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 2nd in emissions to China and soon will be third as India takes 2nd 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
