Fossil Fuel Free Future

[waldo]

Waldo, let's just say I take that study at face value and ignore the possibility that there may be large confirmation bias in the study.

it is certainly your prerogative to simply dismiss that study with your presumptive "confirmation bias" implication... here, try another from the International Monetary Fund: How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies

$5 trillion in energy costs to cover the hidden health and environmental costs of using fossil fuels... ~6.5% of global GDP! Of course, costs vary substantially by region within the world... coincidentally, the region with the largest percentage of costs is that same part of the world that Harper Conservatives are so keen to exploit with tarsands exports. "In dollar terms, Emerging and Developing Asia accounts for about half of post-tax subsidies in 2013, and advanced economies account for about one-quarter.

.

Nuclear does not have these emissions so is still a far better option than wind or solar in most cases.

I'm a proponent of nuclear... but not what reflects the technology of today. As I've done in many past MLW threads, a few posts back I spoke of 'advanced nuclear' and highlighted key profiled proponents to that end. But obviously, the political will is not there; you would presume proponents of existing alternative energy sources (those with an associated, to varying degrees, political will), simply walk-away from those and follow your standard "do-nothing/delay" lead - yes?

.

[TimG]

$5 trillion in energy costs to cover the hidden health and environmental costs of using fossil fuels... ~6.5% of global GDP! Of course, costs vary substantially by region within the world.

And this data supports what I have been saying for a long time: there are NO meaningful subsidies for fossil fuels in developed economies. The $1 trillion dollars for advanced economies listed in this report consists entirely of "externalities" which are nothing but imaginary numbers plucked out of a hat.

I'm a proponent of nuclear... but not what reflects the technology of today.

IOW, your are opposed to the technology we actually have available today and simply use the "advanced nuclear" unicorn as a diversion to deflect criticism of your hypocrisy. Bottom line: if CO2 is a clear and present danger that requires radical actions then there is no excuse for not rapidly deploying the nuclear technology we have available today. If the danger from CO2 is small enough or remote enough that we can afford to ignore the most effective tools we have then it obviously does not require other more radical government interventions. Edited August 15, 2015 by TimG

[waldo]

And this data supports what I have been saying for a long time: there are NO meaningful subsidies for fossil fuels in developed economies. The $1 trillion dollars for advanced economies listed in this report consists entirely of "externalities" which are nothing but imaginary numbers plucked out of a hat.

"NO meaningful subsidies"! How cavalier of you to focus on 'advanced economies' only to attempt to weasel a presumed point by trivializing 1/4 of the total subsidies amount... notwithstanding, of course, subsidies within developing countries related to:

- the indirect outsourcing of the creation of advanced economies consumer consumption products to developing countries

- the direct exporting of fossil-fuel products from advanced economies to developing countries

from that same IMF source:

.

IOW, your are opposed to the technology we actually have available today and simply use the "advanced nuclear" unicorn as a diversion to deflect criticism of your hypocrisy. Bottom line: if CO2 is a clear and present danger that requires radical actions then there is no excuse for not rapidly deploying the nuclear technology we have available today. If the danger from CO2 is small enough or remote enough that we can afford to ignore the most effective tools we have then it obviously does not require other more radical government interventions.

nice try: I didn't say I was opposed to it... I said I wasn't in favour of it... that I'm a proponent of 'advanced nuclear'. But it's a moot point either way as there is little political/public will for nuclear (current or 'advanced'), the capital costs for nuclear today are most significant (prohibitive even) and... there is a long cycle period of 7 years or so just to develop a nuclear reactor (which doesn't include typical multi-year planning and licensing time), even if a go-ahead could be realized.

but, of course, this is your ploy here: actually avoid discussing either study I put forward, outright deny what they say while failing to provide anything to even attempt to counter them... other than your unsubstantiated, personal, agenda-driven opinion.

.

[msj]

but, of course, this is your ploy here: actually avoid discussing either study I put forward, outright deny what they say while failing to provide anything to even attempt to counter them... other than your unsubstantiated, personal, agenda-driven opinion.

.

I treat him like Sir Charles suggests in that thread about improving the forum: ignore him.

I thought your studies were great reading and much more realistic than this belief that FF's are not dirty and not subject to externalities etc.....

[TimG]

I thought your studies were great reading and much more realistic than this belief that FF's are not dirty and not subject to externalities etc.....

I did not say there were not subject to externalities - just that any attempt to quantify those externalities involves picking imaginary numbers out of hat that are extremely dependent on the biases of the person doing the picking. I also said that all energy sources have externalities (a point which you ignored) and it is myopic to focus only the externalities that fossil fuels may have. i.e. want to run the world on renewables then what will be the harm caused by the constant blackout/brownouts which would be an inevitable consequence? Edited August 16, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

"NO meaningful subsidies"! How cavalier of you to focus on 'advanced economies' only to attempt to weasel a presumed point by trivializing 1/4 of the total subsidies amount.

Does not change the fact that there are next to no direct monetary subsidies to fossil fuels in advanced economies and people who claim that fossil fuels receive direct monetary subsidies are spouting nonsense. Your attempt to evade the point with more attempts to paint people living in advanced economies as sinners who deserved to be punished in the name of your CAGW religion is noted.

BTW: I am discussing the study when I point out the fact that is shows that actual fossil fuel subsidies are purely a developing world problem and the job of stopping them rests with developing world governments. You are the one that want to avoid acknowledging this.

Edited August 16, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

from that same IMF source:

That's just share of energy subsidies. That doesn't mean those subsidies are for fossil fuels. For example, advanced economies may have large subsidies for renewable energy such as Germany.

[waldo]

That's just share of energy subsidies. That doesn't mean those subsidies are for fossil fuels. For example, advanced economies may have large subsidies for renewable energy such as Germany.

no - it's the share of fossil-fuel subsidies, direct or hidden... perhaps you should actually have a look at the paper I linked to!

I await your information on your declared "large subsidies" for renewable energy... particularly those related to the hidden costs associated with health and environmental impacts! Make sure to put them in proper comparative context against subsidies for fossil-fuels...

.

[waldo]

Does not change the fact that there are next to no direct monetary subsidies to fossil fuels in advanced economies and people who claim that fossil fuels receive direct monetary subsidies are spouting nonsense. Your attempt to evade the point with more attempts to paint people living in advanced economies as sinners who deserved to be punished in the name of your CAGW religion is noted.

what... you don't want to discuss the so-called 'hidden costs' (externalities) associated with health and environment impacts of fossil-fuels - go figure!

obviously we've been down this path before... I trot out reams of reference links/quotations and you claim "those aren't real subsidies"... I believe your latest was a 'song and dance' about tax credits not being subsidies!

here... have another to ignore:

- per the OECD: ... for example, I guess you consider $45 Billion (USD) annually in consumption subsidies in developed countries/advanced economies as... what words did you use... "next to no"!

.

BTW: I am discussing the study when I point out the fact that is shows that actual fossil fuel subsidies are purely a developing world problem and the job of stopping them rests with developing world governments. You are the one that want to avoid acknowledging this.

it shows nothing of the sort... unless you consider ignoring a full 1/4 of the total subsidy costs (direct/hidden) associated with fossil-fuels in advanced economies! Notwithstanding, again, the significant outsourcing developed countries undertake to have developing countries provided mass consumer products for consumption... you know, the outsourcing of emissions to developing countries:

.

[-1=e^ipi]

no - it's the share of fossil-fuel subsidies, direct or hidden... perhaps you should actually have a look at the paper I linked to!

Too lazy. I don't have infinite time. I have no idea if the methodology is correct or not.

[TimG]

what... you don't want to discuss the so-called 'hidden costs' (externalities) associated with health and environment impacts of fossil-fuels - go figure!

Attribution is next to impossible to do because any given health issue has multiple causes. More importantly, it is simply dishonest to talk about intangible harms without looking at intangible benefits. For example, how many lives were saved because of gasoline powered ambulances? Shouldn't that benefit be counted against any harm? It is these kinds of questions which make any attempt to quantify the cost of externalities a subjective exercise that only reflects the biases and the prejudices of the people doing the estimating. I am sorry that you can't seem to grasp this basic concept.

More importantly, people are always ranting about 'fossil fuel subsidies' that can be cut to fund their pet projects but externalities are not money that can be freed up. They are sunk costs. The only subsidies that can be cut are direct monetary subsidies and are basically non-existent according to the IMF report.

That said, you decided to lower the bar and bring up the 55 billion in 'tax expenditures' which is basically a rounding error given the figures in the IMF report. To further put the $55 billion in alleged subsidies in proper context:

- the US spends $350 billion a year on gasoline and collects $25 billion in taxes;

- the US federal govt receives $12 billion in royalties from oil and gas.

- Alberta also receives about $12 billion in oil royalties.

- Norway has a $1 trillion fund paid for with oil revenues.

- Every other OECD countries collects equally significant sums in taxes and royalties (if the are producers).

IOW - the $55 billion is easily cancelled out by the royalties and taxes collected on fossil fuels which would disappear if we stopped using fossil fuels. Therefore, even if I accept the $55 billion at face value you are simply providing more evidence that there are no meaningful monetary subsidies to fossils in the advanced economies.

Edited August 16, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

Attribution is next to impossible to do because any given health issue has multiple causes.

So? Perform a statistical regression. Problem solved.

More importantly, it is simply dishonest to talk about intangible harms without looking at intangible benefits.

Most of the benefits you have mentioned aren't external and are already internalized in the market.

For example, how many lives were saved because of gasoline powered ambulances?

Yes, but that's already internalized in the market for ambulances.

externalities... are sunk costs.

........... What?

[TimG]

So? Perform a statistical regression. Problem solved.

Regression does not establish causation.

Yes, but that's already internalized in the market for ambulances.

What does that mean? With no fossil fuels and the tech available over the last 50 years ambulances would not exist or would be much less efficient. How do you price the value of having an efficient ambulance service?

........... What?

Many of the alleged harms have already been done and the costs will continue to acrue even if we stopped using fossil fuels. Moreover, any other technology deployed at equivalent scale will come with its own set of externalities/costs that will likely be as significant as those for fossils so the idea that eliminating fossil fuels will eliminate externalities is a hopeless delusion. Other tech only seems better because we have not used it enough to know what the externalities will be. Edited August 16, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

Regression does not establish causation.

Well, that depends on the type of regression. You can get an estimate of the effect of pollution on health outcomes is my point.

With no fossil fuels and the tech available over the last 50 years ambulances would not exist or would be much less efficient.

I agree. But that still doesn't make the effect of fossil fuels on ambulances an externality.

How do you price the value of having an efficient ambulance service?

That's a difficult question to answer, but irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

Many of the alleged harms have already been done and the costs will continue to acrue even if we stopped using fossil fuels. Moreover, any other technology deployed at equivalent scale will come with its own set of externalities/costs that will likely be as significant as those for fossils so the idea that eliminating fossil fuels will eliminate externalities is a hopeless delusion. Other tech only seems better because we have not used it enough to know what the externalities will be.

This doesn't explain how 'externalities are sunk costs'.

[TimG]

That's a difficult question to answer, but irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

It is extremely relevant because if fossil fuels resulted in a more efficient ambulance system then that is an intangible benefit fossil fuel that must be weighed against intangible harms.

This doesn't explain how 'externalities are sunk costs'.

What do you think this statement means:

"Many of the alleged harms have already been done and the costs will continue to acrue even if we stopped using fossil fuels."

It is textbox definition of a 'sunk cost'.

[-1=e^ipi]

It is extremely relevant because if fossil fuels resulted in a more efficient ambulance system then that is an intangible benefit fossil fuel that must be weighed against intangible harms.

Yes, but in terms of determining a pigouvian tax, only external effects matter.

What do you think this statement means:

"Many of the alleged harms have already been done and the costs will continue to acrue even if we stopped using fossil fuels."

It is textbox definition of a 'sunk cost'.

So you mean to say 'some externalities are sunk costs'?

[waldo]

Too lazy. I don't have infinite time. I have no idea if the methodology is correct or not.

no - "look"... as in realize you failed in your most high-level assessment that the graphic (that the paper) reflected on renewables as well as fossil-fuels. Again, it doesn't... it only focuses on fossil-fuels. Again, I will once again encourage you to come forward with subsidy costs for renewables (since that was your emphasis)... something for comparative review to those costs (direct and hidden) attributed to fossil-fuels.

[Mighty AC]

According to Citibank, the world will need massive investment in new energy sources by 2040. Meeting energy demands with our business as usual mix of Coal, Gas, Nukes and renewables will cost about $190.2 trillion. The cost of meeting demand with a pure clean energy strategy would cost essentially the same at about $192 trillion. However, the clean energy solution could save as much as $72 trillion in economic damage.

The clean energy approach would have some winners and losers. Our health and the environment would benefit and associated costs reduced. The costs of disaster relief and destabilization would also decrease. However, the owners of fossil fuel assets would lose.

Investing in clean energy would cost only marginally more than ‘business as usual’ Citibank says

As global GDP is set to triple by 2060, from US$80 trillion to $260 trillion, the world will need to spend a staggering $200 trillion on energy sector investment before 2040, according to a Citi Global Perspectives & Solutions report. The cost of that investment, however, would be virtually the same whether money is poured into “business as usual” investments or clean energy solutions. Citi estimates an “inaction” scenario would cost $190.2 trillion, while an “action” on clean energy scenario would cost $192 trillion between 2015 and 2040.

[jacee]

Fossil fuels don't make economic sense anymore.

Divest!

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/corporate-knights-fossil-fuel-divestment-1.3321265

In an analysis published Monday, 14 of the world's largest public pension plans with collective assets in excess of $1 trillion US have lost out on $22 billion by not shifting out of coal, oil and gas stocks and into cleaner energy companies in 2012.

The shift to renewables is where the smart money goes.

[overthere]

The shift to renewables is where the smart money goes.

Yes, that is a point made strongly many times by David Suzuki when he jets and drives around Canada on tours promoting his books.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, that is a point made strongly many times by David Suzuki when he jets and drives around Canada on tours promoting his books.

http://guideauto.com/dr-david-suzuki-buys-first-toyota-prius-in-canada/actualite

"Toyota Canada announced today that the first Toyota Prius sold in Canada has been purchased by noted scientist and environmentalist Dr. David Suzuki. "

He may have actually gone full electric by now.

[TimG]

Fossil fuels don't make economic sense anymore.

Tell that to the UK which has found out how harmful green policies because their grid is no longer able to deliver the energy that people need when they need it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/11994954/Amber-Rudd-end-to-pursuit-of-green-energy-at-all-costs.html

"Energy security has to be the first priority. It is fundamental to the health of our economy and the lives of our people," she will say.

Although the Government wants gas plants to replace coal, Ms Rudd is expected to admit that the UK electricity market is now so distorted by subsidies that "no form of power generation, not even gas-fired power stations, can be built without government intervention".

"Subsidy should be temporary, not part of a permanent business model. We need to provide a level playing field, where success is driven by your ability to compete in a market, not on your ability to lobby for subsidy."

But he said there should be a “break from the past” in order to "meet objectives in the most cost-effective way possible, with the government getting out the way and letting the market prevail where it can".

Renewable simple do not provide the base load power that our society needs are no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. Any energy policy that does not include a credible plan to provide base load power is going fail and cause serious harm to people and the economy. Edited November 17, 2015 by TimG

[cannuck]

Tell that to the UK which has found out how harmful green policies because their grid is no longer able to deliver the energy that people need when they need it:

Renewable simple do not provide the base load power that our society needs are no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. Any energy policy that does not include a credible plan to provide base load power is going fail and cause serious harm to people and the economy.

You have to be careful in dampening ideological enthusiasm with the facts.

There are huge problems with reliability and capacity within the North American grid. The US would be in very deep doo doo were it not for the massive amounts of hydro power that MB, NF and QC export cheaply across the 49th. What makes everything possible is having base load generation that is extremely cheap and able to absorb a lot of variation in load (as well as tolerate high turn down). Hydro is ideal, but if you don't have the resource and can not tolerate the massive environmental damage of flooding reservoirs, it is a limited option. Coal is used simply because it is very cheap and replacing that with the much more limited and price-volatile natural gas as a source works for now, but still have huge GHG side. All of the botique power solutions that make people feel good, such as distributed simple cycle gas turbines, alternatives of most sorts, etc. are massively expensive and not able to float well with demand changes. The reason utilities can play these ridiculous political games is that their cheap base load provides most of the power and can absorb the load variations that the alternatives don't do well and can not do cost effectively.

Just as an example: Those who think wind power is "free" once built need to realize that the cost of maintenance alone is usually greater than the cost of typical base load sourced power.

What makes me LMFAO is all of this effort to make different, ineffective and expensive solutions try to work to create even more energy to be wasted by our idiotic lifestyle. I will start to take it seriously when I see the David Suzuki's of this world walk the walk instead of running the mouth. And, yes, I have a pretty good idea of his lifestyle as one of my very close friends was a senior member of his staff for most of the last 3 decades.

Edited January 16, 2016 by cannuck

[TimG]

The US would be in very deep doo doo were it not for the massive amounts of hydro power that MB, NF and QC export cheaply across the 49th.

Huh? The hydro base load power from Canada exists and is reliable so the grids in the northern US have evolved to incorporate this supply. You could also say the existing grids would be in deep doo doo if the shutdown their exiting coal plants. It is a meaningless statement.

Also the "massive" amount of power translates into <2% of US electricity retail sales. In New England that ratio is closer to 15% which is large but I would not call it "massive". Your are letting your enthusiasm carry you away.

That said, the grid has issues but those issues will only be made worse by government mandates to use renewable power when it makes no sense. It is also important to distinguish between dispatchable generation and non-dispatchable generation. Dispatchable generation can be turned on or off as required. Baseload is usually not dispatchable but it is predictable. Gas turbines and hydro are dispatchable which makes them essential for matching demand with supply. Renewables are the worst of both worlds because they are not dispatchable like gas turbines and they are not reliable like baseload.

The recent collapse in natural gas prices has made gas baseload more feasible but a plant that provides baseload is designed differently than a plant designed to be dispatchable.

Edited January 16, 2016 by TimG

[waldo]

Renewable simple do not provide the base load power that our society needs are no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. Any energy policy that does not include a credible plan to provide base load power is going fail and cause serious harm to people and the economy.

notwithstanding your penchant for purposely framing and strawmaning change/diversification as "now/immediate", when the overall shift time frame is multi-decadal, feel free to enrich your knowledge with the following links. I won't bother to quote from the articles as I've done so previously with like related references and you've simply chosen to ignore them... feel free to label this a 'dump-n-drop':

Renewable energy can provide baseload power - here’s how

Baseload power is a myth: even intermittent renewables will work

.