This special interest group is where you can bring thoughts and ideas on renewable energy.

Follow via RSS

Author Profile

Bob Meinetz

Nuclear Power Policy Activist Independent

About me

I am a passionate advocate for the environment and nuclear energy. With the threat of climate change, I’ve embarked on a mission to help overcome the fears of nuclear energy. I’ve been active in...

Member since 2018
3,953 items added with 29,971 views

Top Members

Charley Rattan

Offshore Renewables & hydrogen business advisor and trainer

Charley Rattan Associates

Richard Brooks

Senior Consultant

Reliable Energy Analytics LLC

WARNING: SIGN-IN

You need to be a member of Energy Central to access some features and content. Please sign-in or register to continue.

Post

Yale study finds it's renewables that are the "bridge fuel" - to a fossil-powered future

image credit: ©BigStockPhoto.com. Used by permission.

Feb 21, 2020 10:17 pm GMT
385 views

No surprises here. In Is Abundant Natural Gas a Bridge to a Low-carbon Future or a Dead-end?, Yale researchers Kenneth Gillingham and Pei Huang find "a market-driven abundant natural gas supply can provide substantial reductions in air pollution but does not considerably reduce CO2 emissions in the longer-term, especially relative to a moderate carbon price."

Researchers found renewables "eat their own lunch" - that they will eventually be overtaken by the cheap natural gas on which they depend today:

"...although abundant natural gas supply results in welfare gains both with and without carbon pricing scenarios, it does not reduce CO2 emissions significantly over the projected period. This is because cheaper natural gas replaces not only coal but also renewables. On the other hand, natural gas is relatively effective in reducing air pollution from burning [other] fossil fuels. This implies that abundant natural gas should not be seen as a “bridge” to a low-carbon future, but rather as a source of welfare improvements."

The oil-based economies of Texas, California, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana will benefit from a higher penetration of renewables. But in the long run, they're a waste of precious time and resources for fighting climate change - and with changes to climate predicted to last at least 100,000 years, we're in it for the long run.

explore related topics

Thank Bob for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Discussions

Sign in to Participate

Matt Chester on Feb 21, 2020 10:34 pm GMT

We show that a market-driven abundant natural gas supply can provide substantial reductions in air pollution but does not considerably reduce CO2 emissions in the longer-term, especially relative to a moderate carbon price.

Sounds like carbon pricing it is, then!

Bob Meinetz on Feb 22, 2020 3:26 pm GMT

I agree, Matt. The effectiveness of carbon pricing is controversial, however. The only form of carbon pricing which has been conclusively linked to a reduction in carbon emissions is the revenue-neutral carbon tax, aka "fee and dividend".

And there is another imperative for any carbon tax to work: affordable carbon-free alternatives. Without them, pricing carbon only imposes a burden on the public (which has been conclusively linked to a reduction in the possibility of re-election).

I came across this image online, which is worth at least a thousand words.

British Columbia has both ingredients: a revenue-neutral carbon tax and abundant hydropower. Ireland (and by connection) UK / Denmark? Abundant wind. Iceland? Abundant geothermal energy.

What about France? With few natural resources to fall back on, France relies on carbon-free nuclear energy as an alternative to oil (70% of French electricity is generated at nuclear plants).

That's deliberate. When OPEC embargoed oil in 1973, the lights went out in France: nearly all of the country's electricity had been generated by burning oil. Prime Minister Pierre Messmer, by ministerial decree, initiated the "Messmer Plan" - France would build out nuclear in a hurry and avoid ever being energy-dependent again. But more importantly (and before its value was understood) the country was able to decarbonize its electricity faster than any country in history.

What was true in 1973 remains true today: the only realistic, clean alternative to fossil fuel, in countries not blessed with abundant natural energy resources, is nuclear.

Richard Brooks on Feb 22, 2020 5:54 pm GMT

Totally agree, Bob. Carbon pricing should be used to incentivize a movement to cleaner resources which is only possible through electrification, across sectors. This is why the New York ISO carbon pricing plan is so potentially damaging; it raises the cost of electricity while exempting fossil fueled transportation and heating sectors from the carbon tax. I believe a rise in electricity prices will discourage consumers from transitioning from low cost Natural Gas and gasoline to electricity alternatives, subject to rising electricity costs for years to come.

Matt Chester on Feb 24, 2020 12:55 pm GMT

Thanks for sharing the graphic, Bob-- very interesting. I'd be interested to see the movement of these circles over time, particularly as differnt areas of the world adopt different levels/types of carbon pricing, since a natural reaction to some carbon pricing is to shift carbon-intensive manufacturing to where it is most affordable (a key reason that getting some sort of international agreement on the table is critical among all these national policies as well)

Bob Meinetz on Feb 24, 2020 9:08 pm GMT

You're welcome, Matt. Unfortunately the graph included no information about what it's supposed to represent ( ! ). I'm assuming colored circles are programs in effect, white circles are planned; size corresponds to energy consumption of each country, height on the chart, to total receipts.

Percentages on the x-axis - could be percent of carbon being taxed?

Matt Chester on Feb 24, 2020 10:32 pm GMT

Should have shared the results of my Google-Fu before. The graphic comes from this article: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-carbon-pricing/

Circle size reflects government revenue raised by carbon pricing in 2018
Purple circles are carbon taxes, white circles are emissions trading systems
Y-Axis is the carbon price per metric ton of CO2
X-Axis is the share of emissions subject to carbon pricing

Bob Meinetz on Feb 25, 2020 4:45 pm GMT

Nice work! Would be nice if circle size represented quantifiable emissions reductions - not how much each government raked in.

One talking point of critics is that even revenue-neutral taxes are perceived as a money-grab in conservative circles.

Matt Chester on Feb 25, 2020 5:08 pm GMT

Has there been a serious carbon tax proposal that's gained steam without the raised funds going either to 1) dividends for citizens or 2) funding further climate-related projects? I suppose maybe 2) could be seen by some as money-grubbing, particularly in any circles that doubts the importance of making climate action a priority yesterday.

Bob Meinetz on Feb 25, 2020 5:28 pm GMT

BC's revenue-neutral tax came under scrutiny when it was discovered some of the refunds were being structured as tax deductions, and not everyone was included equally.

I originally learned about fee-and-dividend from public advocacy of climate scientist James Hansen, the "godfather of climate change awareness". Hansen was (and is) insistent that simplicity, transparency, and an equal refund for every taxpayer would be essential for success.

In a roomful of special interests (even some which claim to be "climate-related projects"), it's amazing how quickly a pile of money can disappear.

Trump Keeps Rollin', Rollin' Back US Auto Emission Standards and Other Critical Regulations

The rollback of the auto fuel efficiency standard marks the most impactful and needless environmental acts of the Trump-era. It is critical not to let the pandemic divert attention from other deregulatory actions in the closing months of Trump's..

Heating with Green Hydrogen from Wind - FuelCellsWorks

Wind energy coupled to heat in this piece on a Dutch project.The community may find this article of interest:

French and Chinese Form Floating Wind Pact | Offshore Wind

Following Iberdrola's statement of intent regarding their ramp up of Floating Offshore Wind, here's further news from the sector with a Sino-French development;The community may find Dr Massey and my podcast of interest:

What coronavirus does—and doesn't—teach us about climate action

Yes, the skies are clearer and greenhouse gas emissions are down worldwide. But, of course, the reason isn't one to celebrate. As we navigate uncharted waters in our current reality, I decided to share a few thoughts on what we can learn about..

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

Start a Post » Learn more about posting on Energy Central »

EnergyBiz® Network

Generation Network

Energy Management Network

Intelligent Utility® Network

Grid Network

Energy & Sustainability
Network

Author Profile

About me

Top Members

Charley Rattan

Richard Brooks