The IMF estimates are massive outliers and every other study indicates a much higher long-term price elasticity for oil, at least 0.2-0.3. This postdiscusses the issue in detail including evidence that the long-run elasticity is even higher for taxes compared to general price increases. And of course there are a lot of margins for reducing carbon emissions through a carbon tax other than oil consumption.
Most OECD countries already tax petrolat much higher rates than the US . Other major economies like India also have high petrol taxes. So increasing fuel taxes in the US as part of a carbon tax would merely get the US closer to general international practices.
Except that the market today has a massive distortion in terms of the implicit subsidy for carbon-intensive technologies because of the untaxed externality. That distortion deters the private sector from investing in renewable technology. A carbon tax or a carbon-trading system would reduce market distortions.
Six wind farms were given six-figure payments to switch off their turbines because the Scottish grid network could not absorb all the energy being produced, it has emerged.
Research by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) found energy companies were paid a total of £900,000 for stopping the turbines for several hours between April 5 and 6 this year.
The REF said some of the payments were as high as 20 times the value of the electricity which would have been generated if the turbines kept running.
The National Grid makes constraint payments to power stations that agree to stop generating in order to stabilise the network.
I’m going to presume you’re joking rather than imagining that this cite makes a point in favour of wind energy.
Wind is an energy source that has no load-matching ability whatsoever and which on average only delivers 25-40% of its installed capacity over time. That means you have to install about three times more wind energy capacity than the energy contribution you expect wind energy to make. This is not a good thing.
The result of this is that when low demand coincides with high winds (e.g. night-time gales), the wind turbines will overload the grid. This is a big PROBLEM with wind. Solutions are:
1)Keep wind power to a small fraction of total energy capacity so switching other power generation on and off compensates for wind fluctuations. This rather negates the point of using wind power. IIRC the British/Scottish governments originally wanted to limit wind to 10% of total power capacity, then pushed it to 15%, and are wanting to push it further.
Have sufficient power storage to save that excess energy up somewhere. Scotland has the Foyers hydroelectric pumped storage plant (it uses Loch Ness as the lower reservoir!) but it may have been maxed out on the night in question, or the grid couldn’t handle transmision from the wind farms to Foyers. For wind to make a really large contribution, you need to be able to store very large amounts of energy and aside from pumped storage, the technology for this is in its infancy.
Switch the wind power off if it’s generating too much. This is wasteful but it’s what they had to do.
Wind power is not “woefully inadequate” but it is woefully low density, woefully poor at load-matching and woefully high-resource per installed megawatt. As you have said before, with sufficient will, these problems can be overcome. Personally I think it will be easier to develop solar so it overtakes wind rather than solve the problems of large-scale wind, but we will see.
Just to throw another renewable (my personal favourite) into the mix, I’d love to see an OTEC pilot plant built to get some hard data on it. There doesn’t seem to be much interest in that today, although I’m not the only one who’s hoping: http://www.otecnews.org/
A long but very interesting paper on OTEC, ocean-grown biomass, tidal and wave power, ocean current power, and salinity-gradient power, the latter of which I’d never even heard of before today: http://www.jodc.go.jp/info/ioc_doc/Technical/135278e.pdf
Gradual increase of all energy consumption taxes for the foreseeable future, without an upper limit, and with a significant % increase every 5 years, at least, so that the current energy consumption mentality can get rid of the mostly US conservative imposed ideal that waste is a personal justification for living.
The developing countries are following up to that deranged, immoral, and almost religious tenet, and they are contributing to the destruction of the human biosphere in unprecedented levels.
Though this thread has just about fallen off the main page, I was reading this article and thought I’d post the link and a few things from it. The article talks about the reactions from various countries around the world to what happened in Japan, and what their plans are wrt the future of nuclear energy, and it has some interesting stuff in it.
So, some countries are looking at this realistically, others are going with fear. Japan and Germany both seem determined to take nuclear out of their energy mix and replace it with wind and solar. However:
Just some food for thought, and reading it I figured I’d toss it in here, since it’s what the thread is all about.
Unfortunately, you still don’t appear to understand which side you’re on. You are on the fear side, just as all the other countries “forging ahead” with nuclear with no regard for the cost, peril and nuclear weapon proliferation. You buy all the fear-mongering the nuclear lobbyists dish out, hook line and sinker. You’ll do anything to save yourself from the dreaded global warming monster. Anything that is, except give clean renewable energy a chance and instead continue to throw billions and billions of taxpayer money on multi-billion dollar and decades-long nuclear projects that go nowhere.
Sad.
Bravo to countries like Germany and Japan, brave enough to open their eyes, see reality for what it is, and take the real steps required to deal with that reality.
China and India can have their nukes. Their people already live in filth and squalor. Cancerous deaths and grotesque birth deformities are nothing they aren’t already accustomed to, and hopefully they’ll keep most of their radioactive fallout inside their own borders. Large parts of it, anyway.
In another thread people are discussing the merits of establishing some sort of mini human population on Mars. The thought of so many people ready to put 1,000s of times the radioactive, fissionable material than was exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasake, in every town on earth, kinda lends credence to the avoid-all-our-eggs-in-one-basket impetus towards space research with the aim of eventual extra-earth colonization and long-term human species preservation.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Unfortunately, you still don’t appear to understand which side you’re on. You are on the fear side, just as all the other countries “forging ahead” with nuclear with no regard for the cost, peril and nuclear weapon proliferation. You buy all the fear-mongering the nuclear lobbyists dish out, hook line and sinker. You’ll do anything to save yourself from the dreaded global warming monster. Anything that is, except give clean renewable energy a chance and instead continue to throw billions and billions of taxpayer money on multi-billion dollar and decades-long nuclear projects that go nowhere.
[/QUOTE]
It’s funny then how it’s your side (and you in particular) who have to use overblown fear in these debates, isn’t it? How many people have died in Japan due to radiation sickness again? Zero? And what would your response to that be? That hundreds, thousands, millions or billions will die in the next X number of years, nom nom nom? Yeah…it’s my side who are on the side of fear.
Personally, I see it as a reality based position based on actual data and a realistic assessment of the actual risks verse the realistic rewards verse…your side, which isn’t.
Tell you what. We’ll come back to this in a decade and see how Japan and Germany are doing in getting rid of their nuclear and replacing it with wind and solar. If they have actually managed to replace their energy production with nuclear with wind and solar then you will be vindicated. If they haven’t, and instead they rely on getting energy from other countries (in the case of Germany) or with coal and natural gas, then you are wrong. Deal?
Yep…no fear based assessments or hand-wringing here! Need to replace that irony meter, however…
I’m all for going to Mars. Guess what? If we ever do, they will be using nuclear energy.
As usual you are manufacturing facts out of your own biases. China is pretty far down in the world cancer tables (http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/rates39.html) and it’s rich countries, relatively free of filth and squalor, that lead. Isolated, modern, nuclear-free Australia is far above China in cancer rates. Hell, even super-renewable Spain beats China in male cancer rates.
I think it will need a breakthrough or two! We’d have to massively increase gobal production of steel, concrete, glass fibre and copper to do it with wind power, and current solar technology is far worse resources-wise. OTOH, if we end up being able to print a gigawatt of 10% efficient polymer photovoltaic film on 20 tonnes of plastic, it’ll be easy-peasy.
On reading the Scientific American summary of the UN report, it’s a bit more guarded than your post would suggest, mentioning scenarios with renewables providing between 15 and 77% of energy by 2050. Global renewables contribution is currently 12.9% but that is mostly due to biomass (firewood) being burned in the 3rd world. I’d love to know how big the non-biomass renewable contribution is.
The report also mentions geothermal and ocean energy. Most geothermal energy isn’t really renewable - it’s more like “mining heat” from the hot rock below our feet. Once it’s cooled down, it won’t warm up again for centuries. Additionally the hot rock geothermal technology uses the same hydraulic fracturing methods that environmentalists are up in arms about when it’s used to extract shale gas. Hot-rock geothermal is a stop-gap, and not a very good one. Favourable-site geothermal OTOH is a renewable resource but rather limited.
By “ocean energy” I hope they mean OTEC. I’ve been doing some reading on the current state of play and there does seem to be a revival of interest in the OTEC concept, not only for energy generation but because it produces vast quantities of desalinated seawater as a byproduct and creates artificial upwellings that should make the [BLUE REVOLUTION HAWAII: List of Top Guitar Brands on Guitar World]ocean deserts bloom.
Do you include biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel as biomass? If so, then I may have a number for the remainder (wind, solar, tidal, hydro, geothermal, etc.) for you in a bit.
Given how static hydro is, it’s very, very difficult to image the policies could be implemented which would meet that “80% by 2050 goal.” I think I have the document now so maybe I’ll post some more fact-based comments later.
The first thing to note is that the full report which contains all of the facts and figures and assumptions and speculations is not out until May 31 (SRREN Report - IPCC-WG3), so from one standpoint it’s a little problematic to buy into or damn the report based on the summary which is released.
In any event, the “Summary for Policymakers” (SRREN Report - IPCC-WG3) is available and while I did have a little trouble getting it to download, it only took all of 3 minutes to do.
One of the first thing to note is that once again, gonzomax’s exuberant repeating of the “80% by 2050” number is just typical of what is making Great Debates suck, which is people Googling and grabbing anything they find and posting it to have everyone else be the ones to tell them why they’re wrong. It’s really tiring, and one reason I’m posting less in here.
On page 18 we see what is probably the most realistic estimate, and one which I actually agree with based on other research I’ve done, which is:
So “more than 27%” by 2050, which is a really, really far cry from “80%” (which is actually 77%, but hey, what’s a few quads when you’re a journalist, right?)
Now what about the details of the scenarios? Well, we can’t see them yet, since the main report (IIRC more than 1,000 pages long, and since I’m the person everyone dumps these things on I’ll likely be paid to read every, single, page). To what extent can we trust the IPCC summary, relative to the main report? Historically they’ve been pretty fair IMO, although I have caught a couple of bad typos in some of their numbers in the past. They claim to get to these scenarios in just the power generation sector will require an investment of between $2.9 and $12.2 trillion worldwide until 2030 (page 23). It sounds like a lot but compared to the world GDP it’s quite small and very doable IMO.
Where will the new RE come from? From page 22, they state:
The summary is a little vague on exactly how they expect these goals to be met from a specific technology selection or breakthrough, and appears to be somewhat weak. There are some notes on pages 14-16 about how in general biomass use might increase, but they fall far short of what someone like myself can use for a good analysis. I’m hoping the main report will clarify this. They do note that water use may drive the technology selection (page 18), possibly limiting thermal (Rankine and other cycle) biomass use. Notes are made on page 17 about biomass land use restrictions. Their graph on page 12 implies they seem bullish on continued drops in solar PV prices, but bearish on wind installation prices. I’ll note that their graph on page 10 appears to contradict many of the enthusiastic news reports about how the levelized cost of solar PV is already “cheaper than coal,” but then that’s sort of prima facie evident.
Digging through the report as a whole, the impression I have is that they really do expect solar energy (direct PV primarily, but also thermal) to be the largest source of increase in renewable energy (as a percentage – in terms of total use, biomass still outweighs it, see page 21). And in annex countries, wind still outpaces solar too on an absolute basis, but at a lower percentage rate of growth (understandable, given the trends of wind energy development since the mid-1990’s). Given the incredibly low penetration of solar at this time, their predictions seem to require or at least imply a revolutionary change in technology, policy, economics, politics, and actually all of the aforementioned.
I think as well the lifecycle GHG emissions of the different technologies on page 17 is important to note. Many have claimed that power sources such as wind and solar were carbon neutral, or even carbon-negative overall, but the IPCC seems to disagree with that with respect to their reported median values. This begs the larger question of whether or not we can actually stabilize CO2 as the IPCC believes, or if even with 27% RE by 2050 we’re not still increasing CO2.
Scientific American is always guarded. They are a careful publication that does not get involved in hyping something not based in science. Nor do they have a reputation as over selling a viewpoint.
I really do believe the big breakthroughs are coming. As I said before we have built 2 wave plants in the Detroit River. That is a commitment beyond just a stab at fixing the problem. it was conceived at the Univ. of Michigan and they sold it well enough to get it built. There are labs working on the problem all over the world.
matthere is the IPCC press release, which is where the “80%” comes from. It is of course just a sketch of the summary statement but it gives some abstracted details that you may be interested in. I am also sure that the"could" and “if” immediately below are a very big ones.
How many people have died in Japan due to radiation sickness again? Zero? And what would your response to that be? That hundreds, thousands, millions or billions will die in the next X number of years, nom nom nom? Yeah…it’s my side who are on the side of fear.