Current Energy Storage Issues: 1) Batteries Replacing Gas Peakers: Short-Duration
Batteries Successfully Replacing Some Natural Gas Peaker Plants in California
and the Potential for Batteries to Replace Peaker Plants
While a fair amount of solar and wind generation can now
compete economically with some coal generation in some areas, especially with
subsidies, not much can compete with natural gas. The exception is batteries
competing with natural gas peaker plants to back-up wind and solar. These gas
peaker plants require fast and frequent start-ups and idle-downs which put some
wear-and-tear on them. They also run only occasionally to handle demand peaks
during low generation times of wind and/or solar. Thus, they are fated to run
inefficiently and for short periods. This makes the economics of building them generally
poor. In reality, they should be considered a part of the intermittent
renewables system since they really mainly exist to back the wind and solar
responsible for most of the demand peaks due to their intermittency. Thus, when
a headline says batteries are out-pricing natural gas, often what they really
mean is that batteries can be a cheaper back-up for renewables than a small
natural gas plant that is forced to run hard (frequent starts and stops) and
very inefficiently (often less than 10% of the time – one recent estimate is
that gas peaker plants will run only 5-6% of the time this decade). Thus, it is
predicted that eventually batteries and other energy storage will routinely out-price
gas peakers. Gas peaker plants are also expensive for rate payers due to the
high cost of building them combined with their low usage. Their main job is to
prevent blackouts. This might be seen as one of the “low-hanging fruits” of economically
viable decarbonization, especially if prices continue to drop. Overall, storage
is growing globally as well as in the U.S., even more than predicted a few
years ago. However, it should be noted that short-duration batteries cannot at
present even come close to replacing baseload combined-cycle natural gas
plants.
Whether a storage project will be economic depends on the project
criteria. If a demand peak is temporary and in a predictable range of both
intensity and timing, then the less expensive short-duration battery could be
the most economic solution. It would take less energy to charge as well. This
is what has happened in at least one case in California. Even so, short-duration
batteries can only deliver power for a short period of time. Predictions are
that 8-10 hour storage can replace 74-97% of gas peakers with most of the
opportunities in California, Arizona, and Texas. For peaking requirements
longer than 8 hours gas peakers will remain the better choice economically for
some time to come.
4-Hour Lithium Storage Outbids Natural Gas for Peak Demand in
California Project
Batteries, like gas peaker plants (more or less), can
dispatch on command. One advantage they have over gas peakers is that they can
be built in urban areas not practical for a thermal plant. That is the case in
a new 20 MW, 80MWh 4-hour short-duration battery plant planned for downtown Oakland
that will replace a decades-old jet-fuel-burning-peaker. Another advantage of
these batteries over gas peakers is that they can also participate in some grid
activities during non-demand peak times which helps to defray their investment
costs. There are probably many other opportunities for 4-hr and 6-hr batteries
to replace peakers. Some energy utility execs predict that such short-duration
battery plant projects will become quite popular through the 2020’s and perhaps
get California to their goal of 60% renewable energy by 2030. After that, however,
the economics don’t look as good as longer duration energy dispatching will be
needed. Longer duration storage options include pumped hydro, compressed air,
and cryogenic storage but their economics have not been improving like lithium
battery storage which continues to benefit from economies of scale. The Oakland
project is spearheaded by community-choice aggregators (CCAs) who also have
planned solar generation plants. CCAs have managed to cut into the power
procurements of investor-owned utilities (IOUs) helped by California regulator requirements.
The Oakland battery plant is expected to come online in 2022 and decrease
particulate pollution in the vicinity (although due to its quite low run times
the pollution is intermittent).
Other Significant Projects Incorporating Renewables and
Short-Duration Storage
A planned project to extend the evening loss of solar
generation by 4 hours with the battery being charged by the excess solar
generation is a proposed solar plus storage project in LA. Such projects allow
solar to be somewhat dispatchable. The battery can be run on full power for 4
hours or say on ¼ power for 16 hours, depending on power needs. The project has
been bidded very low, under $2 per KWh. While the Forbes article referenced
below suggests it “crushes” fossil fuels and “buries” nuclear, that is a bit misleading
as the storage part would still require additional resources (likely gas) to
power the non-generation time period.
NextEra Resources recently announced a triple hybrid plant
incorporating wind, solar and storage. It is the largest such proposed plant in
the US and is expected to be fully functional by the end of 2023. This is in
Oklahoma in combination with the Western Farmers Electric Cooperative. It
includes 250MW of wind capacity which should be built and online now, 250MW of
solar, and 200MW/ 800MWh of storage. This is much larger than the other big
NextEra triple hybrid project with Portland General Electric (300MW wind, 50MW
solar, and 30MW/120MWh storage) scheduled to be online by the end of 2021. The
economics of these projects are competitive with gas peakers, particularly with
government subsidies. It is unclear how the recent lessening/loss of the
federal solar and storage subsidies will affect these projects. However, state
renewable energy credits are not a part of the Oklahoma project. Of course,
Oklahoma has a better solar resource than Oregon and so the wind/solar balance
is better in Oklahoma. The complementary timing is better too – ie. wind tends
to pick up at night when solar is down. The Oklahoma project will be the second
largest such project in the world. That project is also aided by the investment
by an electric cooperative which has less duty to investors and less of a profit
motive. They can also “brag” about their portfolio capacity of renewables – the
Oklahoma case it brings them to 50% renewable in terms of nameplate capacity
(which is also misleading since solar and wind are far less efficient compared
to fossil resources – ie. generally half as efficient for wind and between a
third and a quarter for solar if the fossil resource is run at near full
capacity – which is less common for coal plants due to better pricing for gas as
some baseload coal plants are running at near half capacity though they were designed
to run at full capacity which is a capacity factor of about 80%).
Storage Market Dynamics
Storage projects are becoming more profitable. As mentioned
above the Oklahoma project does not need any state incentives. Costs for utility-scale
battery storage continue to drop. The advantages of batteries are instant
on/off, ease of placement, no pollution, and perhaps most important to provide
ancillary services. If needed and available, battery energy can be sold in
energy markets, utilized for frequency regulation, and participate in some capacity
markets. Another potential revenue stream can be gained if the battery sources
are outfitted with sophisticated energy management software so they can be
automated in an optimized way. To do this requires detailed modeling of the system
and its needs as well as access to capacity markets and predictable supply and
deliverability. Another advantage of automated controls by sophisticated energy
management software is enabling the fast response times needed for frequency
regulation.
References:
What Comes Next After Batteries Replace Gas Peakers – by Julian Spector,
in GreenTech Media, July 1, 2019
Just How Much Business Can Batteries Take from Gas Peakers – by Julian
Spector, May 16, 2018
Oakland to Swap Jet-Fuel-Burning Peaker Plant for Urban Battery – by
Julian Spector, in GreenTech Media, June 26, 2019
New Solar + Battery Price Crushes Fossil Fuels, Buries Nuclear – by
Jeff McMahon, in Forbes, July 1, 2019
‘Cheaper Than a Peaker’: NextEra Inks Massive Wind+Solar+Storage Deal
in Oklahoma – by Julian Spector, in GreenTech Media, July 25, 2019
From Science Project to Money Maker: Energy Storage Hits Inflection
Point – by GTM Creative Strategies, Sept. 23, 2019
Coal Plants Increasingly Operate As Cyclical, Load Following Power,
Leading to Inefficiencies, Costs: NARUC – by Catherine Morehouse, in Utility
Dive Jan 20, 2020
Ending Tax Credit Subsidies for Solar Energy, Electric Vehicles, and
Energy Storage is a Bad Idea
Congressional Democrats just agreed to Trump’s new budget
that ends federal tax credit subsidies to solar installations and to buyers of
electric vehicles. Aside from the obvious detriments to the energy transition
to lower carbon sources of energy there are several other detriments. These include
detriments to solar companies from component manufacturers to installers and all
the automakers building electric vehicle and those supplying parts. Ford just
announced plans to build new facilities and hire many in Dearborn, Michigan, in
part to build EVs. The new rule might affect the EV plans.
A clear and strong majority of climate scientists say an energy
transition to lower carbon sources is necessary and most call for an accelerated
transition to stay within precited emissions limits. This combined action of Congress
and the Trump administration could only be considered a deceleration. It may
even erode emissions commitments around the world and unravel the COP29 Paris
Accords, if other countries follow suit. One might argue that the accord is
already unraveling (perhaps partially due to the U.S. pull-out) as many countries
have so far failed to adhere to their stated planned reductions.
Statistics show, quite obviously, that when subsidies go down
market share goes down for these industries and installations goes down. The
subsidies are still needed to ensure profitability and keep industries healthy
and innovative, industries that will very likely be needed far into the future.
According to research firm Rhodium Group the rollback of the
tax credits is predicted to result in 125 million tons of added greenhouse gas
emissions by 2025. There was a one-year extension of the wind energy tax credit
that was set to expire at the first of the year.
With talk earlier in the year of a Green New Deal, a super-massive
governmental financial commitment to clean energy development it seemed as if a
continuation of the solar and EV subsidies would be relatively assured but
apparently that is not the case. So instead of adding to clean energy
development the government is taking away from it. It appears we went from one
extreme to the other. The Trump administration has already modestly cut renewable
energy research.
Will the cutting of these subsidies affect state, city, and
regional plans for greenhouse gas reductions and clean energy mandates? No
doubt. Several states have made pledges and laws to transition to 100% clean
energy in certain time periods. Such transitioning will be slowed by the
pulling of federal tax credits.
For the consumer interested in purchasing an EV, whether full
or hybrid, or a solar energy system, the non-extension of the subsidies is a
deal-breaker, although for solar it is a 3-year phase out so the slow-down will
be more gradual. EVs and solar are questionably economic with subsidies and
clearly uneconomic without them. Although, it is true that at the consumer
level such subsidies predominantly end up benefitting those that can afford
them, the upper and middle classes, they are still useful. If they were to be
expanded the benefits could reach further to help the poorer consumers.
Accelerated ice loss in the Arctic, historic heat and catastrophic
fires in Australia, a warm winter so far in the U.S. Midwest, and other
indicators suggest global warming’s influence, despite the detractor’s claims
about the pause or hiatus in warming as indicated by satellite data. Some climate
scientists are saying the satellite data is incorrect and needs adjusted to
match abundant surface data that clearly shows warming. I have yet to read the
arguments but if that is true then the evidence for global warming just got a
huge boost. Significant warming in the Arctic is indisputable. Of course, the
Trump administration is banking on global warming not actually occurring and so
by that logic there would be no need to advantage clean energy sources.
Environmentalists applauded the guidance in the budget that suggests
that federal loan guarantees for fracking related plastics production and
ethane storage in Appalachia may not be provided. However, eventually they may
be. Plastic made from cheap available ethane is both cheaper and better for the
environment than plastic made from petroleum.
The budget also included money to shore up pensions for coal
miners in a strongly contracting industry beset by bankruptcies. While that is
good, other means to shore up a clearly dying industry are sure to end up being
wasted money, especially those that mainly help the upper management of the
industry. The coal industry will continue to be beset with costs such as
helping black lung victims (whose federal benefits have been extended for a
mere one year) and decommissioning and clean-up of mining sites. Efforts by
former Energy Secretary Rick Perry to help the coal industry from the federal
level have largely failed due to inadequate arguments or demonstration of the benefits
of such action. However, some states have managed to help coal. Here in Ohio,
the state mandated subsidizing two coal plants which will be paid for by
electricity rate-payers, ie. us. Cheap natural gas continues to limit coal
burning. The recent FERC decision to counteract renewables integration into the
PJM regional power system by subsidizing coal and natural gas bids in the
capacity market is also a way to favor fossil fuels over renewables, especially
where states have mandated renewables ramping. Advocates say it makes
competition fairer, but detractors say it denies the need for an energy
transition. It is debatable but a middle ground would be to favor natural gas a
little but not coal. There has been no demonstrable need for coal stocking
except for very cold periods where natural gas infrastructure is inadequate to
supply certain areas.
References:
Clean Energy Loses Out in Congress’s Last-Minute Budget Deal – by James
Bruggers and Marianne Lavelle, in Inside Climate News, Dec. 20, 2019
Energy Regulator’s Order Could Boost Coal Over Renewables, Raising
Costs for Consumers – by Dan Gearino, in Inside Climate News, Dec. 20, 2019
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?
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
