New York Governor Cuomo 'Orders Utility to Pump Imaginary Natural Gas': Nonsensical Demand is Granted by Utility with a Warning That a Cold Snap Could Lead to Heat Shut-off for Those at the Far Ends of the Pipeline System Due to Pressure Drop

New York Governor Cuomo ‘Orders Utility to Pump Imaginary Natural Gas’: Nonsensical Demand is Granted by Utility with a Warning That a Cold Snap Could Lead to Heat Shut-off For Those at the Far Ends of Pipeline System as Pressure Drop


Had to keep the original Hot Air headline for this one. Cuomo has been adamant in his authoritarian control of natural gas access for New York state, New York City, and New England (pipelines recommended and planned for New England states need to go through New York), and his moratorium against fracking in New York state, which has been in force for a decade now. Cuomo has bowed to pressure from environmental activists. I have written about Cuomo’s authoritarianism before as have others, including energy writer and author Robert Bryce. 


Utility National Grid had previously refused any new natural gas hook-ups in Brooklyn due to inadequate gas supply. This involves over 1100 new residential and commercial customers. Cuomo used an obscure law to demand that those customers be hooked up anyway or the utility would face hefty fines. They grudgingly agreed. He actually accused National Grid of “acting in bad faith.” The utility stated that they had a responsibility to provide reliable service, which now cannot be guaranteed. Cuomo has cited state environmental reviews for denying permits for the Williams pipeline and other pipelines. 


Quoted from the Hot Air article referenced below:


“Does this guy understand what he’s asking for here? We’re also left wondering if he understands why the utility stopped authorizing new gas lines in the first place. Does he think that National Grid was simply tired of making money? Obviously they want to sign up new customers so they can begin billing them.”


“There’s a solution to this problem right in front of the governor if he has the common sense to see it. Your problem isn’t the management at the utility. It’s the lack of natural gas supplies running into Brooklyn. Approving the new pipeline would fix this because there is a virtually limitless supply of gas waiting for you in Pennsylvania.”


The availability of cheap natural gas nearby has enabled New York City to decrease its contributions to both air pollution and carbon emissions by switching fuel oil furnaces for natural gas. Fuel oil furnaces emit more carbon dioxide and other pollutants including 2.5 particulate matter. But if I were on the ends of that system, I might consider an oil furnace.


Energy writer Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute has written previously about Cuomo’s “wars” against natural gas, utilities, pipelines, and non-renewable energy. A five-hour electricity blackout in Manhattan in September was blamed on equipment malfunction. Cuomo blasted the utility, Con Edison, as failing to provide electricity reliability. With the planned closure over the next year or so of the 2000+ MW Indian Point nuclear plant, the New York Independent System Operator that manages the grid has been warning about future electricity reliability. That plant provides about ¼ of the electricity to NYC. It is unclear what Cuomo plans to do. Bryce also points out that since 2004 natural gas on the grid of the whole state has doubled and will likely need to increase further after the nuclear plant closure. Cuomo has agreed to implement the Climate and Community Protection Act which mandates that 70% of electricity will come from renewable sources by 2030 but it is unclear how that will happen. New offshore wind projects are one source. One thing is virtually certain. Electricity prices in New York will rise, probably drastically. New Yorkers already pay among the highest energy costs in the U.S. Bryce also notes that the plan to electrify all the states vehicles will put a strain on global supplies of lithium, cobalt, and rare earths - just to do it for New York state. He notes a UK study that concludes that “society needs to understand that there is a raw-material cost of going green.” Of course, most aggressive state energy mandates towards renewables and carbon free energy suffer from the same issues. Its easy to set up and announce targets to get political points but not so easy to implement them. Cuomo won’t be governor when these mandates actually go into an implementation stage.


It is not only New York City that has blocks on natural gas hook-ups. Towns in Massachusetts have been beset by such blocks since 2014, again due to inadequate natural gas supplies, in turn due to lack of pipelines, in turn due to Cuomo’s and his environmental activist advisors’ authoritarian rejections. This affects energy costs in those areas as well as pollution, carbon emissions, and reliability. Cuomo has been the guy “holding the cards” for quite a while now and it will be interesting to see how this turns out. 


Cuomo is not the only Democrat governor actively working against natural gas pipelines for climate change reasons. New Jersey governor Phil Murphy recently denied a permit for the PennEast pipeline. The official reason given had to do with a dispute about eminent domain that a federal appeals court ruled on saying that land could not be seized. However, Murphy is quoted:


“My administration fought and won in court to stop the proposed … pipeline. We are committed to transition New Jersey to 100% clean energy by 2050.”


If I understand correctly the properties in dispute for eminent domain are owned or partially owned by the state. PennEast states that they are confident that eventually they will get a favorable ruling, citing a long-standing precedent of the FERC. If the project delay is long continued, I suspect eventually we will hear about more moratoriums on natural gas hook-ups for residents and businesses and an increase in the use of polluting and expensive fuel oil.


The two governors are quite willing to cause the increase of pollution and carbon emissions in the short term in order to have a chance (as they see it) to decrease them in the long-term, although it is quite unclear how that will happen. 


References:


Cuomo Orders Utility to Pump Imaginary Natural Gas – by Jazz Shaw, in Hot Air, Oct. 12, 2019


Cuomo’s War on Pipelines Hurts New England – by Robert Bryce, Manhattan Institute, July 19, 2019


Cuomo’s War on the Power Grid – by Robert Bryce, in Crain’s New York Business, July 18, 2019


Cuomo’s Silly War on Natural Gas – by Robert Bryce, Manhattan Institute, June 28, 2019


Out of Gas: New York’s Blocked Pipelines Will Hurt Northeast Consumers – by Robert Bryce, Manhattan Institute, June 25, 2019


New Jersey Denies Permit for PennEast Natgas Pipeline – by Reuters, accessed through Hart Energy, Oct. 16, 2019

The Green No Deal: Decarbonization Conundrums: How and How Much Should Government Bank On Catastrophic Climate Change Predictions?

The Green No Deal: Decarbonization Conundrums: How and How Much Should Government Bank on Catastrophic Climate Change Predictions?


Recently, the U.S. Senate voted 57-0 to not take up the Green New Deal, as put forth in a non-binding resolution by Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Sen Ed Markley. Most Democrats abstained from voting to protest Senate leader Mitch McConnell’s wish to have a vote on the resolution to put Dems in favor of it on the record as such – ostensibly, to hurt their chances of being re-elected. It was all political theatre with little effect though. 


As put out, the resolution was very vague and supposedly meant to start the conversation about increasing the pressure toward decarbonization of our energy systems and the reorganization of our economic system. The vagueness is exacerbated by the fact that many of the people calling for the changes are not experts on energy, climate, or economics, although AOC does have a degree in economics. Among progressive liberals, anti-corporatists, anti-capitalists and especially those fond of socialism, however, the Green New Deal has sparked much excitement. It would put more power into government and take power away from corporations.


Origins of the Green New Deal


The New Deal part, of course, refers to FDR’s post-Great Depression stimulus aimed at employing people affected by the economic crash in the 1930’s. The term “Green New Deal” was first used by journalist, political commentator, and author Thomas Friedman in his 2008 book: Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution – And How It Can Renew America, which was read by Obama. The New Deal part is hoped to address things like income inequality, access to affordable health care, and jobs and the Green part seeks to accelerate (vastly accelerate, some would say) decarbonization of our energy, transportation, agriculture, and industrial systems. Capital would come from the government rather than the private sector, presumably, to speed up the process. Such a big proposal would likely balloon the National debt as well as require more taxation of citizens (via higher energy prices) – two things generally unpopular in Washington. Obama included some of Friedman’s ideas in the 2009 economic stimulus, which yielded mixed results. Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein of the Green Party advocate for such a plan. Both Sanders and AOC are self-avowed Democratic Socialists, although that term has a confusing meaning since most socialist countries have been economic and societal failures with rampant corruption, authoritarianism, human rights abuses, and inefficient economies. 


Conservative pundits have long complained that global warming, or climate change, is a hidden liberal conspiracy to redistribute wealth. The Green Deal as stated is basically just that! The pundits were right. However, this does not mean we do not need economic reform and to deal with income inequality that has been accelerating at an unsustainable pace. The plan calls for so much investment that as envisioned it would it would be the most expensive undertaking in U.S. history. Tying energy transition to economic transition is a non-starter for many, except that an energy transition would create more jobs. It has also been touted as a scheme to weaken a Republican party that has long been skeptical of climate change. It is not only conservatives but also moderate and many mainstream Democrats that object to tying decarbonization to social welfare and throwing humungous amounts of money at multiple problems all at once. Basically, the Green New Deal is the most ambitious stimulus yet contrived. Logistics would likely make implementation difficult or impossible, especially in a short time frame.


Robert Pollin, an economics professor at University of Massachusetts-Amherst who has helped design several state Green New Deals, thinks the goal would be possible but unlikely at 80% decarbonization by 2035 rather than 100% by 2030 as stated. Thus, he says the Green New Deal as stated is quite unrealistic. He thinks net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, as suggested to be required by the IPCC, is possible. He also discusses the economic disruption that would occur if decarbonization happens too fast. He also criticized putting in other inequality reduction and social welfare measures like increasing the minimum wage and Medicare for All. Tying all that to climate change legislation is unreasonable and unnecessary. He favors solutions that can work now like re-forestation and making the grid more efficient. He did a comparison of Germany’s Energiewende and the U.S. and found that Germany’s grid integration of renewables was only slightly better than or comparable to that of the U.S. but the real story is how they have increased energy efficiency to the point that their energy system is much more efficient than that of the U.S., with per capita emissions 40% lower than the U.S. 


AOC is a self-described democratic socialist, like Bernie Sanders. Thus, the Green New Deal is basically a socialist and anti-capitalist proposal. Activists, particularly in Europe, are saying that to tackle climate change we must end capitalism. This is as if to say that climate change is a kind of “sin” caused by the devil of capitalism that can only be absolved by the angel of socialism. This kind of moral/immoral dichotomy is presented by some. Many of us find such demonization and radicalism disturbing. There are even calls to define environmental decisions that do not protect the environment as much as some would like, as “ecocide” and criminalize them. There are calls to charge oil executives with crimes against humanity. Such absurd and divisive behavior should not be taken seriously.


Other parts of the plan include reparations to historic oppression of indigenous peoples, high-speed rail (California has already wasted $100 billion in a stalled, possibly never-to-be-built, high-speed system), a 70% marginal tax rate for the wealthy (this would raise about $700 billion over ten years in a best-case scenario), and to “retrofit every building in America” with “state of the art energy efficiency.”


Trump Republicanism


Meanwhile, the Trump administration is a polar opposite to any GND legislation. In Trump’s latest budget there is more elimination of renewable energy funding and incentives such as the EV tax credit. This is unlikely to pass as such – as most presidential budgets, especially in a divided Congress – and if it did, it would be widely unpopular. Other social welfare programs are slated to be cut. Their solution to poverty and income inequality, echoed by Republicans in general, is to create more jobs by stimulating the economy from the top – the so-called “trickle-down” economics once championed by Reagan but now largely debunked by most economists. Last year’s tax cut is a prime example. While the corporate tax rate was cut significantly, the effect on the economy has been slow in coming as companies moved more to shore up their own economic futures and those of their shareholders rather than create jobs and opportunities. This may change but potential growth may be offset by the tariffs of Trump’s various trade wars. That companies are shoring up their bottom line and stockholders first is evidenced by massively outsized stock buybacks compared to new jobs. While it is good to have markets buoyed by economically healthy companies and happy stock holders, that does not help the majority of the population. Most people do not have any or very little stake in the stock market. The prevalence of billionaires, ten-billionaires, and now even the hyper-decadent hundred-billionaires is rather disturbing. Surely, it takes money out of the economy, free to be used as collateral but not in circulation. Perhaps this is one reason why some economists do not worry about increasing the deficit (something the Green New Deal would do very intensively) as less money in circulation means less inflation. However, inflation would likely not be problematic anyway since our main economic problems in recent decades have been deflation-based, such as the 2008 economic downturn. The high costs of previous economic stimuluses, tax cuts, and wars have not led to inflation, so it is unlikely a Green new Deal would either, according to some economists. Even if it did there are measures that could be taken so some hyperinflated situation like that of socialist country Venezuela, a bastion of corruption and mismanagement, would not occur.


Side Benefits of Decarbonization


Climate change is not the only reason to increase investment and incentives for renewable energy and electrification. Reducing pollution, planning for eventual scarcity of finite non-renewable energy sources, and eventually decreasing cost and improving performance are other reasons. Right now, the sheer profitability of fossil fuels allows us access to cheap energy, to help fund many things via taxes, and to give good jobs to those involved in extraction, transport, and distribution of those energy sources. Indeed, cheap energy is the cornerstone of a successful economy. Renewable energy and electrification continue to get better and cheaper, although usually in small incremental steps. Fossil fuels, especially natural gas, also continue to get cheaper to produce per unit of energy, more efficient to burn, and may be involved in new processes that can produce much more energy with similar natural gas inputs. Another benefit of decarbonization is energy independence - away from countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia, although in the U.S. the domestic fossil fuel industries also increase energy independence,


The Climate Change Consensus Exaggeration


The politicization of climate change, particularly by the UN groups like the IPCC is problematic according to some and skews the reality considerably. Is there really an overwhelming consensus on the catastrophic version of climate change put out by alarmists? Many scientists would say no. Biased surveys meant to show a consensus have succeeded in making it look like there is one and those are what have been declared, mainly by politicians and alarmists. The whole consensus issue needs to be re-evaluated. Survey outcomes are often dependent on what questions are asked and how they are asked. There is still considerable uncertainty about climate change. Global climate models (GCMs) are dependent on assumptions, many assumptions, with huge margins of error. All those margins of error could add up in various ways. The global climate system has many variables that affect climate which makes modelling difficult. Some climate scientists think the alarmist predictions are incorrect, over-predicting warming. Predicting global climate change involves multiple scientific disciplines and few scientists are expert on more than a few of these disciplines. Even otherwise monumental scientists like the late Stephen Hawking can be wrong about climate change as his prediction that runaway climate change similar to what occurred on the planet Venus is a real possibility, is considered dead wrong by most climate scientists.


2009 Stimulus


One might say that we had a mini-Green New Deal in the early Obama years when part of the stimulus package in response to the economic downturn (which did not inflate the economy) was used for renewables incentives, R&D, and so-called “green-collar” jobs. There were some valid advances in things like battery research gained out of that stimulus, but some of the beneficiaries lost out big time to cheap foreign competition and bad market timing. Think of the $50 million Solyndra bankruptcy fiasco. When companies heavily funded by the government, ie. the taxpayers, go bankrupt, we all lose. The green jobs stimulus amounted to about $90 billion but aside from the incremental changes mentioned above it was little more than a blip on the big screen. However, that $90 billion was 12% of the entire $800 billion stimulus. Commentator Van Jones even used the term ‘Green New Deal’ at the time. Arguably and ironically, the advent of the fracking/shale gas revolution did vastly more to decarbonize the U.S. electricity sector through coal-to-gas switching in power plants than did all incentives combined for renewable energy over the past decade and it did so while keeping consumer energy costs low.


Republican Counter-Plans


In response, some Republicans have been proposing their own much watered-down versions of a green new deal that serve as counter-proposals. One is the New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy proposed by moderate Tennessee Republican Senator Lamar Alexander which would double clean energy research funding. The plan calls for research into advanced nuclear reactors, natural gas, carbon capture, green buildings, cheaper solar, better batteries, and fusion. Alexander’s plan focuses on innovation and research. Since the Trump administration DOE has cut clean energy research this plan at least offers a strong counter to that. Non-candidate Michael Bloomberg is still focusing on the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign to reduce electricity from coal. He noted quite obviously that a Republican controlled Senate would never pass a GND. John Kasich, a possible challenger to Trump, opts for a series of market-based approaches to address global warming. He favors more EV subsidies, more natural gas use combined with industry methane emissions reductions, and cap-and-trade. Moderate Dem Senator Joe Manchin and moderate Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, both from energy-producing states, also bashed the Green New Deal but did state that bipartisan solutions to climate issues were needed. However, they do not appear to endorse a carbon tax.  Obama energy secretary Ernest Moniz and G.W. Bush assistant secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency offered a Green Real Deal emphasizing region-specific innovations and low-carbon technologies. Their plan calls for increased use of natural gas and nuclear energy. Wyoming Republican Senator Joe Barrasso also called for increased use of nuclear energy and carbon capture.


The right-wing American Action Forum dubbed the Green new Deal costs at an ultra-staggering $93 trillion. This is a bit ridiculous, but the idea is that it will cost a lot, probably tens of trillions, and will likely affect taxpayers and things that affect taxpayers may disproportionately affect the poor and middle class – though in this case the poor are taken care of through things like universal basic income, another feature of AOC’s and Markley’s wide-ranging plan.


2020 Democratic Candidate Plans


Meanwhile, the 2020 Dem candidates are offering their own clean energy plans. Jay Inslee, making climate change his central issue, offered a plan requiring 100% clean electricity by 2035 and 100% clean new vehicles and new buildings by 2030. These demands are just slightly less vigorous than the Green New Deal but still quite unfeasible by most accounting, I would say. Beto O’Rourke was the first to offer a plan though. His is a massively expensive $5 trillion climate plan. He called it “the most ambitious climate plan in the history of the United States,” and it is by far, but Green Deal advocates like the Sunrise Movement have said does not go nearly far enough! His plan is less ambitious than Inslee’s, requiring net-zero energy by 2050. Taxes and corporations would be expected to pay for his plan. Inslee’s plan has a $3 trillion price tag over 10 years. Phase 2 of his plan calls for $9 trillion in investment. Non-candidate Michael Bloomberg is still focusing on the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign to reduce electricity from coal. He noted quite obviously that a Republican controlled Senate would never pass a GND. Joe Biden’s plan has been trashed as too “middle ground” by environmentalists and less moderate Dems. Inslee and Sanders have, as expected, criticized it as inadequate. Biden’s spokespeople said his approach did address the urgency of climate change and that he would offer more detail in the coming weeks. Progressives on the left are pushing for bold climate change plans for all Democrat candidates. Of late, Inslee’s desire to force a climate change debate among Democrat candidates was turned down by the DNC. Biden’s new $5 trillion climate plan calls for $1.7 trillion in federal government spending with the rest coming from state, local, and private sources. As expected, Biden’s plan would re-implement Obama policies like the Clean Power Plan, re-entry into the Paris Accord, and CAFÉ standards. Critics have called that “totally insufficient.” Politicized climate scientist Michael Mann has criticized Biden’s goal of keeping natural gas as a big part of the decarbonization plan. It should be noted that replacing coal with natural gas has been and continues to be by and far the largest decarbonization factor in the U.S. over the last decade. Democrats have been challenged to not accept political contributions from fossil fuel companies and recently even Biden has agreed. Progressive Democrats also favor dropping the ‘pay as you go’ rule for legislation, known as PayGo, to try to pass sweeping legislation like the GND or Medicare for All, but the majority of Democrats still adhere to it as a prudent way to spend. I would guess that increased support for renewable energy projects will be a feature of Democrats push for a large infrastructure bill but that does not have to follow the GND framework. I think many Democrats realize, however, that the push for a Green new Deal is being fed by environmental activists, who tend to be biased, and anti-capitalist. Calling for “a wartime-level, just economic mobilization plan to get to 100% renewable energy ASAP” as AOC has, is probably too much for even most Democrat moderates to take.

Inslee, Warren, Sanders, and others have called for punitive measures against U.S. fossil fuel industries such as banning fracking (Sanders), banning oil and LNG exports (Inslee) and banning leasing on federal lands and offshore (Warren). 

Moderate Dem candidate John Hickenlooper, a geologist, offers a different approach, more sensible I think. He wants to simply ensure environmental compliance by fossil fuel companies and a collaborative approach between industry and environmental groups to bring down methane emissions. He does call for increasing green tech research, more employment in renewables industries, and re-entering the Paris agreement. He thinks a GND approach will bring backlash and possibly even set the climate change movement back. I think he is right but his currently very low polling numbers suggest he won't last very long in the race. 


Other Ideas from the Left


Other Dems like clean energy entrepreneur and congressman Sean Castean (D-IL), an engineer who made clean energy and climate action his signature issue, came out as skeptical of the GND’s overly ambitious goals. He also supports a cap-and-trade approach to carbon. Progressive economist Joseph Stiglitz likes the GND as a counter to populism, citing the “yellow vest” discontent in France, partly a protest about fuel taxes to pay for climate initiatives. This shows that the poor and middle class are not willing to pay for climate action, at least not without the wealthy being penalized. I’m not sure I follow his logic here. He blames neoliberalism, globalization, financialization, deregulation, and privatization for discontent leading to increased populism and nativism. I think those things have brought both good and bad, the bad being ridiculously increased income inequality. I agree that top marginal tax rates need to be increased somewhat so that multi-billionaires can’t hoard everything but not sure how that relates to decarbonization except more tax revenue to add.


Public Support and Polling


Polls about the Green New Deal have been mixed and like any polls depend on what questions are asked and how they are asked. The GND has support among Democrats but not among Republicans and Independents. Overall, support is less than opposition according to polls by the Chamber of Commerce and the National Green Advocacy Project. My guess is that more people would oppose it once the costs and difficulties in speedy implementation became more apparent. Clearly, the Republicans are using the immensity of the daunting GND proposal as a reason to oppose it, citing it as an austerity measure as well as an anti-corporate plan to redistribute wealth. In Dec. 2018 the left-leaning think tank Data for Progress claimed their polling showed overwhelming support for a GND, green jobs, and clean energy but this seems very far off to me, especially since at the time 82% of people in other polling had no idea what the Green New Deal is or what is in it. In fact, the plan as rolled out is very vague, kind of like a brainstorm, but not one by experts in energy, economics, environmental or climate matters, but by a couple of House reps, one just 29 years old and a month into her first term. The plan calls for decarbonizing the whole U.S. economy in ten years.


While polls show that much of the public is indeed concerned about climate change, that does not mean that people are willing to sacrifice and pay to reduce the threat. Americans are also aware that China, soon to be joined by India, are the two highest emitting countries and so those sacrifices won’t amount to much I the overall picture. Progressive Dems are calling for aggressive action on climate change while moderates are calling for a measured response and those Republicans who don’t buy into climate change are seeing it as an opportunity to show that Dems favor austerity. Recent elections in Australia have shown that while there is concern about climate change there, people do not want to be forced to make big changes. The fuel taxes that spurred the yellow vest protests in France show the same thing – that aggressive decarbonization through austerity is not popular, even in countries where people are concerned about climate change. The potential benefits of such austerities won’t manifest soon, if at all, especially since China, India, and others will pick up the slack.


Is it Even Technological Possible, Let Alone Feasible? By 2050, Let Alone 2030?


22 scientists recently debunked the 100% renewable possibility claims of Stanford’s Marc Jacobson, who claims it is theoretically possible to fully decarbonize – at an even longer time frame than the GND. Breakthrough Institute’s Alex Trembath thinks that zero carbon by 2050 is technological possible but just barely. Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) thinks that decarbonizing the U.S. energy, transport, and agriculture sectors would cost about $1 trillion a year and many see the BNEF estimates as very low to the reality. Add that to the fact that the U.S. is now 2^nd in emissions to China and soon will be third as India takes 2^nd place. Economist Robert Poliin thinks it would cost $18 trillion over 30 years or $600 billion a year for 30 years. Meanwhile the European countries assumed to be wholly committed to decarbonization are barely lowering emissions, more like holding them steady. Things required for the Green New Deal are currently immature industries and technologies like scaled up manufacturing and infrastructure for electric vehicles and especially biofuels for air transport which currently are vastly more expensive than jet fuel. Redesigning cities, buildings, and the power grid are other monumental changes that would take vast amounts of money and time. The power grid would have to essentially double in size to accommodate the increased renewables and electrification of transport and appliances. Adding carbon capture to industries like cement and steel manufacture would also be quite difficult. One study notes that in order to get to net-zero carbon by 2050 we would also have to remove CO2 from the air with large expensive machines and all this carbon capture also requires the CO2 to be transported and stored, presumably underground, which will require a vast pipeline network and wells drilled to inject the CO2. Carbon removal, transport, and storage technologies are still immature as well. This alone would cost $2 trillion minimum over the next ten years.


IPCC Climate scientist Myles Allen argues that the science does not dictate “a very specific policy response.” He notes there are pretty big margins of error in temperature predictions. There are likely even larger margins of error in the specific effects certain those average global temperatures will cause. He notes that if the results end up on the low-side of predictions then the effects will be less catastrophic and aggressive decarbonization would be seen as an over-response.


Jim Hansen’s Plan


Climate Scientist James Hansen has called the Green New Deal ‘nonsense.’ He advocates for phasing down fossil fuel use over the next several decades and a revenue-neutral carbon tax rather than massive economic overhauls. His approach is seen as measured and incremental in contrast to that of the radical Sunrise Movement and even the IPCC. Hansen also favors the use of nuclear energy and a faster phase-out of coal. I find it kind of interesting and perhaps telling that Hansen, one of the original architects of the more alarmist narrative of climate change, is calling for a more gradual response that is more maerkt-based.


Should Nuclear Be Included and If So, Should Current Proposed Nuclear Bailouts Be Included as Well? 


Center-Left {my designation} think tank Breakthrough Institute thinks nuclear should definitely be a part of the climate solution as do Jim Hansen, and likely more Republicans than Democrats. Nuclear energy is a very low-carbon energy source that advocates say is safe, even safer than fossil fuels. It is however, quite expensive and has difficulty competing in local energy markets where cheap sources of natural gas in particular, and sometime renewables, are available. The left-leaning Union of Concerned Scientists, long seen as anti-nuke. have come out in favor of subsidizing some nuclear power plants. They note that about 16% of the 99 U.S. nuclear power plants representing 3% of U.S. power production (nuclear is about 20% of U.S. power production overall) are unprofitable and would benefit from subsidization. Another big consideration for new nuclear is that nuclear takes a long time to deploy and in the time frames given for rapid decarbonization would have a hard time fitting in. Back in 1997, nuclear was 17% of the global electricity mix. It is now at 10%.


The bottom line is that the amount of money, incentives, effort, and haste we need to shell out into decarbonization is dependent upon how serious the issue of climate change really is and also upon how it compares to other serious problems like poverty. People on the left are more likely to point to the IPCC as the standard but others, including a fair amount of climate scientists, see the IPCC as thoroughly politicized and unduly influenced by environmental groups and European left-leaning politics. Even scientists involved with the IPCC have criticized the policy recommendations of the IPCC. Many see it as a scientific organization, but it is not.


Advanced nuclear reactors could potentially be a game-changer but they are not yet being built and deployed. One company, NuScale, plans to begin actual construction of their new design in 2023 in Idaho. There are other demo models in similar stages of development. The small sizes of the demos will keep costs low for startups. Being small, modular, and scalable also helps them to be built faster.


How Much Carbon Capture and Storage Is Feasible?


Currently, there are only 17 major carbon capture and storage projects around the world that capture about 0.1% of global carbon emissions. The CO2 needs to be captured, transported, and stored (typically underground in depleted oil reservoirs or saline water reservoirs in rock formations). While this will no doubt be amped up it is also quite expensive with one coal-powered plant carbon capture project in the U.S. abandoned due to cost overruns and simply replaced by natural gas-powered turbines. The costs and logistics of capturing, transporting, and storing CO2 will continue to be challenging. Even with a new U.S. tax credit for capturing carbon the economics are not rosy.


Other Decarbonization Plans


Just about every Democrat-controlled state and city has some sort of decarbonization plan, usually a target by 2050, but sometimes by as soon as 2030. Some Republican-controlled and mixed-control states do as well. States have had renewable portfolio standards (RPSs) for years, but some have walked those back as costs and push-back from utilities have increased. While some state plans have embraced biomass and nuclear as acceptable forms of “clean” energy, others have not, and most environmental orgs have not. New York state, under Governor Andrew Cuomo, has launched their Green New Deal calling for 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040, more distributed solar, and more offshore wind. That is quite ambitious since California, which is farther along and has better renewable resources and experience, calls for economy-wide clean energy by 2045, under former Governor Brown’s plan. According to the EIA there are 29 states plus the District of Columbia that have binding RPSs as of the end of 2018 and 8 states that have non-binding renewable energy goals. What constitutes renewable energy varies by state.


The plan in the UK calls for flying less, eating less meat, and turning down the thermostat in the winter. That plan calls for net-zero carbon by 2050 but the youth group, Extinction Rebellion, is calling for net-zero carbon by 2025. Other measures included in the plan call for massive tree planting efforts, EV charging infrastructure, carbon capture and storage, underground thermal storage for buildings, and phase out of coal-burning power plants in the 2020’s. The EU, Denmark, France, and New Zealand are considering similar plans. 


Accelerated Decarbonization Will Increase Metals Mining


The faster decarbonization occurs, the higher the demand for metals required for wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries will become. Copper, silver, nickel, graphite, cobalt, aluminum, lithium, and rare earth minerals mining will increase enough to strain reserves, alter prices, and increase environmental impacts. The environmental impacts are especially worrisome since many of these metals and minerals are mined in countries with lax environmental protection as well as some child labor and human rights issues. Cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where 60% of the cobalt used in EV batteries is mined, is a hotbed of child labor and human rights issues. The rare earths, particularly neodymium and dysprosium used to make magnets for wind turbines, mostly come from China. Processing the ores with hydrofluoric acid creates huge highly toxic lakes. Recycling of these metals and rare-earths will help but there will be more supply and price strains the faster demand rises, and the rate of demand increase is entirely dependent upon the rate of decarbonization sought. Increasing lithium and copper mining in the lithium triangle of Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia is recently causing concern in Chile’s Atacama Desert as groundwater and surface water is being depleted in some areas affecting local supply and available grass for grazing animals. 


Accelerated Decarbonization Will Require Vastly Increased Transmission Via New Power Lines and Grid Upgrades 


In the U.S. the major wind resource areas and the major solar resources areas do not overlap much. It would be better if they did since they are complementary, ie. wind tends to be available when solar is not and vice versa. In addition, the best wind resource areas in particular tend not to be close to demand areas. This means more transmission will be needed. Both decarbonization and increased electrification (of vehicles and appliances) will lead to more need for transmission. Add to that the politics and regional utilities’ and commissions’ difficulties in approving new transmission lines and this becomes more difficult. People living in areas where new power lines will be built may add more backlash as NIMBYism has been prominent against transmission lines. Estimates by the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) suggest that to get to 90% grid decarbonization by 2050 will require up to $600 billion in new power transmission. This would basically double the amount of power lines in the U.S.

Wood Mackenzie energy analysts say that it will cost $4.5 trillion to make the U.S. power grid fully renewable in 10 years - without nuclear and $4 trillion while keeping nuclear. Hydro, geothermal, and biomass (not carbon neutral) would stay at their current rates. However, they note that there would be hurdles to overcome. They note that costs will accelerate when there is 25% wind and solar penetration on the grid and they make the simple factual observation that:

"No large and complex power system in the world operates with an average annual penetration of greater than 30 percent wind and solar."

They note three major hurdles: 1) unprecedented buildout of wind and solar generation ($1.5 trillion); 2) 900 GW of storage would be required at a cost of $2.5 trillion; and 3) adding 200,000 miles of high-voltage transmission (HVT) at a cost of $700 billion. 




The Case for a Less Accelerated Decarbonization


Moving too fast to decarbonize could lead to problems. New technologies take time to develop and when mature may be able to take up slack quickly. The Trumpian approach can be seen as simply ignoring the whole problem with his EPA set to delay the retiring of old, inefficient, and polluting coal plants. Biden’s approach is steady and measured with states given the flexibility provided by the Clean Power Plan or something similar and vehicles adhering to previous CAFÉ standards. The reality is that a progressive Green New Deal is very unlikely. House Speaker Pelosi has referred to it as a ‘Green Dream.’ Senate Majority leader McConnell is ready to knock it down in any form with his majority power. The necessity of compromise suggests that realistically the best one could expect is some movement toward decarbonization and increased renewables incentives and R&D if Democrats win the presidency and/or the Senate or even just more House or Senate seats and more of the status quo if Republicans remain in power.


References:


Republicans Craft Climate Plans to Counter Green New Deal – by Stephen Lacey, in GreenTech Media, April 12. 2019


Alexander Offers “One Republican’s Response to Climate Change – alexander.senate.gov, March 25, 2019


Inslee Launches National Climate Plan, Inspired by Recent Success in Washington State – by Julian Spector, in GreenTech Media, May 3, 2019


Beto’s First Major Policy Proposal is a $5 Trillion Climate Plan – by Zoya Teirstein, in Grist, April 29, 2019


Even This Conservative Poll’s Misrepresentation of the Green New Deal is Popular – by Joe Romm, in ThinkProgress, April 24, 2019


GOP Counteroffer to Green New Deal Pushes Innovation – by Maxine Joselow, in E & E News, March 27, 2019


In the Green New Deal Era, Everyone Has a Climate ‘Plan’ (Even the Right) – by Zoya Teirstein, in Grist, March 13, 2019


Climate Movement Grandpa James Hansen Says the Green New Deal is ‘Nonsense’ – by Zoya Teirstein, in Grist, April 24, 2019


Newly Elected Congressman Casts Doubt on Green New Deal – by Joe Romm, in ThinkProgress, Nov. 28, 2018


More Nuclear Energy Is Not the Solution to Our Climate Crisis – by Philip Warburg, in Beacon Broadside, Nov. 27. 2018


From Yellow Vests to the Green New Deal – by Joseph Stiglitz, in Project Syndicate, Jan. 7, 2019


The Left Thinks a ‘Green New Deal’ Could Save the Earth and Destroy the GOP – by Geoff Dembicki, in Vice, Dec. 7, 2018


2020 Rivals, Greens Rip Biden Over Purportedly ‘Middle Ground’ Climate Plan – by Miranda Green, in MSN News May 10, 2019


Green New Deal Has Overwhelming Bipartisan Support, Poll Finds. At Least for Now – by Alexander C. Kaufman, in Grist, Dec. 19, 2018


What the Media’s Coverage of the Green New Deal is Missing – by Joe Romm, in ThinkProgress, Dec. 19, 2018


Making America Carbon Neutral Could Cost $1 Trillion a Year – by Ari Natter, in Bloomberg Businessweek, May 13, 2019


Fly Less, Cut Meat, No Diesel: The U.K.’s Roadmap to Zero Carbon – by Jeremy Hodges, in Bloomberg, May 1, 2019


Joe Biden Looks to Revive Obama’s Climate Plan. Scientists Say That’s Not Good Enough – by Alexander C. Kaufman and Chris D’Angelo, in Grist, May 11. 2019


Report: Going 100% Renewable Power Means A Lot of Dirty Mining – by Naveena Sadasivam, in Grist, April 17, 2019


How Carbon Capture Tech is Easing Industry’s Green Transition – by Russ Banham, in Forbes, March 11, 2019


Nuclear Power Is Not a Viable Solution for Green New Deal – by Damon Moglen, in The Hill, April 6, 2019


Why Advanced Nuclear Reactors May Be Here Sooner Than Many Imagine – by Ted Nordhaus and Jessica Lovering, in GreenTech Media, May 24, 2019


Transmission: The 800-kV Gorilla of Decarbonization – by Stephen Lacey, in GreenTech Media, March 27, 2019


We Need a Better Green New Deal – An Economist’s Take (Interview with Economist Robert Pollin) – by Dan D. Rollette, Jr., in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, March 25, 2019


Democrats Might Have Put A Roadblock on the Path to a Green New Deal – by Zoya Teirstein, in Grist, Jan. 4, 2019


Something Old, Something New: The green New Deal is Touching Up Its (Grass)Roots – by Justine Calma, in Grist, Jan. 9, 2019


600+ Environmental Orgs Say This Is What They Want In a Green New Deal – by Justine Calma, in Grist, Jan 10, 2019


New York Gov. Launches ‘Green New Deal” With Accelerated Clean Energy Targets – by Julia Pyper, in GreenTech Media, Jan. 15, 2019


What Is the Green New Deal? – by Kevin Dickinson, in Big Think, Jan. 16, 2019


Saving the Planet With Electric Cars Means Strangling This Desert – by Laura Millan Lombrana, in Bloomberg, June 11. 2019


For the Democrats, Climate is a Trap – by Rich Lowry, in Politico, June 12, 2019


There are Glimmers of a Green New Deal in Inslee’s Big New Climate Plan – by Zora Teirstein, in Grist, May 17, 2019


Ending Climate Change Requires the End of Capitalism. Have We Got the Stomach for It? – by Phil McDuff, in The Guardian, March 18, 2019


Why ‘Ecocide’ Needs to Become an International Crime – by Katherine Martinko, in Treehugger, March 29. 2019


Oil Execs Should Be Tried for Crimes Against Humanity, Essayist Kate Arnoff Argues – by Scotty Hendricks, in Big Think, Feb. 8, 2019


The Green New Deal: One Climate Scientist’s View, From the Other Side of the Atlantic – by Myles Allen, in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 8, 2019


The Green New Deal: How We Will Pay for It Isn’t ‘A Thing’ – And Inflation Isn’t Either – by Robert Hockett, in Forbes, Jan. 16. 2019


Green New Deal is Feasible and Affordable – by Jeffrey Sachs, In CNN Opinion, Feb. 26, 2019


The 10 Most Insane Requirements of the Green New Deal – by David Harsanyi, in The Federalist, 2019

Four States Updated Their Renewable Portfolio Standards in the First Half of 2019 - by Richard Bowers, in EIA's Today In Energy, June 24, 2019

Introducing the First 2020 Climate Plan That Doesn't Sing the Green New Deal's Praises - by Zoya Teirstein, in Grist, June 13, 2019

The Price of a Fully Renewable US Grid: $4.5 Trillion - by Chloe Holden, in GreenTech Media, June 28, 2019

What Should Be the Right Amount of LNG for the US to Export?

What Should Be the Right Amount of LNG for the US to Export?

The factors in determining how much LNG the U.S. should export include: 1) gas reserves and how much excess gas the US can produce. At some point the shale gas fields are going to begin to contract in production as the core areas get depleted. As fields deplete the cost to produce will rise and the cost of gas will rise. However, this is probably far into the future. 2) demand for LNG. As long as the cost remains low demand should remain high. As countries seek to decarbonize natural gas can replace coal. As developing parts of Asia continue economic growth there will increase demand. 3) receiving terminals and infrastructure in receiving countries – as more capacity to receive and transport LNG is built there will be more demand. Other factors include FERC approvals, ability to build pipelines in the US, and decarbonation scenarios in receiving countries.  

Europe consumes much more natural gas than it produces and so has a need to import gas from other countries. Gas currently makes up about a quarter of European energy use and is expected to rise to about 30% as coal, oil, and nuclear lose market share. Some comes from Russia via pipeline but some countries, particularly the former Soviet bloc countries, do not like being beholden to Russia for necessities like natural gas. Thus, they are willing to pay a little more for US LNG. According to the Forbes article by Jude Clemente referenced below the utilization of European LNG terminals for receiving gas is underutilized, avg. about 30% utilization. Another issue for Europe is declining gas production in the North Sea, Norway, and the Netherlands – expectations are for European gas production to be half of what it is now in 20 years. That will likely lead to import terminal utilization rates to 70-90%. Clemente thinks there is plenty of room for both the US and Russia to have significant market share.

US LNG exports were about 2.8 BCF/day in 2018 with half of that going to Asian countries. What BTU Analytics calls Wave 2 of LNG exports coming online from 2022 to 2025 will also focus mostly on Asia. Asian LNG imports have increased by 10BCF/day from all countries since 2010. According to BTU Analytics total US export capacity will reach as much as 15BCF/day by 2022 and possibly higher than 35BCF/day by 2025. Surely, much of that export capacity, if it even happens, will not be fully utilized as that would be over 10 times current exports and the high end between 1/3 and 1/2 of what the US produces for domestic consumption. At some level of exporting it will affect domestic supply and affect domestic prices as well as export prices. My current guess is that somewhere around 10-15 BCF/day will be as much as the US can export. This is in line with predictions from a few years ago. I suspect the lower end of that range will be more accurate. Other issues include the slow process of pipeline infrastructure buildout as regulatory and public opposition issues continue, decarbonization plans of receiving countries, improving economics for wind, solar, and storage, and of course cost compared to other energy sources. LNG exporting does provide some price leverage for US gas producers to guard against oversupply caused by reduced demand due to things like warm winters. It should help keep gas prices from being too volatile and help the negative basis differential that has long plagued the Northeast producers.

References:

Europe Needs More US Liquified Natural Gas – by Jude Clemente, in Forbes, Dec. 7, 2018

US LNG Wave 2: Tidal Wave or Flat Seas – by Anna Lenzmeier, in BTU Analytics, Jan 8, 2019

Compliance with Regulations and Replacing Coal Generation with Natural Gas and Renewables Led to Massive Decreases in SO2 and NOx Power Plant Emissions Over the Last 20 Years (1997-2017) - and Coming Reductions in Marine Fuel Sulfur Limits

Compliance with Regulations and Replacing Coal Generation with Natural Gas and Renewables led to Massive Decreases in SO2 and NOx Power Plant Emissions Over the Last 20 Years (1997-2017) – and Coming Reductions in Marine Fuel Sulfur Limits

The EIA just released a 20-year analysis (1997-2017) of SO2 and NOx emissions from power plants. 1997 was the year that emissions of both of these pollutants peaked. The two main reasons for the decrease are compliance with environmental regulations and switching from burning coal to burning natural gas and renewables for electric power generation. Increases in efficiency is another factor in the redcutions. The regs responsible for the decrease are the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). CAIR was replaced in 2015 with the similar Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). These were federal regulations that required scrubbers to remove SO2 and other pollutants. These reductions in pollutants are clear regulatory successes that have aided human well-being and demonstrate that pollution reduction is achievable and is a public good. In the second part of the time period coal-fired generation dropped from a high of 2016 million MWh in 2007 to 1206 million MWh in 2017. Thus, it looks like the drop in SO2 and NOx from 2007 to 2017 is mostly a result of natural gas (and to a much lesser extent renewables) replacing coal in power generation with some improvements still coming from pollution abatement of coal plants. The coal-heavy Midwestern, Appalachian, and Southeastern states have benefitted the most in improved air quality. Texas also saw significant reductions. Burning natural gas produces very low amounts of NOx relative to coal and fuel oil and virtually no SO2. However, some of each pollutant is emitted in the production phase of natural gas mostly due to the use of diesel fuel in upstream operations. Renewables are, of course, the least emitting source of these pollutants among power production. 

Soon to be Implemented Marine Fuel Sulfur Limits in Open Seas

Another issue involving the reduction of SO2 worldwide will be coming limits to marine fuel sulfur which produces SO2. SO2 has been problematic in acid-rain production in the U.S. Northeast, Canada, Northern Europe, and other places. Since marine fuel is currently mostly high-sulfur diesel this will spur changes in the oil refining sector where de-sulfurization of fuels and utilizing lower-sulfur crude oils will occur. It will also likely increase the use of LNG for ships as a very low-sulfur alternative. Ships will also have the option of installing scrubbers and while that may save them money in the short-term it may be more costly later if tighter restrictions occur in the future. The standards are set by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a 171-member state UN agency. The regs for sulfur content by percent weight in marine fuels for open seas are set to drop from the current 3.5% to 0.5% by 2020. This is a big drop. These reductions will also reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) and other pollutants. It is uncertain whether they will affect shipping costs at this point, but it seems likely they will increase costs at east for a while. However, quite a few coastal areas deemed Emission Control Areas have already dropped emissions from 1% to 0.1% in line with previous IMO rules. This has mostly been in North American and European coasts with a few Chinese and African coasts as well. If the new rules cause refiners to devote more capacity to distillates for the bunker fuel (marine) market then that could affect availability and price of distillates which are already in high-demand for the trucking and heavy equipment markets.

References:

Changes in Coal Sector Led to Less SO2 and NOx Emissions from Electric Power Industry – by Cara Marcy (principal contributor), in Energy Information Administration (EIA), Today In Energy, Dec. 11, 2018

Coming Changes in Marine Fuel Sulfur Limits Will Affect Global Oil Markets – by Mason Hamilton (principal contributor) in Energy Information Administration (EIA), Today In Energy, Dec. 14, 2018