shows renewables were a very minor part of ERCOT’s choices dominated by natural gas and coal.
Hey CoRev – you are either blinder than Mr. Magoo or you are lying like a Trump.
Ole Bark, bark is this another of your irrelevant points to my question and the references to which it was drawn?
The irrelevant liberal mind is an amazement.
” is this another of your irrelevant points”
The fact that most of Texas’s electricity comes from fossil fuels is irrelevant. Damn CoRev – one would think no one could be THAT stupid but you are.
I copied one of covids responses into chatgpt yesterday, and asked for an analysis of his comments. it reported exactly what you stated. the comment was filled with opinion, and not supported by facts. probably representative of most of covids comments.
Was that ChatGPT 1.0? I hear ChatGPT is far advanced from whatever BS CoRev is using.
Empirical evidence that CoVid is a troll!
Gracias. Well done.
I see I’m still living in your heads. Why is it so had for you to read the original references to answer the question I posed to Menzie?
The failure of the liberal mind is an amazement.
The use of coal has declined in the U.S. and many North Atlantic economies in large part due to the decline in natural gas prices. Environmental regulation has added to the decline in coal use.
This article notes that the UK and Australia have nevertheless allowed the opening of new coal mines in support of “energy security” and in contradiction of the goal of limiting climate change. More importantly, the article notes that:
“The major exception to a general trend of a decline in new coal mine development is China, which approved the equivalent of two new coal plants a week in 2022.”
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/The-Decline-In-Coal-Appears-To-Have-Been-Exaggerated.html
China is big. The U.S. is big. Whenever the U.S. or China cause problems, it’s very hard for the rest of the world to undo the harm. When either country actively promotes the problems they cause, as China has done by financing and building coal-fired power plants abroad, the harm done is multiplied.
Oh, and since this comment has to do with climate change, let’s see what nonsense CoRev spouts about “the liberal mind”.
The policy/promise reversals due to liberal/progressive War on Fossil Fuel policies is well documented in this article
Your related claim: “Whenever the U.S. or China cause problems, it’s very hard for the rest of the world to undo the harm. “, is not so well supported, especially for the US.
Since this is a policy reversal, it should be simple and easy for you to provide the amount of climate change due to the previous policy. If, of course, you can define climate change well enough to be measured.
Otherwise,what the the liberal mind believes is an amazement.
War on Fossil Fuel?
Is this like the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Did some greenie decide to sexually assault little CoRev? Poor baby.
War on Fossil Fuel.
interesting. the great fossil fuel state of texas, controlled by republicans for decades, is a renewable workhorse. the energy companies of texas have embraced renewables. republicans have instituted market dictated energy policies, which have resulted in large investment in renewable energy sources. texas republicans have built out high voltage transmission lines for the expansion of renewables in texas. texas republicans have whole-heartedly embraced Elon musk in texas, who has stated one of his goals is to eradicate the fossil fuel industry. none of this is the result of some deep liberal conspiracy theory, as covid often references. it is the result of conservative republican policy. so if you want to call it a war on fossil fuel, so be it. but you better accept that this war is being waged by conservative republicans on the fossil fuel industry in texas as we speak.
CoRev wants us to believe ERCOT was appointed by the Governor of California. Yea – he is THAT STUPID.
I ring the bell, CoVid salivates. Good troll boy!
“The approval of the mine came as a surprise to many, as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese won the 2022 election with his Labour government on his campaign for greater climate action. The government has announced the ambitious target of a 43% reduction in emissions by 2030, as well as introducing a carbon cap. However, Albanese is continuing to back new coal and gas projects, with the announcement of the approval of a $1.5 billion investment in Darwin harbor’s Middle Arm precinct, which could include two natural gas fields and petrochemical production, this month.”
Australia has an enormous amount of natural gas – much of which it exports to China. Why they would need more coal is a mystery.
Lars Schernikau is an energy economist, entrepreneur, commodity trader, and book author. He currently lives in Europe and Asia. Previously, Lars worked at the Boston Consulting Group in the US and Germany. He is co-founder, shareholder, and former supervisory board member of two Germany listed commodity companies (www.hms-ag.com) and founded, worked for, and advised number of other companies in the commodity & energy sector worldwide.
Gee – the bio for the key author of CoRev’s latest “contribution” sort of admits this fellow is not exactly unbiased.
Thanks for this excellent information on how the world is still relying on coal. I want to return to my first link on ERCOT and that Feb. 2021 Texas disaster. An excellent graph that shows Texas relied more on coal than renewable sources in total. And notice how much it relied on natural gas:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05022022/texas-storms-extreme-weather-renewable-energy/#:~:text=About%204.5%20million%20Texans%20lost%20power%2C%20many%20of,to%20the%20Texas%20Department%20of%20State%20Health%20Services
CoRev would have us believe 246 people died because ERCOT got rid of fossil fuels entirely. Which of course is the dumbest lie we have ever seen here.
Reading all the excuses from CoRev for the failures of the Texas government during Feb. 2021, one thing is clear.
CoRev is only concerned with getting the lowest private cost of electricity. That 246 Texans died in Feb. 2021 is of zero concern to CoRev. The damage from climate change – CoRev says bring it out.
I guess wearing a MAGA hat all day every day for 7 years has done that to CoRev’s otherwise worthless little brain.
Some people say that the MAGA hats have these secret mind control electrodes in them that turn folks into minions
Ole Bark, bark claims: ” The damage from climate change…” an externality of ALL electricity generation, should be able to be measured. Can you define Climate
Change and the cost from climate change for us, please?
Failure to do so will just show how the liberal mind is an amazement.
Poor little CoRev cannot find his dictionary. Define Climate Change? I get you are trolling as usual. Sorry dude but no one is taking your bait.
one point about the nrel paper.
the assumed the opex, I presume the recurring cost to keep the turbines delivering system spec kws is ~32%.
since ww ii dod tracked annual costs to keep a system performing at spec to be 66% or 2:1 of investment costs to deliver spec performance over time.
dod uses 20 year life, so 40 year old f16 is not doing that,
nrel does not use logistician, any better than pentagon managers
Heat pumps are taking over in Europe because of the high cost of natural gas.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65321487
I doubt Putin will ever be able to sell much natural gas to EU again.
Ivan, in some countries heat pumps and smart thermostats are mandated. How would their use not be growing?
The ignorance of the liberal mind is an amazement.
In some countries? So not in others. Your pretending to have shown that heat pump use is driven by regulation, but you have done no such thing. This is weak, but that’s no surprise coming from you. The tactic you’re usin is pqrt of the “fake science” tool kit- simply keep casting doubt, hoever little justification for doubt there may be. You can fool some of the people all of the time, after all.
The level of contradiction, the constant thrashing, the evident desparation of you arguments – sad little man.
In most states – education is mandated. I guess CoRev grew up in a state where education was banned.
You are not on Fox so for that comment to be taken serious you need to specify which countries and also compare the use of heat pumps in “mandate” countries vs. non-mandate countries. A links to the mandate postulate would also help since you are not known for being a fountain of unmanipulated information and truths. Also cut out the “smart thermostats” or argue why they are relevant to the heat pump questions. Logic would suggest that lower use of energy (smart thermostats) would actually make heat pump switches less advantageous.
Ivan, the EU not just countries are mandating heat pumps: “The European Commission’s REPowerEU plan, published on 18 May, builds on the ambitious heat pump targets it set out in March. Those targets require around 20 million heat pumps to be installed in the EU by 2026 and nearly 60 million by 2030*.” https://www.ehpa.org/2022/06/12/ehpa_news/repowereu-heat-pump-strategy-required-to-help-sector-deliver/
As for smart thermostats, they are used by the power company to over ride the manual setting and/or the signal to the AC/HP.
The were good questions if asked in good faith.
There are no mandates, those are “targets” – which means that everybody agree to try to get to a certain level of heat pump use, but nobody will be punished for not getting there. Sure the targets are “mandated”, but that still makes them just targets – and the only loss for countries not getting there, is a loss of goodwill.
I wish I could think your mistakes and misrepresentations were honest and made in good faith. Unfortunately they always seem to be done in support of very specific narratives, that otherwise have little or no support from reality.
Ivan, I guess the questions were not in good faith. Just another attempt to hide what is actually happening in Europe with its heavy handed government ?targets?. ?Targets? which are 1st jawboned by government just before codifying and making them mandatory. In what world do you live?
The desperate liberal mind is an amazement.
it does not matter whether they are mandated or not. heat pumps are more efficient than gas furnaces and air conditioners. there is no obvious reason why we should not be shifting over to heat pumps during and installation/replacement cycle. increasing the number of heat pumps is a net positive. what is the complaint here?
Baffled, please, please stop showing your ignorance. A heat pump is an Air Conditioning unit with a reversible flow valve. https://media.hswstatic.com/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJjb250ZW50Lmhzd3N0YXRpYy5jb20iLCJrZXkiOiJnaWZcL2hlYXQtcHVtcC11cGRhdGUxLmpwZyIsImVkaXRzIjp7InJlc2l6ZSI6eyJ3aWR0aCI6ODI4fSwidG9Gb3JtYXQiOiJhdmlmIn19
The article is here: https://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/heating-and-cooling/heat-pump.htm and the BUT is:
” They work best in moderate climates, so if you don’t experience extreme heat and cold in your neck of the woods, then using a heat pump could help you save a little money each month.” Accordingly, Texas heat pumps during Winter Storm Uri were ALMOST useless for heating the house. Unless the house had a backup heat source. Mine does. Does yours or many Texas heat pump users?
The ignorance of the liberal mind is an amazement.
I had a heat pump when i lived up north. It had a backup heater. That was used rarely. The heat pump was cheaper to operate. Heat pumps are fine for much of Europe. Again, what is your complaint? We should not use more efficient hvac equipment? Silly.
Baffled now claims: “I had a heat pump when i lived up north. It had a backup heater. ” Houses have backup heating not heat pumps. Heating efficiency for the residence depends on how close to the poles the house is located and what form of backup heat is installed in the HOUSE.
Please, please stop showing how ignorant you actually are. Heating a house with electricity, as a heat pump does, is very inefficient. Silly.
Thew ignorant cultist liberal mind is an amazement.
covid, not sure what your complaint is. once again. I had a heat pump when I lived up north. nothing controversial about that statement. also had a place with a natural gas steam boiler. the heat pump was better, because it also had air conditioning capability. the boiler did not, so I needed a separate set of window units. ever try to cool a house with window units? the boiler was inefficient distributing heat as well. hard to evenly distribute steam. but it was a 100 year old house. lovely quirks. and built to last.
Baffled learn to write: “I had a heat pump when i lived up north. It had a backup heater. ” It in this context means the heat pump.
When you really meant It was supposed to be the house. Which I clearly explained in my comment.
Baffled, not sure what your complaint is.
Just another example of the ignorance, writing capability, and laziness of the cultist liberal mind.
first, your complaint is completely irrelevant. you are simply complaining to complain. it has absolutely no purpose whatsoever, other than to expose you as a cranky old man, covid. and second, the backup heater was all part of the same system. so you can play semantics all you want, but the backup heating system was integrated into the heat pump system. you can take your complaint to the manufacture if you would like. covid, the sky is blue and the grass is green. go complain some more. idiot.
Baffled, why is it so necessary to show your ignorance. There are names for a house’s component systems. Heat pump is a specific name for a heating system. As indicated by its name.
You then go on to further ill explain that: “backup heating system was integrated into the heat pump system. “, when you earlier said: ” also had a place with a natural gas steam boiler.”
Both those components are part of the heating system. You also said: “so I needed a separate set of window units.” These are part of the Air Conditioning systems. I know what you are trying to say. You replaced the window units with a heat pump/HVAC system, and probably kept the efficient boiler heating system.
The ignorance and desperation to make some obtuse point of the liberal mind is an amazement.
corev, learn to read. the heat pump system was not at the same residence as the boiler and window units. “also had a place” indicates I am talking about a separate residence. not only are you technically incompetent, you are illiterate as well.
Looks like House GOP crazies are waffling on removing McCarthy from the speakership. At a Freedom (sic) Caucus event, only one Caucus member spoke in favor of removing McCarthy, and he declined to say that he would file a motion to do so:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4026377-first-republican-publicly-supports-ousting-mccarthy-as-speaker/
“But Bishop did not commit to filing a motion to vacate the chair, which would trigger a vote on removing McCarthy as Speaker. “I’ll decide that in conjunction with others,” Bishop said.Hard-line conservative Republicans had for months brushed off questions about whether they would seek to replace McCarthy as Speaker if he struck a debt limit deal that did not meet their standards.”
The vote for the new Speaker would include all members of the House and if a few centrist Republicans had the guts to do so – they would make Jeffries become Speaker. House Democrats are united and are laughing at the disarray of the Republicans.
JPM’s Private Bank piece on the subject is worth a read. Particularly the problems with LCOE as a metric, which only grows as more capacity is added. It was published in March 2023.
https://assets.jpmprivatebank.com/content/dam/jpm-wm-aem/campaign/energy-paper-13/growing-pains-renewable-transition-in-adolescence.pdf
Growing Pains: The Renewable Transition in Adolescence
Interesting title. I guess renewables are about 12 years older than little CoRev!
Ole Bark, bark again adding nothing to the discussion; should have at least skimmed the article. In it we find:
[1] Numbers in, Garbage out: the practical irrelevance of “levelized cost of energy” for wind and solar power
“Levelized cost of energy” is a distraction if you’re trying to understand total system costs of electricity. Why?
When computed for individual generation or storage technologies, LCOE does not properly take account of:
(a) the need for backup power, storage and reserve margins to maintain system reliability
(b) the value of electricity supplied at different times of the day or year
(c) the need to overbuild wind and solar capacity to meet demand in deeply decarbonized systems
In other words, LCOE only measures the cost of a marginal MWh of wind or solar power and typically does not
include any of these other capital or operating costs. That’s why I generally ignore it, and I’m amazed at how
many people still don’t realize that LCOE is a misleading basis for estimating total system costs to governments,
electricity consumers and taxpayers.”
And yet Menzie did a whole article on Wind Mill costs based upon using LCOE. You just can not make this shist up. 😉
The immature adolescent liberal mind is an amazement.
Speaking of ignoring costs – your dude did not consider the negative externalities of using carbon based energy. Yea the elephant in the room but poor little CoRev still has not seen.
Ivan, an excellent example of this article’s value: “Begin with the conclusion then work your way back to find any evidence in its favor by ignoring anything that doesn’t support that conclusion and ignoring any and all weaknesses of evidence in support of the preordained conclusion.”
But the question, which started this article was centered on the failure of ALL costs being included when evaluating wind mills operations. Compounding the example of the original reference, the 2nd peer reviewed reference particularly called out the flaws of the LCOE cost model.
What did Menzie then do? He wrote an article completely based on the LCOE cost model and claimed wind mill costs were going down. How do we know?
Clearly you have not read the references, and then claim: ” Trying to have a scientific fact-based debate with such individuals is impossible – ” And I full agree with your final thought: “but it can be entertaining to get them tied up in nuts with their desperate attempts to change reality.”
Just as you have done.
The liberal mind is an amazement, as science is always trumped by their religious beliefs.
Ole Bark, bark, we’ve already had that discussion on externalities. I would be happy to continue that discussion if you could define Climate Change so that we could identify the associated externalities. Did you forget the subject of the article is wind mills and their costs estimates? Yes, there are negative externalities to wind mills.
The forgetful, ignorant and insecure liberal mind is an amazement.
“does not include any of these other capital or operating costs”
Something tells me little CoRev has no effing clue what operating costs even means. And when real itnerest rates are negative – what are the implications for capital costs. Little CoRev has no clue.
Come on CoRev – this is about economics. Something you flunked.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ted-cruz-called-uganda-s-anti-gay-law-horrific-last-year-he-voted-against-protecting-same-sex-marriages/ar-AA1bRPRG?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=1990eeb6d8e044b6a42679db8ab0f232&ei=12
I guess Ted Cruz is all for gay people having the right to life but not to marry.
Just about everyone who reads Econbrowser understands this, but it’s probably still worth mentioning – each time the Federal government borrows from various funds and accounts and runs down cash reserves in an effort to operate after the debt ceiling has been reached, raising the debt ceiling results in the massive issuance of new debt. That new debt is mostly the same debt that would have been issued if there were no such thing as a debt ceiling.
Thing is, the Treasury market and financial markets in general are scaled to absorb the normal flow of new Treaury debt into the market. That scale allows for debt issuance to work reasonably smoothly, though there are still lots of little arbitrage trades around every debt auction, taking advantage of the ebb and flow of cash and debt and futures and options.
Lifting the debt ceiling means running more debt into the system than it is scaled for. Treasury intends to increase its cash holdings by between a $550 billion billion and $600 billion in coming months, with market estimates of bill issuance in H2 running above $1 trillion. That’s a lot.
“Ah,” you say, “but that’s just debt that wasn’t issued earlier, so the same money that would have been spent before can be spent now.”
To which I answer “Kinda maybe.” Some of that cash is held in bank accounts, which will be drawn down to buy bills. That means bank reserves are due to shrink. We have recently been reminded that fluctuations in bank balances can cause hiccups. Some of the cash that would have gone into bills has been invested in other securities and will have to be divested. Liquidating assets means downward pressure on prices.
Sloshing more money through the system than it’s scaled to hndle is one meaning of “liquidity problem”. A couple of days ago, I noted this article:
https://m.economictimes.com/markets/stocks/news/hedge-fund-trade-with-a-history-of-blowups-is-back-again/articleshow/100236488.cms
A long Treasury/short future trade waiting to unwind presents another possible liquidity hiccup. Those long Treasury positions are the very sort of thing that may be liquidated to pay for bill purchases. So we may have two overlapping liquidity hiccups ahead.
All of which is to say, financial markets could be in for a rocky period.
Saudis are angry at Russia over oil prices:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/russia-and-saudi-arabia-are-at-odds-after-a-flood-of-russian-oil-supply-pushed-the-commodity-s-price-below-a-key-break-even-level-needed-to-fund-saudi-projects/ar-AA1bSRLZ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=76c385a263524e2093f43e496e4ecc6b&ei=11
Russia’s pumping of cheap oil into the market is helping put downward pressure on prices for the commodity, and Saudi Arabia isn’t happy as oil prices stay below a key break-even level, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal.
The report found that Saudi Arabia’s efforts to curtail production and push oil prices higher earlier this year have been undermined by Moscow’s flood of cheap oil supply, and that the oil-rich nation has expressed its anger at Russia for not following through on its pledge to throttle production, the report said, citing people familiar with the matter.
I’m drinking “hair of the dog” beer here in the late 5 o’clock early morning. I have one LAST can of “Hard tea” waiting in the ‘fridge, watching Letterman repeats, WILLIE Nelson early ’80s. I wanna say something I would never say when sober (this is the beauty of adult drink) I love this blog. And I love every commenter and reader of this blog. Wanna know why I love all of you?? YOU, yes YOU reading this…… “even” CoRev, “even” ltr (who I have reason to hate, by association,) Because. there’s comfort in consistency, and a place a person can go, and see everyone is roughly sitting in the same places they were yesterday. It’s a nice feeling. PLUS, people should just sometimes tell you they love you. So I said it. And I love you crazy guys and ladies (I know those quiet girls out there are reading (you’re gonna comment some day, I know it)
In the past I have praised Kevin Drum as well as generally smart readers. Alas Kevin just went off on PepsiCo’s operating margin has taken off – which reminds me too much of the rants from JohnH. Now Kevin did not take the time to review the 10 Q filings to calculate operating margins by quarter but this source did:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/pep/pepsico/operating-margin
It seems the profit margin for the maker of the concentrate has been fallen but of course 80% of the value-added for a soda comes from the bottling not PepsiCo.
But never mind this little fact that JohnH never grasped, one reader is blaming the profit margin for Kroger for the high price of a Pepsi. Someone else fired back that this profit margin is generally less than 2%. Not sure how he got this low figure but the operating margin for Kroger is a wee bit higher.
Look – we have had enough stupid rants from JohnH who also never learned to read financial filings. I would have hoped Kevin Drum and his gang could do better. But it seems they can’t either.
Bloomberg’s interview with PepsiCo Chief Financial Officer Hugh Johnston got a lot of attention with the Greedinflation crowd so here it is:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2023-04-25/people-are-willing-to-pay-more-for-pepsi-cfo-says-video
JohnH made the false claim that Pepsi’s 2022 profit margin (13.3%) was higher than its 2021 margin (14%) or its 2022 margin (14.3). Of course the moron who wrote that NYTimes article claimed this CFO said its 2022 profit margin. But listen to the interview. He NEVER said that.
What the CFO said was he was hoping that 2023 margin might actually increase. It might. It might. We have only seen Q1 so far. But anyone who actually listened to this interview could not honestly claimed that the CFO said the 2022 margin was higher than what it was in 2020. After all CFO do not usually contradict their reported financials on Bloomberg.
It seems McCarthy’s insistence on work requirements INCREASED Federal spending:
https://worldnewsera.com/news/finance/personal-finance/cbo-releases-estimates-on-the-impact-of-the-debt-ceiling-agreement/
Work Requirements
The bill would modify work requirements for SNAP and TANF. The CBO estimates that those provisions would increase federal spending by about $2.1 billion over the 2023–2033 period. When it comes to SNAP, in particular, expanding the work requirement period would reduce spending by $6.5 billion over the next decade. But, excluding several groups (like veterans) from those work requirements would lead to a spending increase of $6.8 billion over the same period, largely offsetting the savings.
This reminds me of the chaos from the 2017 tax cuts for rich people. Republicans have no effing clue what they are doing about anything.
Largely? Who writes this stuff. Entirely. More than entirely. Weasel words become such a habit for some writers that they prevent simple statement of fact.
Not only will the expansion of SNAP and TANF wipe out savings from work requirements (hurray), but the cut to IRS funding will end up costing more than it saves. The expansion of benefits programs is one of the few (only?) good outcomes of the debt ceiling deal. The cut to IRS funding is pure special-interest pandering to rich tax evaders.
The contribution of wage growth to inflation is a matter of debate, but the debate looks like it’s being settled in the direction of “not much”. A paper released yesterday by he San Francisco Fed finds:
“The impact of the ECI (employment cost index) on NHS (non-housing services) inflation is statistically significant, but the magnitude is quite small. A 1pp increase in the ECI increases the contribution of NHS inflation to core PCE inflation by 0.15pp over four years—an effect of 0.04pp per year. As ECI growth has increased by about 3pp from its pre-pandemic level, this means that labor costs have added approximately 0.1pp to current core PCE inflation.”
https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2023/may/how-much-do-labor-costs-drive-inflation/
Note the focus on non-housing services. Here’s Jay Powell on non-housing services:
“Finally, we come to core services other than housing. This spending category covers a wide range of services from health care and education to haircuts and hospitality. This is the largest of our three categories, constituting more than half of the core PCE index. Thus, this may be the most important category for understanding the future evolution of core inflation. Because wages make up the largest cost in delivering these services, the labor market holds the key to understanding inflation in this category.”
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20221130a.htm
See the problem? Powell says wages are the key to understanding NHS inflation, but research by the SF Fed says he’s wrong. Powell’s comment is from last November. Maybe the debate over wages and inflation has changed his mind.
In January, Lael Brainard had a rather different view:
“Despite constrained supply, wages do not appear to be driving inflation in a 1970s-style wage–price spiral… Overall, the labor share of income has declined over the past two years and appears to be at or below pre-pandemic levels, while corporate profits as a share of GDP remain near postwar highs.”
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20230119a.htm
Brainard’s view is consistent with the research, while Powell’s is not. Brainard has left the Fed. Powell is still Chair.
Wages as a supply-side factor are a small contributor to inflation. Wages as a demand-side factor could be more important. Here’s a look at real personal income and real personal consumption:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=15GXO
If income was the problem, that problem is being resolved. Wages are now lagging inflation and, big surprise, income growth is now lagging spending growth.
Profits and personal income are both cyclical, so that if the Fed induces a recession, or simply slows growth, either of the two will induce less demand-drivn inflation:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=15GYV
The problem is that Powell, who presumably speaks for the majority on the FOMC, misunderstands the causes of inflation. He is, they are, watching the wrong data in assessing the outtlook for inflation. That increases the risk of policy error, and the risk of throwing people out of work, driving down income when income growth is already slowing, drivig down wages when wages aren’t the problem.
Whenever little CoRev gets buries in his own stupidity he reverts to the same trolling taunt:
‘Define Climate Change’
Poor little CoRev – no one ever taught the little boy to use a dictionary. Let’s chip and buy baby CoRev a dictionary and teach the little moron how to use it.
So define it for us. If you can? If you can not then you can not estimate the impact of your? climate? policy proposals. Why are you all so afraid to discuss substance?
Ignorance in the liberal mind is an amazement.
Let me repeat – NO ONE is taking your STINKING bait.
You are nothing more than a lying worthless troll who has never been interested in a real discussion. Find something better to do than polluting this blog. Like arguing with a dead tree. Careful though – the tree is 10 times more intelligent than little CoRev.
Ole Bark, bark, so you CAN NOT define it? But you still believe that spending trillions of dollars will change climate?
Why are you so insecure in your belief to call defining the problem (?Climate Change?) you wish to solve? What part of the definition is STINKING bait?
The insecure, immature, and lying liberal mind is an amazement.
Here’s Claudia Sahm on the Bernanke and Blanchard paper:
https://stayathomemacro.substack.com/p/inflation-its-complicated
Old guys aren’t supposed to make novel contributions to know, but Sahm says these guys have, and usefully so:
‘”Catch up” or “Aspirational real wage” is not standard in macro models. But it is a useful addition here, given the concerns about worker bargaining power, creating a wage-price spiral. But when they estimate the model, catch-up does not affect wages.’
Sahm goes on to mention market power as a potential explanation for the lack of “catch-up” and note that B&B left market power out of their analysis.
Here’s the overall breakdown of contributions to inflation from B&B:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F170d261c-3388-4a3b-969a-ddaa89bc970d_1239x619.png
Note the large swing due to energy. If a “war on oil (energy, whatever)” were the cause, the effect would reasonably be persistent. Instead, energy’s contribution is highly variable, most strongly positive in the two quarters following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
In wrapping up B&B have this to say:
“The collision of high demand and limited supply in some sectors can account for at least some of the increase in markups observed during the pandemic period. While other factors no doubt influenced markups, including for example the fiscal transfers that directly affected demand in product markets, at least in this simple specification we do not find that including these factors is needed to explain the behavior of pandemic-era inflation”
No evidence “in this simple specification” that government transfers mattered much to inflation. CoRev will no doubt attribute this to the qualities of “the liberal mind”. Who you gonna believe –
1) A Nobel Prize winner plus the former chief economist for the IMF and among the most widely cited economists living plus the glorious Claudia
2) A right-wing lackey