Thanks for this article, Michael. I've saved it in my folder on climate change research. when I get two writing my climate change multi-path adventure novel, I will reference this heavily.
💯 % agree with the main philosophy of encouraging human prosperity with abundant, affordable energy. Yes, humans will want a cleaner world, but it’s Maslows hierarchy of needs: if you’re cooking over animal dung barely able to feed your family ( like so many in the world today), you just want more, abundant, and cheaper energy. Those other environmental ‘niceties’ come later and only stay if people have access to food, water, and fuel.
There is a lot of like on this “moderate” take on energy. I knew a guy who opposed fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydroelectric for various environmental reasons. Later on, he began to oppose wind as well. At some point, we have to ask ourselves, what is the goal? Is it to end civilization or to be a good steward of life?
You make a strong case that yes, solar, wind and renewable sources are great…but not quite up to the task…at least not yet. Instead, hydroelectric, nuclear, and natural gas can bridge the gap by providing a source of stable and abundant energy with a greatly reduced impact on the environment.
Instead of stopping progress, we need to allow it to run its course. As I discussed here, progress has reduced the carbon and pollution intensity of energy on its own for 500 years. https://www.lianeon.org/p/decarbonizing-progress
"According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the various types of coal emit around 100 kilograms of CO2 Per Million Btu, while petroleum products emit around 70kg, and natural gas, just 50kg. In other words, with each step up the energy “ladder,” carbon emissions dropped about 30 percent for the same amount of energy generated."
"...strong case that yes, solar, wind and renewable sources are great…but not quite up to the task…at least not yet..."
Really? How's that? The only case he is making is that path only succeeds by causing DeGrowth, De-industrialization. With the exception of conventional hydro of course, which he admits that like geothermal is severely constrained by Geography, and will always be a bit player on the global stage.
Energy substitution of renewables = wind/solar largely, won't occur because they are seasonal, non-dispatchable, have an abysmal EROI, intrinsically terrible energy density, geographically limited, unreliable and intermittent, as well as requiring vast material inputs, typically 20X other energy sources, not counting storage & long distance transmission.
And in terms of Energy Efficiency, wind/solar are the defining examples of Energy Inefficiency. For all the reasons I mentioned in the proceeding paragraph. So bad, that they are physically incapable of replacing fossil.
So there is no "bridging the gap" with renewables, impossible. There is only either transitioning to a largely nuclear energy supply by end of this century or face total industrial collapse, population collapse and a dystopian future (called DeGrowth euphemistically).
I largely agree with you, but solar and wind can be good supplemental means to produce electricity in specific geographical environments where there is extra demand for electricity at the correct time of day. And a drastic drop in the cost of utility-scale batteries might undo the time-of-day requirement.
The problem is Greens want to push wind and solar FAR beyond those conditions and seem oblivious to the consequences on society.
To me, Wind, Solar and Batteries have zero green credentials, due to high mining requirements and associated toxical waste. The old Green Movement would not let this pass, but the current Greens simply turn a blind eye to this problem. Their low EROEI is another donwside.
If nuclear gets more developed (Generation-IV/molten salts) bringing more possibilities for increased heat energy use, it allows more efficient electricity production and even producing heat energy to chemical processes (fertilizers or even methane synthesis).
Yes, even when you exclude the effect on the economy, it is not clear that "Green" energy is actually Green (i.e. a net good for the natural environment).
Like all technologies, Green energy technologies have trade-offs. The need for increased mining, toxic chemicals, killing birds and whales, and using large amounts of land that could otherwise be wild habitat are all characteristics of those technologies that traditional Environmentalists would not like.
Because I am primarily about promoting human material progress, I don't feel that I need to take a stand on whether Green energy is actually Green, but I think that it is at least important to acknowledge the tradeoffs.
Agree with the seasonal variability and non-dispatchable nature of solar, but low EROI is clearly not true. Solar have a 0 marginal cost of production, and degrades pretty slowly giving a solid 20-30 years of lifetime. Previous very low EROI estimates of PV solar are methodologically flawed and outdated. EROI as a concept also has some serious flaws when applying to non-fuel generation methods
A zero marginal cost of production has low value. Any hilly region with rain you can make a reservoir, store water, and run it through a pipe to a turbine and have a zero marginal cost of power. But nobody does that, except in the rare ideal areas with rivers (called hydro) because the levelized cost is way too high and intermittency is a killer.
The system cost of solar integration means it also has a high marginal cost of production, because it displaces other energy sources in the most inefficient way, so inefficiently that it may negate all the energy the solar produces. Sad but true.
You state that "Promoting human material progress is my primary goal, and I reject anyone’s claim that it should not be the prime goal of public policy."
I agree with many aspects of this post; indeed, net zero by 2050 and a completely 'green' energy infrastructure seems unrealistic at present. But why human material progress over mitigating "carbon emissions, air pollution, water pollution, wild habitat destruction, extinctions, and human health concerns."? Surely some stagnation in - especially wealthy - economies in order to prolongue the existence of the human race should be the primary perogative. If climate change is irreversable then a more moderate approach may not be fast enough to preserve future generations. Ultimately it raises the question of whether we aim to reduce suffering in the present or in the future (and to what extent we care about beings other than humans). Obviously, a strategy that reduces suffering in all time frames is optimal, but appears far from realistic.
I would be curious to hear your reasoning as to why (potentially short term) material progress leads to less suffering, or if you have a different incentive in mind.
Thanks for your comment, but I am a little confused about the first half of your comment.
I clearly make mitigation of negative environmental impacts from progress a secondary goal, so I am not sure why you write "some mitigation... is on order" We obviously agree. Otherwise, I would not have added it as a secondary goal.
Climate change is not irreversible. Any natural process that moves in one direction can also move in the other direction.
I am also not sure what you mean by "reduce suffering." Warmer temperatures do not inherently cause human suffering. But negative economic growth clearly will.
Promoting long-term widely shared economic growth is a far more effective and cost-effective means to reduce human suffering than maybe reducing future temperature by a few degrees. Just as important, we know that it works. We do not know that minimizing increased future temperatures will have any effect on future "human suffering."
Do you really suffer on a winter day when it is 1 or 2 degrees warmer than usual? Or summer days for that matter?
Human suffering due to high temperatures is a solved problem: air conditioning is extremely effective at solving the problem. And with future economic growth, far more people will be able to afford AC. And if you are against increased use of AC, then you do not actually care about human suffering.
I am sorry that my first point came across as unclear. I was trying to argue that mitigating environmental impacts should be a primary goal, and human material progress should come second. I also do not think I wrote "some mitigation... is on order" - correct me if I am wrong - but rather "some stagnation", referring to the economic growth of wealthier economies.
'Climate change is not irreversible'. I still do not believe there is a scientific consensus on whether we can reverse climate change. Yes, we can slow it, but until fossil fuel production decreases, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to increase. It may be reversible, but perhaps by the time a human race no longer exists. Natural shifts in the climate tend to happen over millennia.
'Do you really suffer on a winter day when it is 1 or 2 degrees warmer than usual? Or summer days for that matter?' No, I do not. But I know of many who have suffered - and will continue to suffer - due to increased severe flooding due to the melting of ice caps, due to food insecurity, due to droughts and wildfires. These events are all made more frequent due to climate change, and air conditioning doesn't solve these problems. An increase in global temperature by a couple of Celsius does not just mean an increase in localised temperatures- the effects are far more severe. And although those in developed countries produce the most emissions, those in developing countries suffer the most.
You also state that 'We do not know that minimising increased future temperatures will have any effect on future "human suffering."' I agree with you here. But we can predict reasonably well that it will.
I still concur that economic growth should be a priority; however, a balance incorporating more sustainable growth should be a priority because there will be consequences in the long term if we ignore any environmental impacts of these policies. Realism is necessary, yes. But there has to be some compromise. Much of your post focuses on this. My two main qualms are how you prioritise economic growth over the environment (they should at least be of equal priority) and how you give limited attention to how some lifestyle changes in developed countries may be necessary (not something I have mentioned in detail in this reply, but of importance nonetheless).
Apologies for this rather extensive response, but thank you for replying to my comment.
First, sorry for mentioning "some mitigation" I think that was a spell check.
Your second reply is no less contradictory than the first. You say that economic growth should be a priority, but then you clearly want some stagnation in wealthy nations.
Stagnation is the opposite of growth. My guess is that stagnation will lead to economic decline that will have very negative effects on humanity.
Green energy policies are incompatible with promoting long-term economic growth. They will only lower and perhaps eliminate economic growth.
You also say that climate change is irreversible, but it may not be, and scientists do not agree. Which is it? And I never claimed humans will reverse climate change. Water and rock are constantly absorbing carbon, and the rate increase as the carbon in the atmosphere increases. That is basic science.
Climate history if full of reversals in temperature trends without any human intervention.
Nor will climate change kill humanity. There is nothing in the science that gives evidence of that.
I am glad that you admit that increased temperature alone will not lead to human suffering. Most Greens refuse to admit that obvious statement.
The secondary effects of flooding, food insecurity, etc are clearly not happening. The IPCC is admitting much of that, @Pielke shows that they are much too alarmist. See below for just one of his many posts on the subject:
The doom predictions have been wrong for 40 years. My guess is the next 40 years will be the same.
We cannot even measure "human suffering", so no we cannot predict it in the future reasonably well.
As for lifestyle change, my post is on energy policy. You can change your lifestyle however you want. But I want to point out that the Green energy policy uses the government to force a lifestyle change based on economic stagnation.
That is unethical and immoral. If you care about humans, you should oppose it.
I make no apologies for prioritizing economic growth, because that is the prime means for benefitting humanity. I will follow up with more posts to prove it.
I just wish to clarify that I never claimed that climate change is irreversible. I said 'if' it is irreversible (as there is still no scientific consensus). I understand that rocks and water are constantly absorbing carbon, and that they will continue to do so at an increased rate; however, it still remains that ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing despite that. That is also basic science.
As for economic growth, I maintain that it should be a priority (in the colloquial sense of the word), but that a compromise should be reached between that and potential environmental damage - related or not to climate change. That is why some stagnation may be required.
I did point out previously that the secondary effects of climate change are mostly present in developing countries. For example, flooding in places like Bangladesh has worsened. If I am correct, your source only references the US. However, I do agree that the media has often portrayed climate change incredibly inaccurately (argued in the source).
Also, we may not be able to measure human suffering, but we can predict an increased frequency of events resulting in death, injury, or homelessness etc. I would call that human suffering.
I apologise for bringing lifestyle change into this - that was wholly inappropriate.
If you believe prioritising economic growth is the way forward, fine. I simply wanted to understand your reasoning further, and offer a different perspective on the matter. I did not intend to come across as hostile, and I apologise if I did. Many thanks again for your reply.
I did not interpret your reply as hostile (though I get that often from Greens). You are clearly open to discussion and learning. You also can see through the Green hysteria and that is a good place to start.
Glad that we agree that "a compromise should be reached between that and potential environmental damage"
Do most Greens really oppose both hydro and nuclear? How are you defining Greens? Members of a Green party? I was in the Green Party of England and Wales and with some others put a pro-nuclear motion to one of their conferences. It didn’t pass, but was supported by about a third of the members at conference, and those who attend conferences tend to be the most fanatical Greens. We did get accused of not being truly green though because we were pro-nuclear. And in the UK most Greens do support hydro, there’s just not much scope for expanding hydro in the UK. We have virtually eliminated coal though: https://ourworldindata.org/death-uk-coal
“We did get accused of not being truly green though” says it all…
But keep on trying. The anti-nuclear consensus on Left is crumbling fast. The more people keep pushing, the faster it is going to collapse. I wish you luck.
Glad to hear that you are receptive to nuclear power. If you can expand that to hydro and natural gas, then we much to build on. I am afraid that very few Greens do.
As for definitions, yes, I would accept the official party platforms of Green parties and the beliefs of their official members.
Yes, opposition to nuclear power is declining even among Greens, especially since the start of the Ukraine war. The long-term trend, though, has been very strong Green opposition to both nuclear power and hydropower.
The anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s and 1980s were essentially forerunners of the Green movement. In the 1990s, the anti-nuclear movement morphed into the Climate Change movement but retained their opposition to nuclear power. The German Greens trying to decommission all nuclear plants is more representative of Greens in general than the relatively small number of pro-nuclear Greens.
Given the fact that your pro-nuclear motion failed despite Greens being sure that we must go Netzero by 2050 is pretty good evidence that the UK Greens are anti-nuclear. Are the UK Greens actually advocating the construction of hydro-electric dams? My guess is no.
Good to hear that the Finnish Greens are pro-nuke. My guess that is because Finland already had 34% nuclear power and solar and wind are not very viable there. Did they support nuclear before the plants were constructed? My guess is no.
As far as I know, not one hydroelectric dam has been constructed with official support from a Green Party world-wide. And many want to decommission dams to help fish populations rebound.
It is a classic example of the Second and Third Energy Transition, which long preceded Green energy policies. Coal production peaked in 1913, a full century before Greens and it was largely replaced by oil in transportation, natural gas in industry, and natural gas/nuclear in electricity.
It seems strange for someone so sure of progress to bet against solar PV and storage. Sure, storage is still somehow not an entirely solved problem today, but it is constantly advancing. Solar is the cheapest form of energy in many places now and will only get cheaper.
The future lies in massive overbuilding of solar, due to it being so cheap, distributed battery storage, major HVDC interconnect networks, and sophisticated demand management.
A belief that material progress has occurred in the past and is still continuing is very different from a faith that a specific technology will significantly change future global temperatures.
You seriously underestimate the massive scale of what you are proposing, both in terms of financial cost, materials, manpower, and time. It will take decades and many trillions of dollars.
Yes, batteries and solar are getting cheaper, but price drops of commodities always even out eventually, so one should not assume that they will continue. Most of the "solar power is the cheapest form of energy" studies are based on very optimistic assumptions that ignore system costs to the grid. That is why the price of electricity keeps going up in nations that increase their wind and solar power.
If those technologies will keep getting cheaper, then that is a very good reason to wait. There are real advantages to being late adopters to emerging technologies, particularly when there are better options right now.
The key problem with most energy sources is geography. The regions where solar and wind power are abundant is limited and is unlikely to change.
Here are some articles on how difficult it is to replace coal plants (the biggest carbon producers) with solar and wind:
For the United States natural gas is so abundant, so cheap and so easily transportable and stored that we can replace all coal plants in the USA with CCGT plants that emit 1/3 the carbon emissions and virtually no pollution within 4-5 years. If Biden had passed legislation in 2021, we could have been more than half-way there for only one-quarter of the cost of the Inflation Reduction Act. From either an economic or environmental perspective, it is a no brainer.
Clinging to hope of a solar future undermines our ability to completely phase out coal rapidly. One you have an electrical grid based on natural gas, nuclear, and hydro then solar and wind only add value as a supplement in certain regions. And you will have a viable energy platform for electrifying transportation that renewable cannot give.
First I would like to say where I agree with you: coal is the immediate problem that stands above all other concerns right now. Until the last thermal coal plant is shut down then I fully support using natural gas. Once it is though then gas moves into the crosshairs.
Also, nuclear would have been excellent in prior decades, but I'm no longer sure that going forward, even if safety regulations were sensible, it would be able to compete on price. At least in most geographies, I expect nuclear will still be viable at high latitudes for some time.
I see three key points of difference. The first is that I don't see the grid, as it exists in its current form, as essential. You're focused on new big power plants to replace existing coal plants. I see distributed generation and storage as a viable alternative in many situations (dense urban areas and heavy industry will still need grid connections to large power plants though).
There are lots of battery improvements in the works, actually in low rate production right now (like sodium chemistries and solid state lithium); it is not a matter of banking on one big breakthrough happening. The price of storage will come down, the price of solar panels will come down; as they do, gradually more and more people will disconnect from the existing grid entirely.
That forces a rethink of the whole point of maintaining the grid in the first place, which is why I think the grid will dramatically change to a new form, one that is much more focused on just serving cities and utilising a lot of very long distance HVDC interconnects. Grid scale batteries will also greatly reduce the importance of frequency matching for generation sources (very helpful for wind as well as solar).
The second point of difference, is a simple one: a lot of current electricity usage is in areas of high latitude, with long, dark, cold winters. This is terrible for solar. But most people live in places where winter effectively doesn't even exist. These are fairly poor, low energy use areas at the moment will not always be. Going forward the increasing demand will not be subject to solar's greatest downside: winter. Energy use in the "global north" might be near its peak as heavy industry will chase cheaper electricity closer to the equator.
Thirdly, I see solar photovoltaics as fundamentally different from other, "spinny turbine", renewables. Sure, they are subject to geographic gradients of efficiency, but they to some degree work where >99% of people live. In a lot of those places they are not viable right now, but solar panels are silicon wafer products and are thus subject to the same sort of improvements as other silicon wafer products: they can just keep getting cheaper as the scale of the production ramps up. True, they wont get that much more efficient, but they will always keep getting cheaper as long as production keeps expanding.
You point out that the geographies where solar is cost effective today are fairly limited but skip over that solar-viable geographies are always expanding, as the cost keeps coming down. Together with chemical energy storage (backed up by gravity storage where possible) to even out the daily inconsistencies solar will gradually come to eclipse all other energy sources. Demand management, especially by heavy industry, to even out seasonal inconsistencies will help round out the transition.
I think that's where the main point of contention is really: inconsistencies. You see consistency of energy generation as vital, whereas I do not. To be sure the transition will take a while, but I do not think it will be held back by costs, but rather driven by them.
I don't think you understand the complexity and the scale of the world's energy system. Without a massive build-out of nuclear and hydro this will really only work during the summer daytime in Nevada. Here are some other reasons.
1) Your solution only covers electricity. What about the other 80% of the energy system?
2) Hydro is very highly restricted by geography. I do not see it scaling up significantly in the United States.
3) Nuclear power is extremely expensive. Just try calculating the cost necessary. Just building one plant takes decades. Your plan would require hundreds, and maybe thousands. Until they are done, you are essentially using the current system.
4) The enormity of the expansion of electrical power lines to connect Nevada to the rest of the nation is staggering. Just finding and paying for the land right-of-way is a huge undertaking. This will also take many decades. Until they are done, the solar panels are useless, except to Las Vegas and Reno.
5) This massive infrastructure build would all take many decades to build up. Why wait? You can build a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine in one year, and then take a coal-burning plant offline. And it would be dramatically cheaper.
6) The USA is uniquely blessed with solar and hydro resources. The rest of the world cannot follow this model.
7) The massive construction costs of your program would increase carbon emissions in the short-term for decades. Why are you proposing a plan that would likely increase carbon emissions?
I think emissions are keep rising because we keep using fossil fuels as a source of energy for our production and not because Green energy policies have failed to replace fossil fuels. We could reduce fossil fuels, regardless of what's happening in alternative sources of energy.
However, success in developing alternative sources of energy could indeed reduce fossil fuels by replacing them. Have developments in alternative sources of energy failed? If yes, have they failed because they are inherently flawed or because there have not been a lot of investment?
Investments in green energy only recently started being about 1000 billion dollars annually, while the GDP of the global economy is more than 100.000 billion dollars. Percentage-wise, this is a small amount of investment. Besides, investments usually take some time to pay off. This applies to most investments about many things in life. Expecting significant results while investing relatively low amounts of money and in a very short-term, is unrealistic.
And yet, emissions in some countries have indeed been falling over the last years, without their GDP falling too.
Why do you want to penalize coal in preference natural gas? If you are going to tax coal to reduce its use, why not tax carbon at the rate corresponding to the coal tax? After all surplus solar energy during the daytime could be converted to hydrogen, which can certainly replace hydrogen derived from natural gas used for fertilizer manufacture and perhaps other industrial processes.
More fundamentally, why do you think global warming is a non-issue? I know neither of use will be alive when the consequences come to roost. But I don't feel too good about that,
1) Coal (along with wood) is the worst form of energy in terms of environmental impacts, such as carbon dioxide emissions, air pollution, water pollution, and impacts on human health.
2) Natural gas is the only energy form that can substitute for all the uses of coal in a cost-effective way. Solar, wind, and hydrogen do not even come close to being able to do so. Replacing coal and wood with natural gas is the most cost-effective means to reduce carbon emissions. A carbon tax will make the transition from coal to natural gas more expensive and less likely.
3) Most populated places on the planet do not have enough solar and wind energy to make solar and wind cost-effective at scale. This is particularly true in Asia, where half of humanity lives.
4) Cost-effective use of hydrogen for energy storage is a long way off. Yes, it is technically possible, but it is extremely expensive. I am not convinced that we will ever get there.
5) I did not say that global warming is a "non-issue." I made mitigating negative effects on the environment a secondary goal. This includes global warming.
6) I guarantee that global warming will not kill us all. That is going way beyond anything in the climate science literature. That is not science, but a doomsday cult.
1. Coal is already being phased on in favor of gas here in the US. There is no need for a tax on coal. In regions like China, where gas is not cheap like it is here, they are going to build coal plants if that is what Chairman Xi wants. We don't have a say.
4. One would not use hydrogen for storage. It would be used to produce synfuels for use as aviation fuel. Neither nuclear, hydro nor natural gas is suitable for aviation. In principle hydrogen can also be used for fertilizer manufacture to replace hydrogen made from natural gas.
5. A secondary issue when cheap energy is the primary issue will not get addressed ever, so it becomes a non-issue.
The issues with green energy is not technical. Fifteen years ago, I thought the idea that we would ever use photovoltaics for power generations as completely pie in the sky. Just look at the price of solar panels (a tech that had been around for half a century at that time). That's changed. Sure there are lots of technical things that need to be worked out, but they never will be if doing so remains a secondary issue that gets ignored in favor of the primary one.
6. The threat from global warming was never the weather or climate. The threat was always from the human response to those things. Global warming will cause mass migrations. Do you think Americans, Russians, or Chinese are going to let them in?
So you will have hundreds of millions of people as desperate and as full of hate as Gazans wrt to Israels. Since Pakistan is a likely affected country that means millions of Hamas-style terrorists, some of them with nukes, bent on the destruction of the West. How do you prevent that without becoming a police state? Finding a way to solve that problem is a hell of lot harder than reducing the cost of preventing this situation in the first place.
Everyone focuses on the tech part, because that is the easy part.
1 Yes, but under current Green policies that phase-out of coal is slowing because they are opposed to natural gas. Greens have no solution to China, so you should talk to them not me. A coal tax on imported goods from China will give a huge incentive for China to shift away from coal. I already explain that in the article.
4. Show me it is cost-effective now.
5. Not true. I explain exactly how I propose to phase out coal in favor of a blend of natural gas, nuclear and hydro. This is far more cost-effective than solar or wind and can be applied to every region in the world, while solar and wind cannot.
6 I am glad that you say that "The threat from global warming was never the weather or climate." That is exactly what Greens believe, so we agree.
There is no evidence that climate change is changing immigration, or that it ever will. You are building what-if scenarios on top of what-if scenarios. That it not a good way to create an energy policy.
Great article. All of this is complicated by the marriage between socialists/various anti-capitalists and the Greens. We will never see a robust growth era until this anti-growth cancer is eradicated from the left.
If you look at Left-wing ideologies over the past few centuries, one can see that they are in desperate and ever-changing arguments against capitalism.
It started with Karl Marx, who believed the natural workings of capitalism led to the immiseration of the working class. That was disproven by reality, so the Left came up with a host of new reasons, all of which turned out to be incorrect. Greens are just the next evolution: capitalism is destroying the planet.
After a while, you start to realize that Left ideologies are just rationalizing a hatred of capitalism. The reasoning always changes, but the hatred always remains.
Thanks for this article, Michael. I've saved it in my folder on climate change research. when I get two writing my climate change multi-path adventure novel, I will reference this heavily.
💯 % agree with the main philosophy of encouraging human prosperity with abundant, affordable energy. Yes, humans will want a cleaner world, but it’s Maslows hierarchy of needs: if you’re cooking over animal dung barely able to feed your family ( like so many in the world today), you just want more, abundant, and cheaper energy. Those other environmental ‘niceties’ come later and only stay if people have access to food, water, and fuel.
There is a lot of like on this “moderate” take on energy. I knew a guy who opposed fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydroelectric for various environmental reasons. Later on, he began to oppose wind as well. At some point, we have to ask ourselves, what is the goal? Is it to end civilization or to be a good steward of life?
You make a strong case that yes, solar, wind and renewable sources are great…but not quite up to the task…at least not yet. Instead, hydroelectric, nuclear, and natural gas can bridge the gap by providing a source of stable and abundant energy with a greatly reduced impact on the environment.
Instead of stopping progress, we need to allow it to run its course. As I discussed here, progress has reduced the carbon and pollution intensity of energy on its own for 500 years. https://www.lianeon.org/p/decarbonizing-progress
"According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the various types of coal emit around 100 kilograms of CO2 Per Million Btu, while petroleum products emit around 70kg, and natural gas, just 50kg. In other words, with each step up the energy “ladder,” carbon emissions dropped about 30 percent for the same amount of energy generated."
"...strong case that yes, solar, wind and renewable sources are great…but not quite up to the task…at least not yet..."
Really? How's that? The only case he is making is that path only succeeds by causing DeGrowth, De-industrialization. With the exception of conventional hydro of course, which he admits that like geothermal is severely constrained by Geography, and will always be a bit player on the global stage.
Energy substitution of renewables = wind/solar largely, won't occur because they are seasonal, non-dispatchable, have an abysmal EROI, intrinsically terrible energy density, geographically limited, unreliable and intermittent, as well as requiring vast material inputs, typically 20X other energy sources, not counting storage & long distance transmission.
And in terms of Energy Efficiency, wind/solar are the defining examples of Energy Inefficiency. For all the reasons I mentioned in the proceeding paragraph. So bad, that they are physically incapable of replacing fossil.
So there is no "bridging the gap" with renewables, impossible. There is only either transitioning to a largely nuclear energy supply by end of this century or face total industrial collapse, population collapse and a dystopian future (called DeGrowth euphemistically).
Thanks for the comment.
I largely agree with you, but solar and wind can be good supplemental means to produce electricity in specific geographical environments where there is extra demand for electricity at the correct time of day. And a drastic drop in the cost of utility-scale batteries might undo the time-of-day requirement.
The problem is Greens want to push wind and solar FAR beyond those conditions and seem oblivious to the consequences on society.
To me, Wind, Solar and Batteries have zero green credentials, due to high mining requirements and associated toxical waste. The old Green Movement would not let this pass, but the current Greens simply turn a blind eye to this problem. Their low EROEI is another donwside.
If nuclear gets more developed (Generation-IV/molten salts) bringing more possibilities for increased heat energy use, it allows more efficient electricity production and even producing heat energy to chemical processes (fertilizers or even methane synthesis).
Yes, even when you exclude the effect on the economy, it is not clear that "Green" energy is actually Green (i.e. a net good for the natural environment).
Like all technologies, Green energy technologies have trade-offs. The need for increased mining, toxic chemicals, killing birds and whales, and using large amounts of land that could otherwise be wild habitat are all characteristics of those technologies that traditional Environmentalists would not like.
Because I am primarily about promoting human material progress, I don't feel that I need to take a stand on whether Green energy is actually Green, but I think that it is at least important to acknowledge the tradeoffs.
Agree with the seasonal variability and non-dispatchable nature of solar, but low EROI is clearly not true. Solar have a 0 marginal cost of production, and degrades pretty slowly giving a solid 20-30 years of lifetime. Previous very low EROI estimates of PV solar are methodologically flawed and outdated. EROI as a concept also has some serious flaws when applying to non-fuel generation methods
In actual fact the EROI is much higher than previously stated. This is due to the gross underestimating of Chinese emissions in solar manufacture:
The real carbon intensity of photovoltaic energy. An update on the disagreement with Seaver Wang, Enrico Mariutti:
https://enricomariutti.substack.com/p/coming-soon
A zero marginal cost of production has low value. Any hilly region with rain you can make a reservoir, store water, and run it through a pipe to a turbine and have a zero marginal cost of power. But nobody does that, except in the rare ideal areas with rivers (called hydro) because the levelized cost is way too high and intermittency is a killer.
The system cost of solar integration means it also has a high marginal cost of production, because it displaces other energy sources in the most inefficient way, so inefficiently that it may negate all the energy the solar produces. Sad but true.
You state that "Promoting human material progress is my primary goal, and I reject anyone’s claim that it should not be the prime goal of public policy."
I agree with many aspects of this post; indeed, net zero by 2050 and a completely 'green' energy infrastructure seems unrealistic at present. But why human material progress over mitigating "carbon emissions, air pollution, water pollution, wild habitat destruction, extinctions, and human health concerns."? Surely some stagnation in - especially wealthy - economies in order to prolongue the existence of the human race should be the primary perogative. If climate change is irreversable then a more moderate approach may not be fast enough to preserve future generations. Ultimately it raises the question of whether we aim to reduce suffering in the present or in the future (and to what extent we care about beings other than humans). Obviously, a strategy that reduces suffering in all time frames is optimal, but appears far from realistic.
I would be curious to hear your reasoning as to why (potentially short term) material progress leads to less suffering, or if you have a different incentive in mind.
Thanks for your comment, but I am a little confused about the first half of your comment.
I clearly make mitigation of negative environmental impacts from progress a secondary goal, so I am not sure why you write "some mitigation... is on order" We obviously agree. Otherwise, I would not have added it as a secondary goal.
Climate change is not irreversible. Any natural process that moves in one direction can also move in the other direction.
I am also not sure what you mean by "reduce suffering." Warmer temperatures do not inherently cause human suffering. But negative economic growth clearly will.
Promoting long-term widely shared economic growth is a far more effective and cost-effective means to reduce human suffering than maybe reducing future temperature by a few degrees. Just as important, we know that it works. We do not know that minimizing increased future temperatures will have any effect on future "human suffering."
Do you really suffer on a winter day when it is 1 or 2 degrees warmer than usual? Or summer days for that matter?
Human suffering due to high temperatures is a solved problem: air conditioning is extremely effective at solving the problem. And with future economic growth, far more people will be able to afford AC. And if you are against increased use of AC, then you do not actually care about human suffering.
Anyway, thanks for the comment.
I am sorry that my first point came across as unclear. I was trying to argue that mitigating environmental impacts should be a primary goal, and human material progress should come second. I also do not think I wrote "some mitigation... is on order" - correct me if I am wrong - but rather "some stagnation", referring to the economic growth of wealthier economies.
'Climate change is not irreversible'. I still do not believe there is a scientific consensus on whether we can reverse climate change. Yes, we can slow it, but until fossil fuel production decreases, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to increase. It may be reversible, but perhaps by the time a human race no longer exists. Natural shifts in the climate tend to happen over millennia.
'Do you really suffer on a winter day when it is 1 or 2 degrees warmer than usual? Or summer days for that matter?' No, I do not. But I know of many who have suffered - and will continue to suffer - due to increased severe flooding due to the melting of ice caps, due to food insecurity, due to droughts and wildfires. These events are all made more frequent due to climate change, and air conditioning doesn't solve these problems. An increase in global temperature by a couple of Celsius does not just mean an increase in localised temperatures- the effects are far more severe. And although those in developed countries produce the most emissions, those in developing countries suffer the most.
You also state that 'We do not know that minimising increased future temperatures will have any effect on future "human suffering."' I agree with you here. But we can predict reasonably well that it will.
I still concur that economic growth should be a priority; however, a balance incorporating more sustainable growth should be a priority because there will be consequences in the long term if we ignore any environmental impacts of these policies. Realism is necessary, yes. But there has to be some compromise. Much of your post focuses on this. My two main qualms are how you prioritise economic growth over the environment (they should at least be of equal priority) and how you give limited attention to how some lifestyle changes in developed countries may be necessary (not something I have mentioned in detail in this reply, but of importance nonetheless).
Apologies for this rather extensive response, but thank you for replying to my comment.
First, sorry for mentioning "some mitigation" I think that was a spell check.
Your second reply is no less contradictory than the first. You say that economic growth should be a priority, but then you clearly want some stagnation in wealthy nations.
Stagnation is the opposite of growth. My guess is that stagnation will lead to economic decline that will have very negative effects on humanity.
Green energy policies are incompatible with promoting long-term economic growth. They will only lower and perhaps eliminate economic growth.
You also say that climate change is irreversible, but it may not be, and scientists do not agree. Which is it? And I never claimed humans will reverse climate change. Water and rock are constantly absorbing carbon, and the rate increase as the carbon in the atmosphere increases. That is basic science.
Climate history if full of reversals in temperature trends without any human intervention.
Nor will climate change kill humanity. There is nothing in the science that gives evidence of that.
I am glad that you admit that increased temperature alone will not lead to human suffering. Most Greens refuse to admit that obvious statement.
The secondary effects of flooding, food insecurity, etc are clearly not happening. The IPCC is admitting much of that, @Pielke shows that they are much too alarmist. See below for just one of his many posts on the subject:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/us-climate-extremes-2023-year-in?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fpielke&utm_medium=reader2
The doom predictions have been wrong for 40 years. My guess is the next 40 years will be the same.
We cannot even measure "human suffering", so no we cannot predict it in the future reasonably well.
As for lifestyle change, my post is on energy policy. You can change your lifestyle however you want. But I want to point out that the Green energy policy uses the government to force a lifestyle change based on economic stagnation.
That is unethical and immoral. If you care about humans, you should oppose it.
I make no apologies for prioritizing economic growth, because that is the prime means for benefitting humanity. I will follow up with more posts to prove it.
I just wish to clarify that I never claimed that climate change is irreversible. I said 'if' it is irreversible (as there is still no scientific consensus). I understand that rocks and water are constantly absorbing carbon, and that they will continue to do so at an increased rate; however, it still remains that ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing despite that. That is also basic science.
As for economic growth, I maintain that it should be a priority (in the colloquial sense of the word), but that a compromise should be reached between that and potential environmental damage - related or not to climate change. That is why some stagnation may be required.
I did point out previously that the secondary effects of climate change are mostly present in developing countries. For example, flooding in places like Bangladesh has worsened. If I am correct, your source only references the US. However, I do agree that the media has often portrayed climate change incredibly inaccurately (argued in the source).
Also, we may not be able to measure human suffering, but we can predict an increased frequency of events resulting in death, injury, or homelessness etc. I would call that human suffering.
I apologise for bringing lifestyle change into this - that was wholly inappropriate.
If you believe prioritising economic growth is the way forward, fine. I simply wanted to understand your reasoning further, and offer a different perspective on the matter. I did not intend to come across as hostile, and I apologise if I did. Many thanks again for your reply.
I did not interpret your reply as hostile (though I get that often from Greens). You are clearly open to discussion and learning. You also can see through the Green hysteria and that is a good place to start.
Glad that we agree that "a compromise should be reached between that and potential environmental damage"
Do most Greens really oppose both hydro and nuclear? How are you defining Greens? Members of a Green party? I was in the Green Party of England and Wales and with some others put a pro-nuclear motion to one of their conferences. It didn’t pass, but was supported by about a third of the members at conference, and those who attend conferences tend to be the most fanatical Greens. We did get accused of not being truly green though because we were pro-nuclear. And in the UK most Greens do support hydro, there’s just not much scope for expanding hydro in the UK. We have virtually eliminated coal though: https://ourworldindata.org/death-uk-coal
By the way, in Finland the Green Party does support nuclear: https://allianceforscience.org/blog/2022/05/finland-green-party-nuclear/
“We did get accused of not being truly green though” says it all…
But keep on trying. The anti-nuclear consensus on Left is crumbling fast. The more people keep pushing, the faster it is going to collapse. I wish you luck.
I’m not in the Green Party any more. Didn’t seem much point fighting for them to adopt sensible energy policies when they have no hope of getting into government. I’m now a member of the Labour Party which is in government and is pro-nuclear: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/04/keir-starmer-says-nuclear-power-is-critical-part-of-uks-energy-mix
Thanks for the comment.
Glad to hear that you are receptive to nuclear power. If you can expand that to hydro and natural gas, then we much to build on. I am afraid that very few Greens do.
As for definitions, yes, I would accept the official party platforms of Green parties and the beliefs of their official members.
Yes, opposition to nuclear power is declining even among Greens, especially since the start of the Ukraine war. The long-term trend, though, has been very strong Green opposition to both nuclear power and hydropower.
The anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s and 1980s were essentially forerunners of the Green movement. In the 1990s, the anti-nuclear movement morphed into the Climate Change movement but retained their opposition to nuclear power. The German Greens trying to decommission all nuclear plants is more representative of Greens in general than the relatively small number of pro-nuclear Greens.
Given the fact that your pro-nuclear motion failed despite Greens being sure that we must go Netzero by 2050 is pretty good evidence that the UK Greens are anti-nuclear. Are the UK Greens actually advocating the construction of hydro-electric dams? My guess is no.
Good to hear that the Finnish Greens are pro-nuke. My guess that is because Finland already had 34% nuclear power and solar and wind are not very viable there. Did they support nuclear before the plants were constructed? My guess is no.
As far as I know, not one hydroelectric dam has been constructed with official support from a Green Party world-wide. And many want to decommission dams to help fish populations rebound.
Thanks for the article on coal in UK.
It is a classic example of the Second and Third Energy Transition, which long preceded Green energy policies. Coal production peaked in 1913, a full century before Greens and it was largely replaced by oil in transportation, natural gas in industry, and natural gas/nuclear in electricity.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/we-need-to-complete-the-third-energy
It seems strange for someone so sure of progress to bet against solar PV and storage. Sure, storage is still somehow not an entirely solved problem today, but it is constantly advancing. Solar is the cheapest form of energy in many places now and will only get cheaper.
The future lies in massive overbuilding of solar, due to it being so cheap, distributed battery storage, major HVDC interconnect networks, and sophisticated demand management.
Thanks for the comment.
A belief that material progress has occurred in the past and is still continuing is very different from a faith that a specific technology will significantly change future global temperatures.
You seriously underestimate the massive scale of what you are proposing, both in terms of financial cost, materials, manpower, and time. It will take decades and many trillions of dollars.
Yes, batteries and solar are getting cheaper, but price drops of commodities always even out eventually, so one should not assume that they will continue. Most of the "solar power is the cheapest form of energy" studies are based on very optimistic assumptions that ignore system costs to the grid. That is why the price of electricity keeps going up in nations that increase their wind and solar power.
If those technologies will keep getting cheaper, then that is a very good reason to wait. There are real advantages to being late adopters to emerging technologies, particularly when there are better options right now.
The key problem with most energy sources is geography. The regions where solar and wind power are abundant is limited and is unlikely to change.
Here are some articles on how difficult it is to replace coal plants (the biggest carbon producers) with solar and wind:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/can-increased-windsolar-retire-us
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/can-increased-windsolar-retire-asian
For the United States natural gas is so abundant, so cheap and so easily transportable and stored that we can replace all coal plants in the USA with CCGT plants that emit 1/3 the carbon emissions and virtually no pollution within 4-5 years. If Biden had passed legislation in 2021, we could have been more than half-way there for only one-quarter of the cost of the Inflation Reduction Act. From either an economic or environmental perspective, it is a no brainer.
Why would you not do that first?
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-wonders-of-ccgt
Clinging to hope of a solar future undermines our ability to completely phase out coal rapidly. One you have an electrical grid based on natural gas, nuclear, and hydro then solar and wind only add value as a supplement in certain regions. And you will have a viable energy platform for electrifying transportation that renewable cannot give.
So why pin your faith on where the future lies?
Apologies for the late reply.
First I would like to say where I agree with you: coal is the immediate problem that stands above all other concerns right now. Until the last thermal coal plant is shut down then I fully support using natural gas. Once it is though then gas moves into the crosshairs.
Also, nuclear would have been excellent in prior decades, but I'm no longer sure that going forward, even if safety regulations were sensible, it would be able to compete on price. At least in most geographies, I expect nuclear will still be viable at high latitudes for some time.
I see three key points of difference. The first is that I don't see the grid, as it exists in its current form, as essential. You're focused on new big power plants to replace existing coal plants. I see distributed generation and storage as a viable alternative in many situations (dense urban areas and heavy industry will still need grid connections to large power plants though).
There are lots of battery improvements in the works, actually in low rate production right now (like sodium chemistries and solid state lithium); it is not a matter of banking on one big breakthrough happening. The price of storage will come down, the price of solar panels will come down; as they do, gradually more and more people will disconnect from the existing grid entirely.
That forces a rethink of the whole point of maintaining the grid in the first place, which is why I think the grid will dramatically change to a new form, one that is much more focused on just serving cities and utilising a lot of very long distance HVDC interconnects. Grid scale batteries will also greatly reduce the importance of frequency matching for generation sources (very helpful for wind as well as solar).
The second point of difference, is a simple one: a lot of current electricity usage is in areas of high latitude, with long, dark, cold winters. This is terrible for solar. But most people live in places where winter effectively doesn't even exist. These are fairly poor, low energy use areas at the moment will not always be. Going forward the increasing demand will not be subject to solar's greatest downside: winter. Energy use in the "global north" might be near its peak as heavy industry will chase cheaper electricity closer to the equator.
Thirdly, I see solar photovoltaics as fundamentally different from other, "spinny turbine", renewables. Sure, they are subject to geographic gradients of efficiency, but they to some degree work where >99% of people live. In a lot of those places they are not viable right now, but solar panels are silicon wafer products and are thus subject to the same sort of improvements as other silicon wafer products: they can just keep getting cheaper as the scale of the production ramps up. True, they wont get that much more efficient, but they will always keep getting cheaper as long as production keeps expanding.
You point out that the geographies where solar is cost effective today are fairly limited but skip over that solar-viable geographies are always expanding, as the cost keeps coming down. Together with chemical energy storage (backed up by gravity storage where possible) to even out the daily inconsistencies solar will gradually come to eclipse all other energy sources. Demand management, especially by heavy industry, to even out seasonal inconsistencies will help round out the transition.
I think that's where the main point of contention is really: inconsistencies. You see consistency of energy generation as vital, whereas I do not. To be sure the transition will take a while, but I do not think it will be held back by costs, but rather driven by them.
And wind is no slouch either.
Fill up the desert areas of 10% of Nevada with pv and the US will have as much electrical energy than it needs. Use nuclear and hydro for the rest.
I don't think you understand the complexity and the scale of the world's energy system. Without a massive build-out of nuclear and hydro this will really only work during the summer daytime in Nevada. Here are some other reasons.
1) Your solution only covers electricity. What about the other 80% of the energy system?
2) Hydro is very highly restricted by geography. I do not see it scaling up significantly in the United States.
3) Nuclear power is extremely expensive. Just try calculating the cost necessary. Just building one plant takes decades. Your plan would require hundreds, and maybe thousands. Until they are done, you are essentially using the current system.
4) The enormity of the expansion of electrical power lines to connect Nevada to the rest of the nation is staggering. Just finding and paying for the land right-of-way is a huge undertaking. This will also take many decades. Until they are done, the solar panels are useless, except to Las Vegas and Reno.
5) This massive infrastructure build would all take many decades to build up. Why wait? You can build a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine in one year, and then take a coal-burning plant offline. And it would be dramatically cheaper.
6) The USA is uniquely blessed with solar and hydro resources. The rest of the world cannot follow this model.
7) The massive construction costs of your program would increase carbon emissions in the short-term for decades. Why are you proposing a plan that would likely increase carbon emissions?
I think emissions are keep rising because we keep using fossil fuels as a source of energy for our production and not because Green energy policies have failed to replace fossil fuels. We could reduce fossil fuels, regardless of what's happening in alternative sources of energy.
However, success in developing alternative sources of energy could indeed reduce fossil fuels by replacing them. Have developments in alternative sources of energy failed? If yes, have they failed because they are inherently flawed or because there have not been a lot of investment?
Investments in green energy only recently started being about 1000 billion dollars annually, while the GDP of the global economy is more than 100.000 billion dollars. Percentage-wise, this is a small amount of investment. Besides, investments usually take some time to pay off. This applies to most investments about many things in life. Expecting significant results while investing relatively low amounts of money and in a very short-term, is unrealistic.
And yet, emissions in some countries have indeed been falling over the last years, without their GDP falling too.
Why do you want to penalize coal in preference natural gas? If you are going to tax coal to reduce its use, why not tax carbon at the rate corresponding to the coal tax? After all surplus solar energy during the daytime could be converted to hydrogen, which can certainly replace hydrogen derived from natural gas used for fertilizer manufacture and perhaps other industrial processes.
More fundamentally, why do you think global warming is a non-issue? I know neither of use will be alive when the consequences come to roost. But I don't feel too good about that,
1) Coal (along with wood) is the worst form of energy in terms of environmental impacts, such as carbon dioxide emissions, air pollution, water pollution, and impacts on human health.
2) Natural gas is the only energy form that can substitute for all the uses of coal in a cost-effective way. Solar, wind, and hydrogen do not even come close to being able to do so. Replacing coal and wood with natural gas is the most cost-effective means to reduce carbon emissions. A carbon tax will make the transition from coal to natural gas more expensive and less likely.
3) Most populated places on the planet do not have enough solar and wind energy to make solar and wind cost-effective at scale. This is particularly true in Asia, where half of humanity lives.
4) Cost-effective use of hydrogen for energy storage is a long way off. Yes, it is technically possible, but it is extremely expensive. I am not convinced that we will ever get there.
5) I did not say that global warming is a "non-issue." I made mitigating negative effects on the environment a secondary goal. This includes global warming.
6) I guarantee that global warming will not kill us all. That is going way beyond anything in the climate science literature. That is not science, but a doomsday cult.
1. Coal is already being phased on in favor of gas here in the US. There is no need for a tax on coal. In regions like China, where gas is not cheap like it is here, they are going to build coal plants if that is what Chairman Xi wants. We don't have a say.
4. One would not use hydrogen for storage. It would be used to produce synfuels for use as aviation fuel. Neither nuclear, hydro nor natural gas is suitable for aviation. In principle hydrogen can also be used for fertilizer manufacture to replace hydrogen made from natural gas.
5. A secondary issue when cheap energy is the primary issue will not get addressed ever, so it becomes a non-issue.
The issues with green energy is not technical. Fifteen years ago, I thought the idea that we would ever use photovoltaics for power generations as completely pie in the sky. Just look at the price of solar panels (a tech that had been around for half a century at that time). That's changed. Sure there are lots of technical things that need to be worked out, but they never will be if doing so remains a secondary issue that gets ignored in favor of the primary one.
6. The threat from global warming was never the weather or climate. The threat was always from the human response to those things. Global warming will cause mass migrations. Do you think Americans, Russians, or Chinese are going to let them in?
So you will have hundreds of millions of people as desperate and as full of hate as Gazans wrt to Israels. Since Pakistan is a likely affected country that means millions of Hamas-style terrorists, some of them with nukes, bent on the destruction of the West. How do you prevent that without becoming a police state? Finding a way to solve that problem is a hell of lot harder than reducing the cost of preventing this situation in the first place.
Everyone focuses on the tech part, because that is the easy part.
1 Yes, but under current Green policies that phase-out of coal is slowing because they are opposed to natural gas. Greens have no solution to China, so you should talk to them not me. A coal tax on imported goods from China will give a huge incentive for China to shift away from coal. I already explain that in the article.
4. Show me it is cost-effective now.
5. Not true. I explain exactly how I propose to phase out coal in favor of a blend of natural gas, nuclear and hydro. This is far more cost-effective than solar or wind and can be applied to every region in the world, while solar and wind cannot.
6 I am glad that you say that "The threat from global warming was never the weather or climate." That is exactly what Greens believe, so we agree.
There is no evidence that climate change is changing immigration, or that it ever will. You are building what-if scenarios on top of what-if scenarios. That it not a good way to create an energy policy.
Great article. All of this is complicated by the marriage between socialists/various anti-capitalists and the Greens. We will never see a robust growth era until this anti-growth cancer is eradicated from the left.
Thanks for the comment.
If you look at Left-wing ideologies over the past few centuries, one can see that they are in desperate and ever-changing arguments against capitalism.
It started with Karl Marx, who believed the natural workings of capitalism led to the immiseration of the working class. That was disproven by reality, so the Left came up with a host of new reasons, all of which turned out to be incorrect. Greens are just the next evolution: capitalism is destroying the planet.
After a while, you start to realize that Left ideologies are just rationalizing a hatred of capitalism. The reasoning always changes, but the hatred always remains.