The Green War on Clean Energy

In 2018, a radical new environmental group emerged in the United Kingdom. The loose-knit organization called itself Extinction Rebellion, or “XR,” and aimed to raise awareness of climate change through disruptive protests. XR activists staged dramatic “die-ins” and shut down London bridges and metro stations. The group’s leaders warned that climate change could “kill six billion people this century” and called for Britain to halt the use of fossil fuels virtually overnight. Like the Occupy Wall Street movement that inspired it, XR disdains detailed policy prescriptions. But its members generally scorn our modern, energy-intensive lifestyles, while also rejecting nuclear power and other high-tech approaches to reducing emissions. To save the planet, many believe, capitalism itself needs to be overthrown.

One of the group’s most charismatic spokespeople was Zion Lights. The daughter of Indian immigrants and a mother of two, Lights was a longtime environmental advocate. (The Telegraph once dubbed her “Britain’s greenest mum.”) But she found herself hard-pressed to defend XR’s more extreme claims. Hoping to understand the issues better, Lights returned to college, where she studied the debates surrounding nuclear power and related themes. “I started to realize that almost everything I had believed was wrong,” she told me, when I interviewed her recently for a podcast. When Lights tried to discuss her new perspective with her XR colleagues, she said, “I found there was this immense, immense resistance.”

Ultimately, Lights had to ask herself a painful question: “What if you’d dedicated most of your life to trying to save the planet,” she wrote in Quillette last year, “but then you realized that you may have actually—potentially—made things worse?” It’s a question that more environmentalists should grapple with today. Over the past half-century, their movement has scored world-changing victories in reducing air and water pollution, preserving wilderness, and protecting wildlife. But when it comes to fighting global warming, the issue that most environmentalists now see as the planet’s paramount threat, the green-policy elite has arguably done more harm than good.

That claim certainly sounds counterintuitive, but evidence shows that some of the activists’ favored policies—especially the single-minded focus on wind and solar facilities for making electricity—have been marginally effective, at best. Other policies, such as replacing gasoline and diesel fuel with biofuels made from plants, actually increase emissions. One of the environmental movement’s biggest self-described victories has been its long-running war against nuclear power, the only technology that demonstrates the capability to reduce dramatically a nation’s carbon footprint. Today, some green activists are fighting against the next generation of climate-friendly technologies, including advanced nuclear reactors and systems to capture and store the carbon in fossil fuels, or even scrub it from the atmosphere. Call it the green war on clean energy.

Extremists like Extinction Rebellion aren’t the only ones with misguided ideas about how best to reduce emissions. Last November, heads of state and representatives from global NGOs, financial firms, and energy companies gathered in Glasgow for COP26, the United Nations climate summit. Speakers unleashed their most impassioned language. “We are digging our own graves,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres. British prime minister Boris Johnson compared the planet to James Bond, “strapped to a doomsday device” that threatens to “end human life as we know it.” Despite the catastrophism, conference attendees mostly stuck to a well-worn playbook. Governments promised to boost spending on renewable energy and restrict use of oil and gas. Financial organizations agreed to international guidelines that penalize fossil-fuel investments and favor green-energy projects.

While some countries promised to set even stricter targets for future emissions, China, the world’s biggest greenhouse-gas emitter, resisted demands to curtail its heavy coal consumption and pledged only to start reducing emissions sometime in the indefinite future. As the Associated Press noted, “the high aspirations and apocalyptic imagery at the start of the summit were soon met with a cold dose of reality.”

Nonetheless, global emissions do appear to be peaking. The more apocalyptic scenarios that some activists forecasted are unlikely to happen. In fact, most developed nations are slowly reducing their carbon footprints, though not at the aggressive rates they’ve promised. Ironically, these reductions in emissions often occur not because of the policies advocated at climate conferences but despite them.

Ted Nordhaus, founder of the eco-modernist Breakthrough Institute, is skeptical of the “global climate-industrial complex” on display at COP26. “A climate movement less in thrall to fever dreams of apocalypse would focus more on balancing long-term emissions reductions with growth, development, and adaptation in the here and now,” he writes. The extremists of Extinction Rebellion and similar groups demand “system change,” by which they mean dismantling free markets, creating alternatives to existing democratic institutions, and deliberately reducing living standards through a process they call “degrowth.” The COP26 technocrats don’t advocate anything that radical, but they, too, envision a more centralized, less growth-oriented model for society. Under the COP26 paradigm, entire sectors of the economy—energy, transportation, manufacturing, housing—would undergo wrenching transformations.

According to this vision, markets are not adequate to manage the necessary transitions. Instead, change must be driven through government regulation, supranational agreements between industry and NGOs, financial controls, and other top-down measures. Certain technologies—electric vehicles, say, or rooftop solar panels—must be heavily subsidized, while others—internal combustion engines, gas stoves—should be penalized or even banned. The use of fossil fuels should be curtailed by any means necessary, including pushing up prices by restricting drilling and pipeline construction. All policies must be geared to achieve “net-zero emissions” by 2050.

“Some greens are fighting against the next generation of clean technologies, including carbon capture.”

This is a staggeringly difficult goal, which would touch every aspect of modern life. Yet net-zero advocates too often reject or neglect the very policies most likely to help the world achieve it. As Nordhaus recently wrote in The Economist, the activist community “insists upon re-engineering the global economy without many of the technologies that most technical analyses conclude would be necessary, including nuclear energy, carbon capture and carbon removal.” In other words, green elites want to upend the lives of billions but show surprisingly little interest in whether their programs work. In some parts of the world, the climate lobby has already managed to enact policies that raise prices, hinder growth, and promote political instability—all while achieving only marginal reductions in emissions.

The problem starts with the movement’s blanket opposition to fossil fuels. For example, most environmentalists viscerally oppose fracking and natural-gas pipelines. The Biden administration moved to curtail U.S. gas drilling within days of taking office (one reason U.S. gas prices have roughly tripled since Biden became president). But in fact, since natural gas emits nearly 50 percent less carbon dioxide than coal, it is one of our best tools to bring down emissions in the short term, while also benefiting the economy. Alex Trembath, deputy director of the Breakthrough Institute, writes: “The U.S. fracking boom of 2008 onward tempered inflation, created hundreds of thousands of jobs during the worst recession in a century, and, yes, reduced carbon emissions by displacing much dirtier coal-fired power.”

Eco-pragmatists like Trembath see natural gas as a “bridge fuel” that can ease the transition to lower-carbon energy sources. (Soon, carbon capture and storage [CCS] technology could make it feasible to harness the energy in gas while putting much less carbon into the atmosphere.) But most environmental activists argue that we must phase out natural gas as rapidly as possible, replacing it almost exclusively with wind and solar power. Wind and solar power can help reduce carbon emissions, as long as they are part of a mix of energy sources. But renewable-energy champions tend to gloss over the huge challenges of trying to power the grid primarily with such on-again, off-again energy sources.

People understand, of course, that wind and solar facilities make power only when the wind blows or the sun shines. But even experts sometimes underestimate what a complex challenge this “intermittency” presents to grid operators. Since most wind and solar facilities sit idle most of the time, renewable-power producers have to overbuild production capacity massively. Renewable power also requires a whole new network of transmission lines in order to shuttle power from, say, sunny areas to cloudy ones. Renewable backers promise that imminent breakthroughs in battery technology will make intermittency a minor problem. In reality, while batteries can help grid operators manage short peaks in demand, they remain far too expensive to serve as a long-term backup. All these challenges mean that, while the “all-renewable” power-grid activists’ demand isn’t technically impossible, it would cost far more—and take far longer to build—than more balanced approaches.

Much more here:

https://www.city-journal.org/green-war-on-clean-energy ?

**********************************************************

Hawaii Electricity Prices To Skyrocket As Final Shipment Of Coal Arrives

Hawaii is receiving its final shipment of coal this week, which Gov. David Ige called a huge step forward in the state’s transition to clean energy. What he meant was that local are about to pay a lot more for basic essentials.

A law put in place a couple of years ago will finally shut down the island’s last coal burning power plant. And since coal is the dirtiest * but cheapest - source of power for Oahu, it means that all else equal, power prices are about to skyrocket.

“In its time, coal was an important resource for Hawai‘i and I’d like to thank the workers who have run our last remaining coal plant,” Ige said in a statement. “Renewable energy projects to replace coal are coming online with more on the way.”

“Even as we face challenges in making this transition, it’s the right move for our communities and planet. Most importantly, it will leave Hawaiʻi a better place for our children and grandchildren.”

So noble, Scandinavian teenagers would approve: there is just one problem: as KHON2’s Always Investigating reports, replacement power projects are behind schedule due to unexpected global events with supply chain issues, so Oahu residents should prepare to pay even more for electricity this fall. In other words, Europe's catastrophic experience with the "Green transition" where an entire continent moved to "energy alternatives" some 30 years before it was ready to replace fossil fuels, is coming to at least one American state.

In the meantime, consumers can either cut back on power, try solar and batteries, or pay more for oil-generated power — which costs as much as five times more than coal.

The Kapolei plant has been Oahu’s largest single generator for three decades, meeting about 16% of the island’s peak electricity demand. Its closure on Sept. 1 means eliminating 180 megawatts of power, or about one-tenth of what Oahu needs. There is no ready replacement for this source of energy which is about to go offline.

But wait, it gets funnier: one year ago, Hawaii was stunned to learn that the "green facility" which is replacing the Kapolei coal plant, the 185-MW Kapolei Energy Storage Facility, will be charging its "enormous battery" … with oil! In other words, Hawaiians will be trading one fossil fuel (coal) for another, albeit one far more expensive. Or as the chair of PUC, Jay Griffin, complained, Hawaiians are “going from cigarettes to crack."

“If there is not enough solar, wind, or battery storage energy to replace the AES plant, HECO would have to use oil instead to charge things like the upcoming 185-megawatt Kapolei Energy Storage Facility,” Pacific Business News reported.

It’s not a matter of “if,” however. The reality is there’s not enough wind, solar, or battery storage to replace the AES plant. Hawaiian Electric has made this quite clear in recent documents, noting that it would not be able to meet its year-two renewable target (75 percent) for “more than a decade.” - Source FEE Stories

Confused? Here is the simplified schematic:

* Oahu is permanently shutting down its final coal plant which provides 10-20% of the island's energy

* Its replacement is an energy storage facility which however will need oil to charge its battery

* Hawaii is effectively replacing dirty coal power with just as dirty oil power, which however is far more expensive.

Translation:another brilliantly executed "green" revolution, or as FEE put it:

The project is a wonderful demonstration of why we should be wary of giving central planners more power over energy security. It’s an example of a phenomenon explained by Ludwig von Mises: that government policies often have exactly the opposite effect of what was intended.

In an address delivered before the University Club in New York in 1950, the economist explained how government policies often backfire in ways that are predictable. Here is an example he offered:

“The government believes that the price of a definite commodity, e.g., milk, is too high. It wants to make it possible for the poor to give their children more milk. Thus it resorts to a price ceiling and fixes the price of milk at a lower rate than that prevailing on the free market. The result is that the marginal producers of milk, those producing at the highest cost, now incur losses. As no individual farmer or businessman can go on producing at a loss, these marginal producers stop producing and selling milk on the market. They will use their cows and their skill for other more profitable purposes. They will, for example, produce butter, cheese or meat. There will be less milk available for the consumers, not more.”

These outcomes are of course contrary to the intentions of lawmakers, Mises pointed out. They wanted to make it easier for people to purchase milk, not reduce the supply of milk. But the result is the same, he observed, and that is the lesson.

So what can we do about it at home besides getting ready to write bigger checks to Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO)?

HECO vice president Jim Kelly suggests to “really be embracing the idea of conservation,” especially during peak hours. Between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m., don’t be cranking on the air conditioner, taking long showers, running the oven, or whatever else that requires electricity and water. And while blaming Putin might provide a few minutes of gratification, it won't do anything for the accelerated depletion of your bank account.

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/hawaii-electricity-prices-skyrocket-final-shipment-coal-arrives

*********************************************************

Biden’s Civil War on Energy Is Leaving Endless Collateral Damage in Its Wake

President Joe Biden has declared he will “end fossil fuel.” Presidents have declared war on everything from poverty to drugs, but his declaration is much more sinister. His is really a civil war.

The combatants are heavy-handed bureaucrats harassing fellow countrymen who want to do nothing more than fuel their car, cool their home, or use their skills to supply energy or other energy-based products for their neighbors.

dailycallerlogo
Unlike threats such as drugs or poverty, there is no widespread consensus on the “evil” of so-called fossil fuels. Biden’s espoused targets might be coal and oil corporations, but the collateral damage is you and me.

In deciding to “end” fossil fuels, the president—fueled by the left—has two avenues. He could attack the demand for affordable and efficient carbon-based fuels like coal, gas, and oil (try to encourage people to use less of them). Or he could attack the supply, making it harder to produce them in the first place. He has pursued both simultaneously—and as fast as Congress and the courts will let him.

Changing demand takes time—power plants are expensive and are in use for decades, and the average age of an automobile is more than 12 years. Change at that pace is not fast enough if you view gas and oil as an existential threat.

That’s why they’ve also done their best to limit supply. Unfortunately, when commodities are involved, price increases can be sharp and painful when supply and demand are imbalanced. The president’s civil war on gas, oil, and coal has victimized you—unless, perhaps, you are a Silicon Valley or Wall Street plutocrat who drives an electric car powered by your home solar panels.

What’s causing the high prices? Historically high crude oil prices (derived from tight supply) are a big part of the problem. So is refining capacity, which has dropped by a million barrels a day in the last few years. The president seems to recognize that high prices from reduced supply has backfired among the population. There was just too much collateral damage.

He’s now saying he’ll use “all reasonable and appropriate Federal Government tools and emergency authorities to increase refinery capacity and output in the near term[.]” Biden is also asking dictators around the world to increase their production of crude oil.

Meanwhile, the president and his allies continue attacking the supply of crude and refining here at home. They are slow-walking permits, stopping pipelines, and throwing shade at investors who want to provide the capital to increase production.

Investors are not eager to make big bets on these investments with the prospect of the industry’s elimination looming. The result is more expensive renewable power generation that is not always reliable. Look at the grids of California and Texas, two of the most wind and solar centric grids.

It’s hardly a coincidence that they experience legendary brownouts and even, sadly, system-wide failures. Meanwhile our geopolitical enemy, China, is expanding its coal production in one year, nearly equivalent to all the EU’s annual production, according to Gabriel Collins at the James A. Baker III Institute at Rice University.

The economic damage from the civil war is not limited to the gas, oil, and coal Industries. Energy-intensive industries that would like to operate in the U.S.—the kind of good manufacturing jobs Biden says he likes: steel, automobiles, fertilizer—are all under threat as well. And so are those who have skills and knowledge about the internal combustion engine.

Biden is fighting this civil war in the name of “trusting the science”—which, after the last two years, should give everyone pause. But even if you do “trust the science” of climate change, all this pain would be for very little, if any, gain. One expert looked at what would happen under temperature models if the United States followed through on its Paris commitments.

He ran two scenarios and found a temperate reduction of between 0.008 and 0.03 degrees centigrade by 2100.

Mr. President, it is time to end this civil war on fossil fuels that is restricting supply, and thus killing jobs while raising prices. Your war will only boost China—and inflict pain on those who cannot afford it.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/08/11/bidens-civil-war-on-energy-is-leaving-endless-collateral-damage-in-its-wake

************************************************

NJ to Give $60M to Residents for Electric Vehicles

A handout to the Leftist elite

New Jersey will spend $60 million of taxpayer funds to give $4,000 to each person who buys an electric vehicle and $250 to install electric charger stations at their homes.

Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy announced the funding, which includes $4 million set aside to incentivize apartment buildings and condominiums to install charging stations for their residents to use, The Star-Ledger reported.

The approximately $60 million will come from this year’s Clean Energy Fund, Murphy said, to combat climate change.

The funding comes in the third year of Murphy’s Charge Up New Jersey program, which the governor said resulted in more than 13,000 electric vehicles being purchased during the first two years thanks to taxpayer-funded incentives.

The state will spend another $4 million to give incentives to local governments to buy electric vehicles.

“By the close of last year, roughly 5 percent of all new vehicle sales nationwide were EVs,” Murphy said. “We want to help grow that share by getting more New Jerseyans into their first electric vehicles.”

Most EVs are more expensive than gas powered vehicles, with the average price recently hitting $66,000, whereas gasoline-powered cars average $48,043.

The people buying electric vehicles are already coming from a more financially stable place than lower-income people — a $4,000 subsidy isn’t going to make or break their decision to buy the vehicle.

Why should all of New Jersey’s taxpayers, including those who can’t afford cars and must rely on mass transit, subsidize the cost of a pricey automobile for people well off enough to afford them?

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2022/08/15/nj_to_give_60m_to_residents_for_electric_vehicles_847796.html

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************