A guest post by Roy. W. Spencer
While a politician might be faulted for pushing a particular agenda that serves his own purposes, who can fault the impartial scientist who warns us of an imminent global-warming Armageddon? After all, the practice of science is an unbiased search for the truth, right? The scientists have spoken on global warming. There is no more debate. But let me play devil’s advocate. Just how good is the science underpinning the theory of manmade global warming? My answer might surprise you: it is 10 miles wide, but only 2 inches deep.
Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth – not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility. For instance, the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness. What might have caused such a change? Well, one possibility is the sudden shift to more frequent El Niño events (and fewer La Niña events) since the 1970s. That shift also coincided with a change in another climate index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
The associated warming in Alaska was sudden, and at the same time we just happened to start satellite monitoring of Arctic sea ice. Coincidences do happen, you know…that’s why we have a word for them.
We make a big deal out of the “unprecedented” 2007 opening of the Northwest Passage as summertime sea ice in the Arctic Ocean gradually receded, yet the very warm 1930s in the Arctic also led to the Passage opening in the 1940s. Of course, we had no satellites to measure the sea ice back then.
So, since we cannot explore the possibility of a natural source for some of our warming, due to a lack of data, scientists instead explore what we have measured: manmade greenhouse gas emissions. And after making some important assumptions about how clouds and water vapor (the main greenhouse components of the atmosphere) respond to the extra carbon dioxide, scientists can explain all of the recent warming.
Never mind that there is some evidence indicating that it was just as warm during the Medieval Warm Period. While climate change used to be natural, apparently now it is entirely manmade. But a few of us out there in the climate research community are rattling our cages. In the August 2007 Geophysical Research Letters, my colleagues and I published some satellite evidence for a natural cooling mechanism in the tropics that was not thought to exist. Called the “Infrared Iris” effect, it was originally hypothesized by Prof. Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
By analyzing six years of data from a variety of satellites and satellite sensors, we found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up due to enhanced rainfall activity, the rain systems there produce less cirrus cloudiness, allowing more infrared energy to escape to space. The combination of enhanced solar reflection and infrared cooling by the rain systems was so strong that, if such a mechanism is acting upon the warming tendency from increasing carbon dioxide, it will reduce manmade global warming by the end of this century to a small fraction of a degree. Our results suggest a “low sensitivity” for the climate system.
What, you might wonder, has been the media and science community response to our work? Absolute silence. No doubt the few scientists who are aware of it consider it interesting, but not relevant to global warming. You see, only the evidence that supports the theory of manmade global warming is relevant these days.
The behavior we observed in the real climate system is exactly opposite to how computerized climate models that predict substantial global warming have been programmed to behave. We are still waiting to see if any of those models are adjusted to behave like the real climate system in this regard.
And our evidence against a “sensitive” climate system does not end there. In another study (conditionally accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate) we show that previously published evidence for a sensitive climate system is partly due to a misinterpretation of our observations of climate variability. For example, when low cloud cover is observed to decrease with warming, this has been interpreted as the clouds responding to the warming in such a way that then amplifies it. This is called “positive feedback,” which translates into high climate sensitivity.
But what if the decrease in low clouds were the cause, rather than the effect, of the warming? While this might sound like too simple a mistake to make, it is surprisingly difficult to separate cause and effect in the climate system. And it turns out that any such non-feedback process that causes a temperature change will always look like positive feedback. Something as simple as daily random cloud variations can cause long-term temperature variability that looks like positive feedback, even if in reality there is negative feedback operating.
The fact is that so much money and effort have gone into the theory that mankind is 100 percent responsible for climate change that it now seems too late to turn back. Entire careers (including my own) depend upon the threat of global warming. Politicians have also jumped aboard the Global Warming Express, and this train has no brakes.
While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of manmade global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests.
About the only thing that might cause global warming hysteria to end will be a prolonged period of cooling…or at least, very little warming. We have now had at least six years without warming, and no one really knows what the future will bring. And if warming does indeed end, I predict that there will be no announcement from the scientific community that they were wrong. There will simply be silence. The issue will slowly die away as Congress reduces funding for climate change research.
Oh, there will still be some diehards who will continue to claim that warming will resume at any time. And many will believe them. Some folks will always view our world as a fragile, precariously balanced system rather than a dynamic, resilient one. In such a world-view, any manmade disturbance is by definition bad. Forests can change our climate, but people aren’t allowed to.
It is unfortunate that our next generation of researchers and teachers is being taught to trust emotions over empirical evidence. Polar bears are much more exciting than the careful analysis of data. Social and political ends increasingly trump all other considerations. Science that is not politically correct is becoming increasingly difficult to publish. Even science reporting has become more sensationalist in recent years.
I am not claiming that all of our recent warming is natural. But the extreme reluctance for most scientists to even entertain the possibility that some of it might be natural suggests to me that climate research has become corrupted. I fear that the sloppy practice of climate change science will damage our discipline for a long time to come.
Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. His book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, will be published this month.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here’s an attempt
Global Warming Theory Found to be a Load of Hooey
Experts have now told us that the theory that CO2 is warming up the planet is in fact untrue. There is no correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures. All the phenomena that we have seen recently fit within the limits of normal natural variability and have been seen many times before. The Polar Bears and Penguins are quite safe !
And now back to our top story, the cat stuck up a tree. Was it the result of a police car chase gone wrong ?
I can fit it into a minute. (The trouble comes with getting it on the news.)
Raven: In other words, we should not sacrifice economic growth in the name of reducing CO2 emissions.
I’m not saying we should. What I’m saying is that with a little up-front investment, alternative fuel sources could become as cheap, maybe even cheaper than fossil fuel sources. You say Perth, Austrialia has recently committed to building a very expensive desalinization facility powered by wind turbines. What makes it expensive? Is it the desalination, or is it the wind turbines?
One thing that’s a little difficult about discussions of this nature is that data on “levelized costs” (i.e., the cost of building, maintaining, and operating a plant) are difficult to come by for any technology. And those that are often come from different sources, calculated for different points in time, making somewhat different assumptions, and whether base load or dispatchable sources are key. So basically, the best you can do is ball-park the numbers. That said, this study provides some comparisons as they existed circa 2006. Characteristics and costs of the most common renewable energy applications are shown in Table 1. They estimate the cost of conventional fuels (coal or gas) to be in the range 4–8 cents per kilowatt-hour(kWh) for base-level loads (which is typical), more for dispatchable loads. Using those figures for comparison, hydroelectric, on-shore wind, and geothermal are already competitive. Concentrated solar thermal (CSP) is higher at 12-18 cents/kWh, but it basically didn’t exist at the time of the study. CSP is also best considered a dispatchable resource (at least until the definition of “peak” and “off-peak” loads change, which could very well happen before long). Interest in CSP is exploding out here in the southwest, and it has attracted several manufacturers. So I think you’ll see those costs drop pretty quickly.
At any rate, this is basically what I’m talking about. I think there’s every reason to believe that several different kinds of renewable energy sources have very real potential to come in under coal and natural gas. And when they do, the patents associated with key techniques could be worth their weight in gold.
Evan said, “Technology must fit in with wealth creation, not be pursued at the expense of wealth creation. If a technological solution is found that will replace coal and oil without a hideous loss of wealth (biolfuels providing the poster-child example), then the market will carry it forward without any coersive laws whatever.”
I agree with that, but with reservations on the last phrase: “then the market will carry it forward without any coersive laws whatever.” On the one hand, I think it’s very true that the market will eventually take care of itself. On the other hand, proper policy can make that happen much faster than it otherwise would. I wouldn’t call that coercive. Besides, the fossil fuel industry itself has benefitted from many billions of dollars in government subsidies for years. At the recent Eco:nomics conference Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE made some interesting observations. He pointed out, “There are no completely free markets. The government has its hand in every industry: Housing has mortgage tax credits; GE got into commercial aviation because the DOD helped fund it; in healthcare there’s Medicare and Medicaid and the NIH, researching and funding new drugs. Only in energy, for some reason, we’ve decided that the only regulation will be the price of a barrel of oil. That’s crazy!” He also said, “In healthcare, 8% of revenue gets cycled back into R&D. In energy, it’s less than 2%. That’s a $50b difference. The Chinese are all over this and they’re going to kick our asses.”
And if not the Chinese, then someone else will. IMO, that would be a shame. This is the kind of innovative thing America has traditionally been best at. And what Immelt said about government involvement is true. There are no completely free markets. For every bad poster-child example (e.g., ethanol) there are several good ones — the human genome project, microchip and silicon wafer R&D, development of the internet… Perhaps it’s also worth pointing out that of the 100 or so nuclear plants currently operating in the US, not one — not a single one — was built without government subsidies. Ditto every single major hydroelectric project.
Evan indicated that if the fossil fuel industry had not been strangled by regulation, fuel would be cheaper in real dollars today than it was twenty years ago, when prices were at rock-bottom. I think that needs some documentation, because it pretty much flies in the face of everything I’ve read anywhere for the last couple of years. What sort of costs are you talking about? Are you talking about the costs of extraction or the costs of use? Are you talking about petroleum or coal or natural gas or all three? And can we assume that regulations requiring sources of fossil fuel combustion to mitigate the amounts of particulates, sulfur compounds, lead, mercury, and other heavy metals are excluded from consideration?
There seems to be a common assumption underlying many, perhaps even most, of the posts here that fossil fuels are the cheapest available and always will be. The first part is certainly true — they are the cheapest now. But that’s already becoming less so. And I seriously doubt it will always be. IMO, we can either invest now or pay later. To reiterate what I said in an earlier post, in order to rationaliZe doing nothing to incentivize the development of renewable fuels one has to assume all three of the following: (a) GHGs don’t matter, (b) any attempt at technological innovation will be too expensive and thus “wealth draining”, and (c) the current turmoil in the Middle East, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, and elsewhere will all subside quickly. I would like to add one more consideration that I neglected the first time around: (d) fossil fuel supplies will keep pace with demand. My guess is… at least one of those four things will prove to be incorrect.
In the last few comments there has arisen the notion that the essential arguments should fit on a filecard. Okay fine. Here’s what my file card argument is: “It’s the technology, stupid.” (I mean to paraphrase James Carville in saying that, not to call anyone stupid).
I think that needs some documentation, because it pretty much flies in the face of everything I’ve read anywhere for the last couple of years. What sort of costs are you talking about?
Restrictions on exploration, overrestrictions on the construction of refineries. It was so easy to pass those restrictions when things were cheaper. But now demand is up, and those restrictions are coming back to bite us. Meanwhile China and Cuba are drilling off our coasts. I’m not saying they shouldn’t. I’m saying we should. (And on the North Slope.)
And I wonder what would happen if the stupid taxes and restrictions were removed from the industry and “corporate welfare” ended? Would the prce of gas go, up or down? Retain only what laws are actually necessary to protect the public and the environment and let the free market handle the rest.
And to heck with government “direction”. No va. A centralized economy is for the ants. I bet we’d switch over from fossil fuels a heck of a lot faster if the government keeps it’s pointy nose out of it. US energy policy has become a great destroyer of wealth.
And can we assume that regulations requiring sources of fossil fuel combustion to mitigate the amounts of particulates, sulfur compounds, lead, mercury, and other heavy metals are excluded from consideration?
Yes. Paying for reasonable (sic) cleanup is a legit part of the cost.
There seems to be a common assumption underlying many, perhaps even most, of the posts here that fossil fuels are the cheapest available and always will be.
They will be util they aren’t. Then they won’t be. That way energy will remain cheap until it becomes . . . even cheaper.
Let the market decide.
GO CHARGERS!
They will be util they aren’t. Then they won’t be. That way energy will remain cheap until it becomes . . . even cheaper.
The problem is, many of the decisions made now will have repercussions for decades. There are certainly risks associated with attempting to plan ahead. But they have to be weighed against the risks associated with not attempting to as well. Different options have different cost structures. Some are far more front-loaded than others, which is to say some alternatives require considerable capital investment to build but are cheap to operate and maintain. With others it’s the reverse. Many “clean” alternatives (including nuclear) fall into the former category while coal and gas-fired alternatives fall into the latter. That makes planning rather difficult even under the best case scenario. But it is made even more difficult because of the business model upon which many utilities operate — a model which is supported by antiquated legislation. Unfortunately, any fair treatise on that point wouldn’t fit on a filecard.
One observation that might, though, is this: you and I appear to be inclined toward fundamentally different approaches to the problem. We might quibble about how to phrase them, but I would say yours relies more on retroactive responses whereas mine relies more on proactive ones. And maybe it’s just me, but I’m inclined to believe that the proactive approach is what has made America great. Technological innovation is what we are known for throughout the world. To the extent that we turn our back on that, we do so at our peril.
Rico says:
“I’m not saying we should. What I’m saying is that with a little up-front investment, alternative fuel sources could become as cheap, maybe even cheaper than fossil fuel sources.”
I have no issue with R&D and agree that renewables are the only long term solution.
I only have an issue when people advocate policies designed to increase the cost of conventional energy sources in order to subsidize alternative energy sources. Such schemes will always fail because the alternative energy providers will become addicted to subsidies and the average person will end up losing in the end.
The price of enegry will rise on it own in the next few decades. There will provide all of the necessary market incentives.
The problem is, many of the decisions made now will have repercussions for decades.
You can say that again!
And well meaning but wrongheaded government-sponsored decisions are the very worst. They do by far the most damage and are the hardest to reverse.
There are certainly risks associated with attempting to plan ahead. But they have to be weighed against the risks associated with not attempting to as well.
The govenment has a woefully bad record at it. Let the private sector do the walking. If the government had been in charge of converting from coal to oil we’d probably be driving Stanley Steamers around now.
Look, if the government could actually turn the trick, i’d be the biggest socialist on the block. But it can’t, see? As a liberal, I have to consider the historical record.
One observation that might, though, is this: you and I appear to be inclined toward fundamentally different approaches to the problem. We might quibble about how to phrase them, but I would say yours relies more on retroactive responses whereas mine relies more on proactive ones.
They differ only partly, but not fundamentally. On the one hand, what works, works. And the poorest countries of the world have to rich up quick. The quicker the better. (I think we both agree on that goal.) They can’t afford the same sort of gambles that we in the West can.
OTOH, I have huge faith in the future of technology. And I have no probelm whatever with a proactive response; I encourage and rely on procativity. But I don’t want the government to do it. With relatively few exceptions, I want the private sector to do it. And what the government needs done, I want to see the private sector do.
Let the government govern. That’s what it’s for. But let the free market do the marketing, for heaven’s sake.
The price of enegry will rise on its own in the next few decades. There will provide all of the necessary market incentives.
Only if we do it wrong (or are prevented by the government from doing it right). If the price rise is related to the actual difficulties of acquiring the energy, then at least it would be a necessary cost. But if it is because government is “drinking up our milkshake”, then kiss the incentive (and the difference in wealth) goodbye.
Let the private sector do it. Without the government hanging onto its coattails. You seem more than willing to play a part in it. I encourage that. It’s the proactivity of the private sector that made America great, not the procativity of big government.
It doesn’t take much to be sloppy. It was Spencer himself who recently presented some “sloppy science” onthe CO2 cycle.
Absoultely! As it stands now in the US, states and the Fed get more money from the sale of a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies. We’re paying at least twice as much as we “should” be because of taxation.
The only problem I see here is corruption. Seems most “third world” countries are so rife with corruption that nothing really useful gets done.
Evan, I think it might be time for you to elucidate how you plan to have the poorest countries of the world rich up quick. It seems to me that, among other things, it requires a substantial increase in energy use. So if you rely on traditional sources you have to likewise substantially increase the supplies, and make them available in a cost-effective manner. And I don’t see that happening. I don’t see how it could. A recent comprehensive report on the status of renewable energy indicates that renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and small-scale hydropower offer countries the means to improve their energy security and spur economic development. The future doesn’t lie in oil, gas, and coal. Even China and India are realizing that. China, for example, is spending big bucks on solar technologies (they aim to become a main supplier of polysilicon in the next few years — and wind, too. And nuclear. As the last article indicates, “Oil prices are over $100 thanks largely to demand, not supply problems. China’s switch to net coal importer has hammered global coal prices. It’s thirst for natural gas is already doing the same. And that will only intensify, as Chinese firms are looking everywhere from Qatar to Iran for new supplies, while Chinese shippers are spending billions to expand their LNG fleets.
I don’t know what you guys are reading, but everything I read is largely consistent with the things expressed above: prices of oil, gas, and coal will continue to go up because demand is out-stripping supply. And it seems to me that China’s response to the situation makes a great deal of sense, which is to say… get out in front and diversify PDQ. If we don’t do the same they really will kick our ass.
You seem to think that any “government sponsored decision” will necessarily be wrong-headed, however well-meaning. But I don’t see it that way. There are multitudes of examples where “government sponsored decisions” were very beneficial to the economy. I mentioned several of them. In the Stanley Steamer vein, the federal government spent huge sums of money developing the interstate highway system. Do you mean to tell me that was wrong-headed? Every single major hydroelectric project required significant government investment. Every single nuclear power plant did, too. If you want to drill in ANWR (which I think it a good idea, by the way), do you really think the entire project will be privately funded? If it is, it would be a first.
Down along the Mexican border we’re building hundreds of miles of walls. Who’s paying for that? It sure isn’t private industry. If anything, private industry wants more immigrants, illegal or otherwise. But is that wrong-headed? The government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on military technologies. Is that wrong-headed? Maybe one could argue those things aren’t because they deal with national security issues. That was the argument used to “market” the interstate highway system, too. I’d say energy has significant national security implications as well.
On the theme of saving money while also burning less fossil fuels there’s this: According to a study sponsored by the American Lung Association of California, $142 billion in human health and global warming reduction benefits would result from converting the entire California motor vehicle fleet from gasoline vehicles to zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) technologies in the 2010-2030 time frame, or $96 billion more than relying on the lowest emitting gasoline technologies. The $142 billion figure includes $38 billion in benefits to society from reduced global warming emissions. This study illustrates that burning fossil fuels has other impacts besides CO2 emissions. The stuff just isn’t good for your health. And coal is the worst.
And there’s this: MGI research suggests that the economics of investing in energy productivity—the level of output we achieve from the energy we consume—are very attractive. With an average internal rate of return of 17 percent, such investments would generate energy savings ramping up to $900 billion annually by 2020. Energy productivity is also the most cost-effective way to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). Capturing the energy productivity opportunity could deliver up to half of the abatement of global GHG required to cap the long-term concentration of GHG in the atmosphere to 450-550 parts per million—a level experts say will be necessary to prevent the mean temperature from increasing by more than two degrees centigrade. Moreover, the opportunities to boost energy productivity use existing technologies that pay for themselves and therefore free up resources for investment or consumption elsewhere.
What the MGI study indicates is underscored by this report of the DOE assisting a Chrysler vehicle assembly plant improve its energy efficiency:After applying these measures, the complex achieved total annual energy savings of more than 70,000 MMBtu and annual energy cost savings of around $627,000. With total implementation costs of $125,000, the simple payback was just over 2 months. A total outlay of $125,000 to save themselves $627,000/yr for years. That’s nothing short of amazing. And it really does illustrate how seriously undervalued attention to energy efficiency has been.
The “rush to wind power” is not a bad deal at this point. Distributed wind can supply base load at 20% of rated capacity. No bad when you consider that wind turbines supply 33% of their rated capacity on average.
Not only that we know the learning curve. Cost of wind declines by 1/3 for every doubling of turbine size. We have at least 2 more doublings to go before we run into technological limits. Right now wind is cheaper than natural gas and the best sites compete with coal even steven.
BTW the USA is the Saudi Arabia of wind. We have enough potential to supply all our electrical needs with wind.
Really. The anti-AAGW folks (I’m one – the first A stands for alarmist) generally do not know enough about wind technology.
M. Simon (07:23:04): Do you have something that we could read about wind? In terms of capacity, I’ve heard the same thing about solar (particularly solar thermal/CSP). There are several reports out there, but I found this one to be the most thorough with regard to the whole economics and how they relate to distributed load requirements. The caveat is that it was written by the CEO of Ausra, a CSP manufacturer. At any rate, I think some combination of wind, solar, and geothermal (no sense in putting one’s eggs all in one basket) very well could supply all of our grid energy needs. They can be built quickly, too — unlike, say, nuclear — assuming there are no bottlenecks in policy and permitting, infrastructure and workforce development. Fat chance that though.
On the transportation fuels front, here’s a very interesting bit of news: PetroSun, Inc announced they will commence operation of their first commercial scale algae-to-biofuels facility on April 1. As far as I know, it’s not just their first, but the first commercial scale algal biofuels plant anywhere. So it’s big news. They project they can produce a minimum of 4.4 million gallons of algal oil and 110 million pounds of biomass on an annual basis. 4.4 million gallons/yr isn’t much, but it’s a start. They plan to establish additional algae farms and algal oil extraction plants in Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, Mexico, Brazil and Australia during 2008. I guess we’ll see.
Alternative energies are great, Rico. No one has ever said otherwise. But, they must be able to compete with traditional fuels
in a cost/benefit analysis as a supposed benefit, which it most certainly isn’t. In fact, C02, with it’s beneficial effect on plant growth should actually go in the benefits column.
What I meant to say was: but, they must be able to compete with traditional fuels in a cost/benefit analysis without C02 reduction as a supposed benefit, which it most certainly isn’t.
Bruce Cobb (11:10:23): What I meant to say was: but, they must be able to compete with traditional fuels in a cost/benefit analysis without C02 reduction as a supposed benefit, which it most certainly isn’t.
I don’t share your certainty on the last part. Although I said previously that I don’t give a rat’s ass about the climate science, I exaggerated. What I meant was that I don’t think it matters in order to make a compelling case for renewables (and conservation) on a cost-benefit level. So let’s ignore CO2 for the sake of argument. Let’s talk about the health effects of burning fossil fuels. In a previous post I mentioned a recent study by the American Lung Association of California indicating the health (and thus economic) benefits of eliminating fossil fuel-propelled vehicles. Should we ignore that while preparing our balance sheet? That’s one of those “external costs” that rarely ever get figured into even the most thorough life cycle analysis of any fuel source. But according to the Lung Association study it reaches over a hundred billion of dollars over a 20 year span on health costs alone — in California alone. That’s not chump change. Okay, compared to the Iraq war it is, but according to most other metrics it isn’t. And by the way (and somewhat surprisingly), in terms of “traditional” (i.e., non-GHG) emissions per capita, California is second lowest of all the states. Should the oil, gas, and coal industries pay for that? If not, why not? If so, how?
Now let’s ignore the health costs AND CO2 and just concentrate on internals — i.e., how much it costs to build and operate a utility plant. Gas and coal plants are certainly the cheapest to build — right now anyway. In fact, in general, they’re quite a bit cheaper right now (that’s not exactly true, but let’s assume thta for simplicity). But approximately 60% of the cost of operating one (in 2004 anyway) is the cost of the fuel. Thus, as prices fluctuate, so does the cost of operation. According to this article, coal prices went up 73% in 2007, and is expected to double again this year. That’s “at mouth” prices (i.e., the price when it leaves the mine). Then you have to transport it. And those costs are exploding too. Then there’s the cost of burning it. And it is on that last level, and essentially on that level alone I think, where Evan’s, and others, comments about the potential “wrongheaded” effects of government policy come in. I’m sensitive to that. But I can’t figure out a way to fairly explain what I mean on a notecard, so I’ll leave it for another rant.
On the other hand, though wind, solar, or geothermal plants (nuclear too) are more expensive to build, their operating and maintenance costs are low (a little higher for wind maybe, but not that much). So basically once such a plant goes on line you’ve essentially locked in your rate throughout the lifetime of the plant. That’s the benefit, and it’s an important one. But it makes comparisons based on estimations of “levelized costs” very tricky, because the levelized cost estimate of a gas or coal-fired plant is based on the price of the commodity at least a couple of years in the past rather than upon estimates of future fuel prices. Thus, the levelized cost of such a plant is always based on past commodity prices. But really, how realistic is that? Remember, whatever choice you make now has to stand for at least 40 years — unless it becomes apparent in the mean time your choice really sucked and you pull the plug and accept your losses. Again, Inspector Callahan’s question comes to mind: how lucky do you feel?
That difference in cost structure is one factor contributing to what I mean by, “you either pay now or pay later”. But as M. Simon indicated, wind technology in particular (situated on shore in a category 4 or above location) is already competitive with the cost of coal-fired plants, even it is assumed the cost of coal will go no higher for the next 40 years (the expected operational life of most utility plants). How likely is that? Geothermal is too — assuming you know where to drill (and that’s actually not as big a question mark as it may sound). The current levelized cost of a solar thermal plant is more than double that of the current levelized cost of a traditional coal-fired plant, so the (delivered) cost of coal would have to almost quadruple in the next 10-15 years to make it cheaper in the long run. Considering how things are going with “at mouth” coal and gas prices, combined with transportaion prices, that sounds like a pretty good bet. Others may have a different perspective. But it has to be recognized that you’re betting no matter which way you choose. In that regard I’m guessing that many of those communities that decided to scuttle their half-built nuclear plants 20 years or so ago would like to rethink that decision now. Regretfully, that’s not an option anymore. And it’s usually the decisions that don’t work out that leave a taste in your mouth, and the ones that you remember (and perhaps blame on others). Decisions that do work out, on the other hand, tend to be forgotten — regardless of how contentious they were at the time. But that doesn’t make them any less relevant or important. Take the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo project (i.e., the moon project) for example. For those who lived through the late 50s and early 60s, how did it make you feel when the Soviets were launching satellites with and without people in them that spun around the earth while we couldn’t get a vehicle very far off the launch pad without exploding? It took a good long while before we did something the Soviets didn’t do first. Almost a decade after we started trying, in fact. But still, we made it to the moon before they did. How did that make you feel? Exhilarated, I would imagine.
But then, so what? It cost an immense amount of money, all of it at the government till. And for what purpose? We haven’t been back in more than 30 years. So what?
I’ll just let that question hang, because I really think it needs to percolate down into peoples’ psyches to really appreciate. Personally, I can think of all sorts of technologies, even attitudes, that came out of it that were nothing short of transforming. And personally, I think we are on the threshold of another equally contentious, but transforming event. Maybe it doesn’t have the same pizzaz as walking on the moon, but as far as transforming goes, it has a considerable amount of punch. But now, as it was then, it’s impossible to predict the future with absolute certainty. But I get the impression from many of the comments here that because we can’t predict the future with absolute certainty we shouldn’t even try. But I think it’s important to understand that neglecting to make a decision is a decision in itself. And either way, it carries as much import.
So much for soaring through space. Back on earth — and even worse, into policy detail… Unfortunately, most utilities are required to couple their profits with their output. If operating costs go up, they can pass them onto the consumer (and they make a percentage profit on that increase). Capital costs, on the other hand, can’t be passed on to the consumer, becaues the finances are structured completely differently. Under that scenario, what sense does it make to spend a lot on capital costs if your operating costs are almost certainly going to remain low? IMO, one of the smartest things the CA legislature did was allow utility companies to decouple their profits from consumption levels (and by extension fuel costs). That allowed them to profit from conservation efforts and truly levelize their construction costs with operating costs. Regretfully, they didn’t do that until sometime after they privatized the major utility companies, and that allowed the consumers to get preyed upon by energy traders like Enron. That was pretty miserable. But hey, growing pains happen. And it was the kind of mistake that could be revisited and corrected. And to their credit, they eventually they got it right. That, I would say, is a good example of a situation where the “wrongheaded” government response would be to not respond at all, or to continue to respond badly. It is also another example of what I mean by, “you either pay now or pay later”. And because they eventually responded — rightheadedly, I would argue — it’s one of the reasons why CA is now booming with alternative energy activity. It is incorrect to assume that all it takes is for the government to get out of the way. To call for it makes for a powerful talking point, and it fits well on a notecard. But it doesn’t fit with reality. It simply isn’t possible. As Immelt said, there is no such thing as a truly free market. Even Evan has acknowledged that the government has a right to regulate sulphur, particulates, heavy metal emissions, and the like. Apparently Evan also advocates government involvement in assisting the poorest countries to “rich up quick”. I can’t say that for certain, because he hasn’t provided so much as a single detail. But I’m pretty sure he doesn’t expect individual companies, or even individual industries to help much without a supporting governmental framework. Or maybe he expects Bono, the Gates foundation, the Clinton foundation, and the WHO to do the heavy lifting.
Related to that, I have a question… where are the conservative-leaning organizations in the equation?
George Bush deserves credit for the initiatives he championed in Africa to combat AIDS, malaria, and other diseases. Of course, he didn’t do it out of pocket — he used US government funds. And though he helped to lead the way, other agencies collectively contributed more to the effort than did the US gov’t. And so far the entire effort has amounted to what… $1.5 billion or so ($500 million has been offered by the US gov’t)? Is that the level of initiative required to assist the poorest countries to “rich up quick”? I’m guessing it might require more. And frankly, other than the money pumped into supporting domestic politicians, think tanks, media operatives, or other pundits, I can’t think of a single conservative-leaning organization that’s actually out there on the front lines trying to do good for no other reason than doing what’s right. I can think of a lot of left-leaning organizations that are. And I think that’s sad. Houston, we have a problem.
Evan, I think it might be time for you to elucidate how you plan to have the poorest countries of the world rich up quick.
A good first step would be to stop trying to force them to sign promises not to.
It seems to me that, among other things, it requires a substantial increase in energy use.
Gosh, yes.
So if you rely on traditional sources you have to likewise substantially increase the supplies, and make them available in a cost-effective manner.
India and China have scads of cheap coal. They are now being made to wonder whether they should exploit those riches. I fervently urge that they do so. Africa probably has a lot more wealth yet to be discovered. Let’s stand aside and encourage/support that rather than plant political landmines in their way.
And I don’t see that happening. I don’t see how it could.
Put as much energy into looking for it as has been pput into the prevention of looking for it? That would be a change. China has struck in rich on the Gulf Stream tea. Brazil has just discovered about a brazillion barrels.
Seek and ye shall find. Put your bucket down where you are.
Mwanwhile, I have no objection to any energy alternative that PAYS. But let the market decide and keep the government the heck out of it.
BTW, the interstate highway system was conceived of primarily as a military program. (And if it hadn’t been for specific individuals such as Robert Moses, nothing meaningful would have been accomplished.
Let’s talk about the health effects of burning fossil fuels.
The short answer is that poverty is a much deadlier killer than bad air. Once poverty goes away, bad air brcomes a big killer. So that gets solved. Like in every developed country. Once countries develop, they clean up. Not before.
And so it goes.
I don’t know what you guys are reading, but everything I read is largely consistent with the things expressed above: prices of oil, gas, and coal will continue to go up because demand is out-stripping supply.
The solution is expanding exploration. (We ought to try it sometime. Or the Chinese WILL kick our ass.) But, as i said, I am in favor of whatever will PAY.
Evan also advocates government involvement in assisting the poorest countries to “rich up quick”. I can’t say that for certain, because he hasn’t provided so much as a single detail. But I’m pretty sure he doesn’t expect individual companies, or even individual industries to help much without a supporting governmental framework.
We kept India from starving. But once that was accomplished, india did it nearly 100% on its own via privatization. So has China (by rejecting government economic centralizatrion). To make then sign Kyoto would be a crime against humanity, and if they did, I would encourage them to violate it.
We don’t need to patronize these countries. We just need to get the heck out of their way. They will surprise you.
There is reportedly a Japanese naval record recounting a circumnavigation of the Arctic Ocean around 1400 by a Japanese fleet. This might correlate with an ice-free Greenland at approximately the same time.
Yet the polar bears survived with no polar ice cap at all that particular summer. Could it be that the Polar Bear is a terrestrial animal? Perhaps that’s why so many tourists travel to Churchill, west of the Hudson Bay to view them on the land from large vehicles designed just for that purpose.
Great blog. I love deep thinkers. As a note, check out this blog: http://blogrdie.wordpress.com (not my blog)! Thought that you or readers may like to read it???? What is the WORLD is this blog all about? End of the World type stuff (Armageddon), WAR, Religion, Time Travel?! Or someone is driking too much!! (LOL) Again good content!
I highly recommend the British documentary film “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” It convincingly points out the holes in the conventional thinking about climate change, including in Al Gore’s movie “Inconvenient Truth,” and presents what appears to be a plausible alternative hypothesis. You can find it in segments by doing a search on YouTube.com.
The Science Deniers are all about a one world government. Therefore even if we go into a mini ice age they will still cry “climate change cause by global warming.”