Why not go for a full tax on carbon emissions, implemented in the same manner? It would impact coal and wood burning much more than LNG, addressing the root cause.
I also wonder if the grand bargain idea might increase geopolitical tensions vis a vid China in particular? Seeing as they would probably reject such a deal if it comes from the US, and with their economic and demographic problems, they might accelerate the plan to retake Taiwan, for example.
I am going to be publishing an article on a carbon tax, likely next week, so I will defer in answering your question.
Yes, China would HATE a coal tax. It would absolutely increase tensions, but so would every other move that US makes to counter the rise of Chinese military and economic power.
As with all strategic rivalries, you can go too far in trying to be cooperative or being too confrontational and it leads to war. Trying to guess how China will react is very difficult, but invasion of Taiwan is clearly an objective regardless.
I personally think that the US has been trying to avoid increasing tensions with China for the last 30 years, and this has helped to create the problem that we are in now.
I also wonder if, with the US and EUs inability to build more nuclear and given that China is building Nuclear and Solar (on coal plants) at a much faster rate, a grand bargain that they don't accept could undermine our security rather than strengthen it unless we (US&EU) seriously increase our industrial capacity.
Europe has been systematically undermining its own security for at least the last 20 years. Unfortunately, that indirectly affects US as we have NATO obligations.
Getting rid of Green energy policies will enhance security. American LNG is the fastest means to keep European industrial capacity going, but we need a long-term solution.
Europe seems to be changing its mind regarding nuclear power, so I am hopeful they will increase production. I am also very much in favor of deregulating the least cost-effective nuclear regulations. Maybe just buying from South Korea is the best option.
But also remember that natural gas is about a lot more than just electricity. Unlike nuclear, it can be applied to virtually any energy use, including industrial.
As for China, I do not see China's increased nuclear and solar power as directly enhancing Chinese military power. Nor does Chinese military power threaten Europe. A coal tax threatens their economic model and military power far more than anything else.
Also remember that coal is not widely used in Europe anymore. It is mainly in Germany Czech Republic and Poland. The other European nations will be relatively unaffected by coal tax. And they would all benefit from ending Green energy policies.
If there's anywhere in the world where a carbon or coal tax could be implemented it would be in the EU given how much public support there is for "green" policies (unfortunately many policies have been less than optimal if not stupid so far). I'm glad that here in Sweden there's now finally some serous planning going into building new nuclear reactors - but that will take at least 10 years. Sweden is mostly powered by nuclear and hydro afaik with an increasing but small amount of wind. I don't believe there's a single coal plant here. (To your point)
I agree with the thrust to export both LNG and the technology to produce it as far and wide as possible. I agree with the logic for and the benefits of implementing a coal tax - you’ve begun to persuade me that at this moment in history, it makes more sense than a general carbon tax.
The only thing I have left to be persuaded on is that solar will not meaningfully displace energy sources like nuclear, especially within nations like the US where we cannot successfully complete a buildout, given the tremendous learning rate for solar + battery technology. Known improvements put very cheap solar within reach, and just getting any storage tech right enables a winning local electricity source. This is from Ramez Naam, Austin Vernon, and Casey Handmer (his personal profit incentive via Terraform noted).
And to be clear, I am not opposed to solar, wind, or batteries.
The goal should be abundant, affordable, and secure energy. In some geographies, they can play a role. But we should not be forcing their use where they are not economically viable with government-imposed mandates and subsidies. They guarantee over-production relative to demand.
Thanks for your thorough reply! I think I’m aware of the deception caused by LCOE, and the real costs of decreasing the profitability of other energy sources during peak solar hours, combined with their inability to provide during the evening and night, as well as their guaranteed overproduction during producing hours. I know predictions fail, but projections from the above energy writers claim falling overall costs of energy even when including all of these downsides. They bake in some as to yet happen innovation in batteries based on learning rates, which I can see being a sticking point.
I think a conversation between yourself and another progress-focused writer that covers energy like Austin Vernon would be fascinating. You seem to see eye to eye on basic principles like markets, so areas of disagreement may be productive. I’d definitely read/listen and engage.
In general, the evidence is that solar and wind generate electricity in addition to fossil fuels and nuclear, not instead of. Given the enormous cost of deploying utility-scale batteries, I do not see that changing in the near future. This cost completely nullifies any supposed cost advantages of solar.
I am not familiar with all the writers you mention, but I am aware of the argument. The typical argument is that due to the decreasing cost of solar and batteries, we will eventually be able to have an electrical grid based on those two technologies. They ignore the long time delays of:
1) Waiting for costs to drop even more (this is likely decades)
2) The time it takes after that to fully build up a new electrical grid (more decades)
So maybe by 2050, we can start. All money spent until then is a waste, as by their own arguments, today's technology will soon be obsolete.
Meanwhile, natural gas can phase out coal in USA within five years. Once that happens, what is the point in building solar + batteries?
The biggest barrier is not cost. It is geography. Very few regions have viable wind or solar resources. And most of them are far from population centers. USA and Atlantic coast Europe are very unusual, so they are building up false expectations for how much solar and wind can do in the rest of the world.
It is even worse in Asia with half the world's population, which I will publish an article about later this week.
As for nuclear, I do not see the logic in trying to phase out nuclear. It makes no sense from either an economic or environmental perspective. The same goes for natural gas and hydro.
In addition, I am going to be writing future articles on why solar power is nowhere near as cheap as its supporters claim. LCOE is not a very good method for comparing costs between intermittent sources and others, because they ignore very sizable system costs that are invisible to LCOE. The system costs (i.e. costs imposed on the rest of the electrical grid) are far greater than the production costs.
Why not go for a full tax on carbon emissions, implemented in the same manner? It would impact coal and wood burning much more than LNG, addressing the root cause.
I also wonder if the grand bargain idea might increase geopolitical tensions vis a vid China in particular? Seeing as they would probably reject such a deal if it comes from the US, and with their economic and demographic problems, they might accelerate the plan to retake Taiwan, for example.
Thanks for the comment.
I am going to be publishing an article on a carbon tax, likely next week, so I will defer in answering your question.
Yes, China would HATE a coal tax. It would absolutely increase tensions, but so would every other move that US makes to counter the rise of Chinese military and economic power.
As with all strategic rivalries, you can go too far in trying to be cooperative or being too confrontational and it leads to war. Trying to guess how China will react is very difficult, but invasion of Taiwan is clearly an objective regardless.
I personally think that the US has been trying to avoid increasing tensions with China for the last 30 years, and this has helped to create the problem that we are in now.
I also wonder if, with the US and EUs inability to build more nuclear and given that China is building Nuclear and Solar (on coal plants) at a much faster rate, a grand bargain that they don't accept could undermine our security rather than strengthen it unless we (US&EU) seriously increase our industrial capacity.
Europe has been systematically undermining its own security for at least the last 20 years. Unfortunately, that indirectly affects US as we have NATO obligations.
Getting rid of Green energy policies will enhance security. American LNG is the fastest means to keep European industrial capacity going, but we need a long-term solution.
Europe seems to be changing its mind regarding nuclear power, so I am hopeful they will increase production. I am also very much in favor of deregulating the least cost-effective nuclear regulations. Maybe just buying from South Korea is the best option.
But also remember that natural gas is about a lot more than just electricity. Unlike nuclear, it can be applied to virtually any energy use, including industrial.
As for China, I do not see China's increased nuclear and solar power as directly enhancing Chinese military power. Nor does Chinese military power threaten Europe. A coal tax threatens their economic model and military power far more than anything else.
Also remember that coal is not widely used in Europe anymore. It is mainly in Germany Czech Republic and Poland. The other European nations will be relatively unaffected by coal tax. And they would all benefit from ending Green energy policies.
Thanks for the answer!
If there's anywhere in the world where a carbon or coal tax could be implemented it would be in the EU given how much public support there is for "green" policies (unfortunately many policies have been less than optimal if not stupid so far). I'm glad that here in Sweden there's now finally some serous planning going into building new nuclear reactors - but that will take at least 10 years. Sweden is mostly powered by nuclear and hydro afaik with an increasing but small amount of wind. I don't believe there's a single coal plant here. (To your point)
I agree with the thrust to export both LNG and the technology to produce it as far and wide as possible. I agree with the logic for and the benefits of implementing a coal tax - you’ve begun to persuade me that at this moment in history, it makes more sense than a general carbon tax.
The only thing I have left to be persuaded on is that solar will not meaningfully displace energy sources like nuclear, especially within nations like the US where we cannot successfully complete a buildout, given the tremendous learning rate for solar + battery technology. Known improvements put very cheap solar within reach, and just getting any storage tech right enables a winning local electricity source. This is from Ramez Naam, Austin Vernon, and Casey Handmer (his personal profit incentive via Terraform noted).
And to be clear, I am not opposed to solar, wind, or batteries.
The goal should be abundant, affordable, and secure energy. In some geographies, they can play a role. But we should not be forcing their use where they are not economically viable with government-imposed mandates and subsidies. They guarantee over-production relative to demand.
Thanks for your thorough reply! I think I’m aware of the deception caused by LCOE, and the real costs of decreasing the profitability of other energy sources during peak solar hours, combined with their inability to provide during the evening and night, as well as their guaranteed overproduction during producing hours. I know predictions fail, but projections from the above energy writers claim falling overall costs of energy even when including all of these downsides. They bake in some as to yet happen innovation in batteries based on learning rates, which I can see being a sticking point.
I think a conversation between yourself and another progress-focused writer that covers energy like Austin Vernon would be fascinating. You seem to see eye to eye on basic principles like markets, so areas of disagreement may be productive. I’d definitely read/listen and engage.
Thanks. I am happy to engage anyone on energy issues, including Austin Vernon.
Thanks for the comment.
In general, the evidence is that solar and wind generate electricity in addition to fossil fuels and nuclear, not instead of. Given the enormous cost of deploying utility-scale batteries, I do not see that changing in the near future. This cost completely nullifies any supposed cost advantages of solar.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/prove-that-solarwind-replaces-fossil
I am not familiar with all the writers you mention, but I am aware of the argument. The typical argument is that due to the decreasing cost of solar and batteries, we will eventually be able to have an electrical grid based on those two technologies. They ignore the long time delays of:
1) Waiting for costs to drop even more (this is likely decades)
2) The time it takes after that to fully build up a new electrical grid (more decades)
So maybe by 2050, we can start. All money spent until then is a waste, as by their own arguments, today's technology will soon be obsolete.
Meanwhile, natural gas can phase out coal in USA within five years. Once that happens, what is the point in building solar + batteries?
The biggest barrier is not cost. It is geography. Very few regions have viable wind or solar resources. And most of them are far from population centers. USA and Atlantic coast Europe are very unusual, so they are building up false expectations for how much solar and wind can do in the rest of the world.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/can-increased-windsolar-retire-us
It is even worse in Asia with half the world's population, which I will publish an article about later this week.
As for nuclear, I do not see the logic in trying to phase out nuclear. It makes no sense from either an economic or environmental perspective. The same goes for natural gas and hydro.
In addition, I am going to be writing future articles on why solar power is nowhere near as cheap as its supporters claim. LCOE is not a very good method for comparing costs between intermittent sources and others, because they ignore very sizable system costs that are invisible to LCOE. The system costs (i.e. costs imposed on the rest of the electrical grid) are far greater than the production costs.