Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Bloomberg columnist Noah Smith, untold suffering is pretty much locked in, but we won’t have to dismantle Capitalism, because cheap solar energy will soon eliminate the need for fossil fuel.
Worst Case for Climate Change Doesn’t Look Realistic
A major overhaul of energy production is still needed, but not a dismantling of capitalism. By Noah Smith
…
But a growing chorus of climate scientists and energy policy analysts has begun to question whether the dreaded RCP8.5 scenario should be taken seriously. The scenario assumes that after a brief flirtation with natural gas and renewable energy, the world returns to fueling industrialization primarily with coal. But it seems vanishingly unlikely that the global coal industry will increase sevenfold, as RCP8.5 envisions, even if natural gas proves to be a temporary phenomenon.
First of all, there probably just isn’t that much accessible coal in the ground. Second, burning coal creates air pollution in addition to greenhouse gases, which gives countries an additional incentive to reduce its use. Third, the price of renewables has dropped to the point where building new coal plants is simply not economical in most places. Despite China’s new plants, overall global coal use fell 3% in 2019. India is turning away from coal, and so is Southeast Asia:
And as renewables get cheaper, it will become economical to retire existing coal and gas plants. McKinsey predicts that this will be the case in most of the world by 2030. Banks are already beginning to pull out of the coal-power industry, not because of environmental pressure (since they’re still funding coal for other industrial uses), but because they know there’s just no future in coal plants. Gas won’t be far behind, though a few gas plants will probably remain in service to back up solar plants when the sun isn’t shining.
…
Now for the bad news: 2.5 degrees of warming will still be catastrophic for many people and countries, and 3 degrees even more so. Heat waves will become unbearable without air conditioning, even in high latitudes. All coral reefs will probably die. Many major cities will be drowned. Even just 2 degrees of warming, which will be exceeded in any business-as-usual scenario, will have very serious global repercussions.
…
Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-23/worst-case-for-climate-change-doesn-t-look-realistic
According to author Noah Smith’s bio, he was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, so he probably understands how to do a few financial calculations, but he’s clearly skipped a few steps in this calculation.
The limiting factor of renewable energy is not just the cost of solar and wind installations, its the cost of making renewable energy dispatchable. Most winters in the Northern Hemisphere there are at least a few periods of bitterly cold winter high pressure weather systems, with very little wind over a vast area, and only a few short hours of sunlight to charge the frost covered solar cells.
A “few gas plants” won’t suffice as backup in such conditions, you need backup capacity which can supply 100% of winter peak demand, for at least a few weeks. This implies either a complete duplicate set of fossil fuel power infrastructure, maintained at hot idle until required at who knows what cost, or an enormous battery backup system, topped up by whatever vast additional renewable over-capacity is required to keep the batteries topped up during brief periods of favourable conditions, to cover winter weeks or months when the solar and wind power let you down.
No plausible drop in renewable energy prices can make either of these scenarios affordable in the forseeable future.
As for two degrees making heatwaves unsurvivable, Noah has no idea what he is talking about. One of my first jobs was operating a heavy, hot plate hydraulic press inside a poorly ventilated chemical factory in Australia whose humid, fume filled interior routinely reached 130F / 55C during Summer, for most of the work day. The only thing you needed to do to “survive” this human induced heatwave was to dress lightly and drink rehydration fluid every 5 minutes.
Plenty of people right now, such as bakers, factory workers, miners, laundry workers, machine operators and many others, routinely work in such conditions.
Only people who have studied and worked in air conditioned offices all their life think any plausible heatwave is a major threat to human survival. When climate academics make absurd claims about the terrifying 110+ heatwaves which will make entire nations uninhabitable, they lose the members of the audience who actually experience such conditions on a regular basis in their every day working lives.
If “Heat waves will become unbearable without air conditioning, even in high latitudes.”
Then we will definitely need coal to run the grid to keep up with air conditioning demand.
I’ve been saying for years the same thing. Are the greens so stupid, or is it evil, to say they believe the temps will rise to a dangerous level, but they aren’t doing the necessary planning to put ac in every building, house, apartment, etc.
And as far as sea level rise goes, how about the green plans for building sea walls?
What planet are they from???
I disagree that 100+ degree heat wouldn’t/won’t be a threat to many people. Yes, plenty of younger people, once adjusted, can handle that, but not necessarily older people. Also it is one thing to have heat like that in an industrial facility, another to have it as the actual weather, which will drive many people’s electricity bills (air conditioning) through the roof.
All of that said, much of the claims of said heat waves sound like fearmongering. They also could mean much more mild winters and places like Canada becoming a lot more hospitable.
As for this nonsense about renewables, yes the cost to install solar panels and wind turbines might be cheaper now, but that doesn’t mean that as a source of electricity that said renewables are any more reliable or cheaper. If it cost $500 per solar panel before and only costs $50 now, the cost and reliability of the electricity from either is still going to be lousy.
Where does this Bloomberg idiot think his “renewable” solar panels come from? We’ll, they come from China, and they were produced using coal power, predominantly. The global warmists should be forced to show a single major solar panel producer in China who only uses solar power for their factory. I’ll wait…
Evidently, it takes 70 renewable workers to produce the same amount of electricity as one coal worker. I have heard various versions of this, however, the actual number is inconsequential because with the UK, for example, having an unemployment rate of around 3.8%, where are all these green workers to come from?
Oh yes……Immigration of course. Oh No’s……..Brexit was fought on that very issue, and Leave won, so we are off out the EU, able to control our own immigration rather than having it dictated to us by Brussels bureaucrats.
The US has a problem though. It’s been in charge of it’s own immigration policy forever and, with not dissimilar unemployment rates, it’ll have a real problem finding all these millions of employees for the ‘green revolution’. I mean, Trump’s election was also fought in part, on the basis of immigration.
So does the west then simply offshore the manufacture of renewables to Africa, to raise the continent from poverty and realise cheap manufacture from low wages? Well, no, because the country continues to be poverty stricken, because the world won’t allow them funding to build fossil fuelled power stations.
Nor do I see rows of wind turbines marching across the Savannah, or acres of solar panels powering the country.
(This little diatribe could go on forever with spiralling reasoning the greens just don’t bother looking at, so I’ll stop it here.)
“And as renewables get cheaper, it will become economical to retire existing coal and gas plants”
Fantasy-
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-physical-impossibility-of-renewable-energy-meeting-the-paris-accord-goals/
“Because the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine, batteries would be needed to provide back-up power for wind turbines and solar panels. But, the sheer magnitude of what would be required is mind-boggling. For example, the $5 billion Tesla “Gigafactory” in Nevada is currently the world’s biggest battery manufacturing facility and its total annual production would store just three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. Therefore, to manufacture enough batteries to store two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand would require almost 1,000 years of “Gigafactory” production.”
…and generate electricity to transform transport plus batterify it and at the same time replace said batteries every 12-15yrs? Pure fantasy from Gretaheads off their medication.
Noah Smith said: “”
BUT:
China’s thermal coal-derived electricity production growth has again exceeded coal production growth.
Data released this month shows that China’s coal production totalled 334.1 million t in November 2019. This mark’s y/y growth of 6%. Also of note is that China’s thermal coal-derived electricity production totalled 432.5 billion kWh last month, which marks year on year growth of 7%.
https://www.worldcoal.com/coal/18122019/chinas-thermal-coal-derived-electricity-production-increases/
———-
China Builds Massive Railway to transport Coal
https://twitter.com/PDChina
We will have massive debt, high unemployment, out of control government spending, years of political all in fights, super high power costs, and so on.
• In a piece for the GWPF on December 12, at https://www.thegwpf.com/indias-fossil-fuels-first-policy-unyielding-to-paris-climate-deal-pressure/?mc_cid=0ce62d16d5 ,Vijay Raj Jayaraj summarized the approach of India toward the UN’s carbon-emissions-cutting efforts as a “fossil fuel first attitude.” Excerpt: “The Indian government has adopted a fossil-fuel-first attitude and has made clear it will not compromise on India’s developmental goals. . . . India’s . . . proposed actions [under the Paris agreement] include no significant measures to curb India’s fossil fuel use or production. Moreover, the NDC states that the country reserves the right to overturn its commitments if the proposed climate mitigatory actions cause any impedance to the growth of individual economic sectors.”
———
• And worldwide, is use of coal increasing or decreasing? It’s increasing, of course. From The Hindu, December 17 AT https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/coal-consumption-likely-to-rise-as-growing-demand-for-electricity-generation-in-developing-countries/article30327363.ece?mc_cid=0ce62d16d5 “Coal consumption is set to rise in the coming years as growing demand for electricity in developing countries outpaces a shift to cleaner sources of electricity in industrialised nations. . . . [T]he International Energy Agency anticipates steady increases [in coal consumption] in the next five years. . . . [G]lobal coal consumption is likely to rise over the coming years, driven by demand in India, China and Southeast Asia. Power generation from coal rose almost 2% in 2018 to reach an all-time high, remaining the world’s largest source of electricity.”
——–
Ken Shultz
December.16.2019 at 3:58 pm
These statistics bear repeating here:
In the 18 months from January 2018 to June 2019, China increased its coal fired power capacity by 42.9 gigawatts or about 4.5%.
China presently has 121.3 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants under construction–about enough to power the entirety of France.
The increase followed a 2014-2016 “permitting surge” by local governments aiming to boost growth while formerly suspended projects have also been restarted, Global Energy Monitor said. In the rest of the world, coal-fired power capacity fell 8.1 GW over the same period.
The amount coal’s share of the country’s total energy production went from 68% in 2012 to 59% in 2018, and coal’s total share of China’s electricity production is expected to fall to 55.3% by 2020.
Absolute coal consumption, however, has continued to increase in line with a rise in overall Chinese energy demand.
Source: Reuters, November 19, 2019
———–
In China, coal creeps back in as slowing economy overshadows climate change ambitions
By David Stanway, Reuters, Dec 2, 2019
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-china-coal/in-china-coal-creeps-back-in-as-slowing-economy-overshadows-climate-change-ambitions-idUSKBN1Y60NU
————–
China Burns Over Half Of The World’s Coal And Will Account For 50% Of Global CO2 Emissions By 2030
By Kenneth Richard on 19. December 2019
Today, 30% of the globe’s CO2 emissions come from China. In 10 years, China’s emissions alone will match the rest of world’s emissions combined. China continues to build hundreds of coal plants today. So why are the rest of us spending $600 billion every year on CO2 emissions mitigation?
It only took 7 years for China’s emissions percentage to double that of the USA’s. As of 2015, China accounted for 30% of global emissions (Shan et al., 2018) compared to the USA’s 15%.
Much of the reason for China’s emissions domination is because its citizens consume more than 50% of the world’s coal.
China is in the process of building 100s of new coal plants, with plans to add a new coal plant every 2 weeks for the next 12 years.
According to the People’s Daily, China, the country’s longest coal transporting railway, carrying 200 million tonnes of coal from north to east China every year, is now (October, 2019) in operation.
Due to its exponentially-growing energy demands, China will be responsible for 50% of the globe’s CO2 emissions within 10 years (Liu et al., 2019).
Why should the rest of us spend $89 trillion to reduce CO2 emissions?
According to proponents of CO2 mitigation policies, the cost of infrastructure changes required to reduce CO2 emissions to acceptable levels is $89 trillion
https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/19/china-burns-over-half-of-the-worlds-coal-and-will-account-for-50-of-global-co2-emissions-by-2030/
No doubt as renewables get cheaper and automated factories eliminate human employment, the price of goods and services will get so low that we will have to pay people to go shopping simply to eliminate surplus production. Otherwise there will be no one to pay the taxes.
Solar does not work 3 months a year even in Arizona. It’s reduced to 25% production. It’s not a bad addition but it’s just not viable as a sole energy source.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/56812
Solar really does work, and very well.
.
.
.
.
.
You just have to eliminate 80% 0f the population and utilize their space for the panels to supply power to the remaining 20%
Here in Texas I often see the landscapers working in plus 100 degree F weather, and they are dressed in long pants and long sleeves. I’m thinking they dress like this because of insects but not sure.
Dunno about your neck of the woods but it’s been banged into the consciousness since 1980 and now it’s WHS to cover up on the job.
… is not a dismantling of capitalism. By Noah Smith …
“Heat waves will become unbearable without air conditioning, even in high latitudes.”
____________________________________
WTF By Noah Smith –
Imagehttps://www.nature.com › … › articles
Changes in regional heatwave characteristics as a function of … – Nature
by SE Perkins-Kirkpatrick · 2017 · citation: 53 · 25.09.2017
· Heatwave duration is projected to increase by 2–10 days/°C, … This change is LESS SEVERE in the mid to high latitudes, …
https://www.google.com/search?q=heat+waves+in+high+latitudes&oq=heat+waves+in+high+latitudes+&aqs=chrome.
____________________________________
That’s called “exaggeration”, at least!
“Most winters in the Northern Hemisphere there are at least a few periods of bitterly cold winter high pressure weather systems, with very little wind over a vast area, and only a few short hours of sunlight to charge the frost covered solar cells.”
____________________________________
OK. What’s never get said:
What really has at least to be is “only a few short hours of sunlight to charge the frost covered solar cells”, not only
“only a few short warm summer hours beneath a light cloudy sky” – without the real stuff “sunbeams” solar panels won’t even register.
“As for two degrees making heatwaves unsurvivable, Noah has no idea what he is talking about. One of my first jobs was operating a heavy, hot plate hydraulic press inside a poorly ventilated chemical factory in Australia whose humid, fume filled interior routinely reached 130F / 55C during Summer, for most of the work day. The only thing you needed to do to “survive” this human induced heatwave was to dress lightly and drink rehydration fluid every 5 minutes.
Plenty of people right now, such as bakers, factory workers, miners, laundry workers, machine operators and many others, routinely work in such conditions.
Only people who have studied and worked in air conditioned offices all their life think any plausible heatwave is a major threat to human survival. When climate academics make absurd claims about the terrifying 110+ heatwaves which will make entire nations uninhabitable, they lose the members of the audience who actually experience such conditions on a regular basis in their every day working lives.”
____________________________________
Man at work in foundries, at castings and extrusion presses, glass works / glass workshops, road repairs in June / July /August don’t drink sip by sip but beer case by beer case.
Beer can pallet by pallet.