A couple of posts a week ago at this site on the subject of the enormous storage requirements of a fully wind/solar electricity generation system attracted several commenters who confidently asserted that a fully wind/solar energy generation system will prove cheaper than fossil fuels as soon as it is given a real chance. I invited those commenters to provide their own detailed calculations of how much storage it would take to get a fully wind/solar electric generation system through a year without fossil fuel backup with real-world weather conditions, but so far none of them have taken up my invitation. While waiting for to hear from those people, the most serious effort I have seen to estimate the storage requirements and cost of a fully wind/solar/battery electricity system for the United States, with everything electrified, is Ken Gregory’s workup at Friends of Science. Gregory’s estimated cost (rounded) is around $400 trillion.
But meanwhile, the really smart people — or perhaps I should say, the really, really smart people — have a different approach. These people — who, as mentioned, are really, really smart — have figured out a much easier and quicker way to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and get right to the holy grail of “net zero” emissions. That method is to force large corporations, through capital allocations and shareholder votes, to pledge to achieve the “net zero” target.
Leading the charge is a guy named Larry Fink. Have you heard of him? He is the Chairman and CEO of BlackRock, a mutual fund company with some $10 trillion under management. That $10 trillion would appear to put BlackRock in the number one position among U.S. money managers. If you have any retirement savings, as likely as not some or all of them are managed by BlackRock. Oh, and they get to determine how to vote the shares representing your money when it comes time to elect directors or approve various propositions that come before shareholders. Here is a picture of Mr. Fink from BlackRock’s website:
In January 2020 Fink created something of a stir when he sent out simultaneous letters to all public company CEOs and all BlackRock investors announcing a commitment to “sustainable” investment. That commitment included both investing massively in things like the “renewable power infrastructure business, which invests in the private markets in wind and solar power; green bond funds; LEAF, the industry’s first environmental sustainability-focused cash management strategy,” etc., etc. etc.; and also using the power of shareholder votes to force managements to make commitments to “sustainability”:
This year, we will be mapping our engagement priorities to specific UN Sustainable Development Goals, such as Gender Equality and Affordable and Clean Energy.
Fink’s 2022 letter to CEOs, just out, doubles down, making clear that BlackRock expects every company it invests in to get aboard the “net zero” train:
Every company and every industry will be transformed by the transition to a net zero world. The question is, will you lead, or will you be led? . . . Engineers and scientists are working around the clock on how to decarbonize cement, steel, and plastics; shipping, trucking, and aviation; agriculture, energy, and construction. I believe the decarbonizing of the global economy is going to create the greatest investment opportunity of our lifetime. It will also leave behind the companies that don’t adapt, regardless of what industry they are in.
Let me for the moment just pass over the concept of “decarbonized” plastics. (What the hell does Fink think plastics are made of?). But we do know that Fink is really, really smart, and therefore he must know that by “decarbonizing” of these industries, he means converting them all to electric power, with the electricity generated only by the wind and the sun. Does he have any idea how much excess generation capacity and battery storage might be required to make that happen, or how much that might cost? Or how much that might in turn drive up the costs of all of these things? Or whether such vastly increased costs might impact the viability of any of these “sustainable” investments? You won’t find anything on those subject in this letter. Hey, we are dealing here with an existential crisis of the planet that makes the application of critical thinking to any of these matters strictly off limits.
And I don’t mean to suggest that Mr. Fink is alone in his delusions. Look at the websites of any of the other big money managers like Vanguard, Fidelity, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, etc., and you will find them all making similar noises (although I think that BlackRock is the farthest-gone of the bunch).
Which brings us to how this all plays out at the upper reaches of the public companies that actually produce and deliver the things we are trying to consume. The Wall Street Journal on January 26 reports on one resolution that just got approved by the shareholders of Costco.
Costco Wholesale Corp. shareholders voted Thursday for a proposal that called on the retailer to set out plans to reach net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 or sooner, in line with scientific recommendations to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The resolution included difficult-to-track emissions in Costco’s supply chain, known as Scope 3 emissions, which the company said were the “overwhelming bulk” of its emissions.
You can be quite sure that BlackRock — and probably all those other big money managers, controlling the votes based on everyone’s retirement savings — voted for this. Now, Costco is a merchant that basically buys stuff made by others, transports it into stores or warehouses, and resells it to customers. What exactly are they supposed to do to change the “carbon emissions” content of that frozen chicken or chair or blender or whatever it is you are buying from them? Well, their shareholders, via these genius intermediaries, have now decreed that they had better start figuring it out.
And don’t think it’s just Costco. Further from the same piece in the Journal:
U.S. companies are facing 57 votes on greenhouse-gas emissions this year, . . . Ms. Welsh said. Last year, there were 10 such votes.
But surely the shareholders are smart enough to figure this out and vote this craziness down? No, of course not, because in practice their votes are controlled by the BlackRocks, Vanguards, Fidelities, etc., etc.:
Support for shareholder proposals on greenhouse-gas emissions rose to an average of around 59% last year, compared with 25% in 2017, according to Heidi Welsh, director of the nonprofit Sustainable Investments Institute.
Eventually we will come up against Stein’s Law, propounded by economist Herbert Stein in 1986: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”
Demand governments reduce their emissions.
Stop the emission of liquidity as in FED pumping, and the emissions of bail-outs for zombies.
Instead emissions of massive credit (US constitution clause) for such things as Apollo, Artemis, Fusion, NAWAPA, TVA, is the key. China is actually doing all that.
Increasing credit supply stimulates production and so CO2 emissions. It doesn’t make a huge difference what it is initially spent on. In the end it will go into wages and people the World over buy the same stuff. This stuff takes energy to make. So Biden’s multi-trillion dollar stimulus packages will increase CO2 emissions.
The only way they can cut CO2 emissions is to make more with less energy or make less overall. Huge subsidies for seemingly virtuous industries won’t work.In fact they will prevent the market from working effectively to select the companies which produce more for less.
Forget CO2 – even doubling it in 100 years can make no measurable difference – See Dr. Happer’s slides, often linked at WUWT.
Instead of imagining Greta’s gas, look at the physical economy – transportation, power, water. NAWAPA , North American Water and Power Alliance with nuclear is essential. The US Constitution Credit clause is explicitly there for this.
Blowing green CO2 filled bubbles like the GND, Great Reset, is dealt with easily – Glass Steagall.
Where did the TVA, NASA (and all our chips) come from? Magic of the markets – what utter feudal humbug!
“Blowing CO2 filled bubbles …”
Careful, you may trigger a thought among our geoengineering patients.
Better yet, demand politicians reduce their emissions.
It sounds as if the ” smart ” people are like the ” smart ” motorways in the UK, they end up in multiple car crashes.
Black rock et al. are eagerly chasing the ‘green’ pound (dollar/euro/whatever). As soon as the wind changes they’ll ditch this rubbish and climb aboard the next bandwagon to come along. The fact that they are forcing companies into extinction based on this ideology seems to have completely escaped them – or maybe it hasn’t but the profits are worth it (to them at least).
What are the profits expected from the share prices of companies they drive into bankruptcy? Oh, that’s right, they manage OPM.
Of course not, “big business” are greedy profit takers and deserve to be put down, so say the leftist cult members who seem to believe that revenue is profit and government paid welfare is a wage.
Ask expert Marc Carney , BofE chief, now UN Climate Finance czar , at COP26 :
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-11-01/net-zero-a-ruthless-relentless-focus-for-gfanz-carney-video
A $100 TRILLION green boondoggle, for the BlackRock’s et al, of course.
As I said: OPM.
You seem not to understand, bonbon, that the drivers of the green boondoggles are governments catering to big finance influence. Blame socialism, not capitalism.
Carney et al are neither, they are the Financial Empire.
What the hell is “the Financial Empire,” bonbon? You seem to fantasize many conspiracies.
Give it up Dave, in bonbon’s world, even heavy government regulation is just another aspect of capitalism.
“…What are the profits expected from the share prices of companies they drive into bankruptcy?…”
Massive if you short them at the appropriate time.
Don’t get me started on Costco. Most wasteful, least green, least recyclable packaging I’ve ever seen.
All those virtue signaling Teslas in the parking lot are hauling off melded plastic and paper that can never be recycled.
I’m guessing Costco ran out of the dried prunes special before you got yours?
No, they had plenty. But they were bundled together in 4 boxes instead of one package. Waste, waste, waste.
It’s not the quantities. It’s the bundling, and the bundling often requires aviation snips (bolt cutter are sometimes needed) to free the smaller packages from their brothers. It’s the paperbacked blister packaging that’s the worst.
Best place ever for eyeglasses and hearing aids, though.
I love Costco but I don’t buy everything there, some is impractical.
The packaging issue, which is everywhere, will only be solved when we start building high temp cogens everywhere and burn plastic for power
I’m a Costco shopper and I agree that the packaging is ridiculous. Costco doesn’t just buy the stuff that way. They specify the packaging and even buy and distribute packaging to suppliers.
This is why they should have allowed all these Wall Street finance companies to collapse when the housing market crashed under Bush. These companies know they can behave irresponsibly because when it goes bad again they will get another taxpayer funded bailout.
Now see Trumps campaign in 2016 – he promised Glass-Steagall, the FDR law of 1934 that Clinton repealed in 1999, resulting in massive bailouts after crashes. Glass-Steagall is the key here. Now look what they did to Trump.
So let BlackRock with its Aladdin AI (no kidding!) HFT system in place in the US and the EU take risk, but no bailout. Merely telling them that alters strategy!
That is why comparing current lawfare shenanigans to the ’70’s misses the target – things have drastically changed from then.
The housing market crash and devaluation of mortgage-based securities was caused by prior administrations’ approval of mortgaged based securities valued based on an algorithm that explicitly assumed housing prices would never fall. The Chinese analysist that came up with the algorithm scurried back to the ChiComs when the fit hit the shan.
Again missing the target – the crash was not the problem, rather the bailout, promised under the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Let these algos’s play games, with no bail-out!
The bailout had nothing to do with Glass-Steagal. It would have happened even if that archaic law was still in place.
The actors play differently when laws are well established. Sure the law was not being enforced before Clinton repealed it – witness LTCM, GKO, …
WallStreet for sure does not like this law – it crimps their game!
So Glass-Steagal is the savior of all, even though back when things were working (according to you) everyone was ignoring Glass-Steagal?
Have you ever heard of this thing called internal consistency?
Much less trying to make sense?
Allowing one’s financial system to collapse is not an intelligent decision. The best ways to avoid that at any given juncture are open to reasoned debate. Give us your ideas as how to avoid certain financial collapse given the facts as known at the time, bonbon. Monday morning quarterbacks are a dime a dozen; ideology always seems to play a role.
I contend that they didn’t do everything wrong.
They let Lehman Brothers go to the wall. Lehman were considered to be one of the “too big to fail” banks. Thus, while bailing out the system, they still sent a signal to the others that “next time it could be you”.
Bailing out a crowd of utterly corrupt suite, none of which were jailed, unlike Enron’s management, at massive cost to tax-payers was criminal. Both Bush and Obama, bipartisan daylight robbery.
Forget signals, no laws were changed.
Now comes the everything bubble blowout, not possible to bail-out, so the insane war drive starts. Just think what the D.C. and London establishment sees – a complete transatlantic financial breakdown with Russia and China looking on.
So bailing out Lehman let to this….
The best way is to have very clear laws in place. Risk managers take note of these and if it is very clear they can play long and short with no chance of a tax-dollar bailout, they will look very carefully at such things as CDO’s and other ‘instruments’ .
Bonbon, please describe the laws to which you refer.
Some of these accounts are on a fiduciary basis, so virtue signaling with client funds would be a violation. But of course Merrick Garland will prosecute them sometime after he brings corruption charges against Hillary Clinton or Hunter Biden.
I’d like to see a couple of reforms in the fund world. First, I’d like to see ‘carried interest’ taxed at ordinary income tax rates, rather than at the capital gain rate. Second, I’d like to see a prohibition against fund managers voting shares – if these guys want to impress their friends by voting for zero carbon initiatives, they can damn well buy their own shares with their own money.
As an aside, we’re probably witnessing the greatest financial / government bubble of all time as a result of unrestrained money printing by the Fed and its member banks. This makes financial people like Fink appear to be much smarter than they actually are because the new liquidity enters the economy through the financial system first. I don’t think this is going to end well.
Once the senate clears this year in the mid 2022 elections, don’t you guys think that the republicans won’t be having any of this? They know how unreliable renewable energy is (at least wind and solar). Separate question what would a warming of 2 C or 3 C be in Fahrenheit? I looked it up on google but it said 1 C is equivalent to 33.8 degrees F.
Type F vs C in your favorite browser.
Or just set your windows calculator for temperature conversion.
An increase of 2 C is equivalent to an increase of 3.6 F
“I looked it up on google but it said 1 C is equivalent to 33.8 degrees F.”
A better way to say that is the temperature of 1C is equivalent to the temperature of 33.8F.
That way no one could misunderstand thinking you meant that every degree C is equivalent to 33.8 degrees F
Glad to see that, despite your confusion on the C/F conversion, Walter, you recognized the answer you searched wasn’t right. And you asked.
That’s how it’s done. And hey! You got answers. 👍
I was taught at school that to convert F to C for temperatures you subtract 32 then divide by 9 and then multiply by 5. For C to F reverse the process. Something you you can do in your head.
For an increase/decrease discard the 32 bit.
Newspaper environment/science correspondents don’t understand this.
Only fools think carbon emissions are capable of any harm. All trace gases are cold as they have very low pressure and energy. 41 moles of air each with 8.3 watts per second keeps earth at a stable level(total 340 watts per meter per second). The sun adds heat to the oceans and land for half the earth while snow and ice reducing heat for the other half the the earth. This is lost in models as there is only summer for both hemispheres. And a change in code makes carbon the sun heating the water vapor that heats the water (awfully backward science) only possible in a computer simulation. And so companies have to figure out how to change due to the madness people are forced to believe.
Reduce emissions, but businesses could buy carbon credits for the profit of the seller and for virtue signalling as an incentive?
sarc.
Social [contagion] emissions.
Black Rock is up to their neck in the ESG score and the Great Reset. They see them selves as a part of the Biden administration and hope to have control of the entire world economy. At one time we would consider somebody with those thoughts to be crazy however they are large enough to pull it off making them very dangerous. They can do what they are saying so they should be taken very seriously.
Google what Bain has been doing in The Republic of South Africa. They need to be prosecuted.
Indeed – between BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, they apparently control most of the corporate world. The ownership by V of BR and SS shares seems very murky indeed.
It would indeed appear that they want to own the rest of it, too.
The ‘controlled demolition’ theory is the only one that makes any semblance of sense in these crazy times.
Not that the Statist-corporatist model actually makes any sense, but absolute power and all that.
I think David Bowie once wrote a song about it; The Man Who Sold The World.
Truth is, net zero is unsustainable. God I hate that word though. Fools like this will wonder what happened to their portfolios when profits, and companies, disappear.
An example would be the EU declaring that natural gas and nuclear are green. WUWT
Eventually, those who have gone the fastest and farthest on the renewable road will crash into a brick wall called reality. Given the choice between survival and its alternative they may come to their senses. If they don’t they won’t survive and their madness will end that way. 🙂
Create a need, fill the need, make money. Rinse and repeat.
Identify a need, fill the need, maybe make money. Rinse and repeat.
$400 trillion? Nope! IMPOSSIBLE because it simply can not be done. All of the talk is just genuflecting in public, appear green, but no substance.
“decarbonizing of the global economy is going to create the greatest investment opportunity of our lifetime”
Gee, I thought it’s all about saving the planet- not about generating vast profits. It might be great for some investors but what about the rest of us?
If it’s that great an investment opportunity, they would be fools not to have put all their savings into it already.
“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”
You sure that’s not Yogi Berra or something? It sounds like one of those so obvious it’s stupid quotes.
When the CO2 removal types start flying electrically powered jets instead of buying carbon offsets then we should listen to them.
Ammonia or biofuels are more likely.
Any day now!
Battery breakthrough achieves energy density necessary for electric planes (msn.com)
Griff, I have seen “battery breakthrough” stories like this for decades in the media. But nothing commercially viable ever seems to arrive from these “breakthroughs”.
In griff’s world, a press release means the process is already a success and they have been in full production for a decade.
Griff, there is an engineering metric called Technology Readiness Level. Working in a lab isn’t the same as working in the real world. Check back with us when this breakthrough is in everyday use – say in 10 years. (It’s always 10 years.)
Any day now!
And what do we do in the meantime?
They can achieve 3,460 W-hr/kg with this “battery”, and that somehow makes it able to take over from Jet-A, which provides 11,000 W-hr/kg?
Also, this isn’t a battery. It’s a fuel cell, and the fuel reactant and its combustion product are both solids. That means that, unlike an aircraft burning fossil fuel, or even a sealed battery-powered aircraft, any aircraft powered by one of these will gain weight as it flies. That will alter the Bruguet range equation, resulting in a dramatic reduction in range even compared to a seal battery aircraft – forget about a fossil-fueled aircraft.
Begs the question what do they intend to do when all the high emission assets are held by private equity firms?
What they are doing is forcing good solid yielding assets out of public companies that everyone can profit from and instead those assets are held by a small number of super rich investors. Then they will no doubt complain when those guys get richer faster.
Those guys will go bust, holding the last toxic assets.
They will have made the buy cost of the assets many times over you dropkick 🙂
Surely even a complete idiot like you gets that to go bust you have to lose money which basically means they would have to pay to much for the asset. Perhaps they do end up with a toxic worthless asset but that doesn’t mean they go bust.
To put it in perspective Australia is currently making $300B per year how do you propose it would go bust by simply doing business as usual until the bitter end if that came.
That is the problem with you greentards you don’t get basic kids level economics 🙂
Speaking of toxic assets, here comes griff.
Griff, you really don’t understand economics at all, do you? But you have already demonstrated that you don’t understand physics, chemistry or any subject that requires some knowledge or intelligence. But you still keep posting.
Companies have little control over how their electricity is produced, so what are they supposed to do?
Well the smart ones fix part of their costs by investing in solar power and/or EVs or their own renewables.
Walmart, for example, or UK car makers like Jaguar.
Yes, but what do the really really smart ones do, o Great Enlightner? And are you in this group of grifters or what?
That’s funny, fixing their costs by using the most expensive, least reliable form of energy in existence.
Well why not?
Basically it’s the same approach that the UK Government has used for solving every problem they’ve come up upon in the last 30+ years
i.e. Throw money at it. Huuuuge amounts of money, as in the response to C19
Worked perfectly every time.
It worked so well because the Really Smart People inside UK Government are buck-passing, empire-building, fawning and lazy drunks. On above average pay, top class working conditions, un-sackable positions with solid-gold pensions (paid for by somebody else) to look forward to.
That is what makes them ‘smart‘ after all.
Oh, wait…….
” Eventually we will come up against Stein’s Law, propounded by economist Herbert Stein in 1986: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” ”
No, unfortunately. It will stop when enough people will be in misery when ending their working days and asking for their pensions.
“Enough” here is the “amount” needed for others, younger, see the consequences of what is going on that will hurt themselves. The “amount” needed for those brainless irresponsables understand that their choices have a price tag. “Unfortunately“, because it will be others, not themselves, who will suffer most.
Fink has been vocal, but the real driver of ESG is MSCI.
There’s a great workup on them on the Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-what-is-esg-investing-msci-ratings-focus-on-corporate-bottom-line/
Basically, ESG ratings are dominated by MSCI, and ESG ratings are right up there with bond ratings prior to the Global Financial Crisis. They’re so bad that even the SEC is looking at them.
Oilprice.com had an article the other day by Simon Watkins – he says public companies (which are subject to MSCI ESG ratings) grew investments in exploration at half the rate of private companies in response to the recent energy spike, and that European companies are also subject to other government and public pressure such that they’re spending more on alternative energy.
ESG –> underinvestment in oil exploration –> less supply, is why a number of people – starting with Harris Kupperman last year – believe oil prices are going to crack $100 or more. OPEC also appears to be pumping 400K bpd less than they’re alloted, so it isn’t like there’s lot of other excess capacity straining to be cut loose.
Interestingly enough, it appears that Blackrock has been quietly buying up shares in the various fossil fuel companies it so enthusiastically bashes. A classic example of trashing a company, or in this case, and entire industry, to drive down share price and scoop up bargains.
Larry Fink is fundamentally dishonest.
He has spent decades acquiring, promoting and marketing high fee, under-performing mutual funds and ETFs.
He is nothing more than a carnival barker.
Unfortunately, with the consolidation that has occurred in the mutual fund and investment management industry, Fink and a handful of others now have control over proxy voting for trillions of dollars worth of OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY.
He, and a handful of people at Fidelity, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, state and municipal pension funds, university and foundation endowments have the power to compel leading corporations to commit economic seppuku.
I am delighted to see that Francis Menton recognizes and is publicizing this serious threat to U.S. economic well-being.
This is an obscure issue but one with the potential to do immense harm to the country.
If you have money invested at BlackRock, Fidelity, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, Capital Research, State Street, Charles Schwab or any other investment manager,
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU MAKE YOUR VIEWS ON CLIMATE KNOWN
to the people who will vote the corporate proxies that attach to YOUR MONEY.
If you have money invested at BlackRock, Fidelity, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, Capital Research, State Street, Charles Schwab or any other investment manager,
___________________
P.S., obviously, if you own shares of corporation stock directly, be sure to read the proxy statements and vote in accordance with your views on this and other matters.
Actually, the fact that a lot of really, really smart people are jumping on the AGW/ACC bandwagon, should give people here some pause. Let’s face it, even thought a lot of the most enthusiastic adherents to the alarmist climate change narrative have never really studied global warming and just accept what comes out of the chute at the MSM, there are some very smart people, like Mr. Fink, that also go along and haven’t gotten to where they are buy engaging in groupthink. Consider that practically every major auto manufacturer is planning on an EV future. They could all be wrong, and I think much of it is off the mark, we should not be quite so dismissive of them.
Instead of BlackRock, use Vanguard mutual funds. Vanguard led the way in lowering investing fees.
I am a big fan of Vanguard. Unfortunately, they’ve imbibed some of the climate Kool-Aid, too.
If you are a Vanguard owner-client, it is critically important that you communicate your views on climate and ESG issues to them.
I believe that Mr. Fink knows exactly what he’s doing. The strategy is to get everyone on the “decarb” bandwagon, then when they are primed for change and then to their horror “discover” that it won’t work with unreliables, make the move to nuclear.
Like I said, if they make their problem ours, the people pay the price and they don’t have to, while continuing to exploit the environment for profit. Sweet deal under the guise of the “climate change” scheme.