In Choosing Among Various Approaches to Energy, Politics Is a Very Big Deal
Frequent commenter MarcoPolo scolds me for my post on Examining the Validity of Different Energy Resources: “One thing that will not be useful in the development of future sources of power generation is cheap and inane partisan political jibes.”
Let me put aside the childish and unfair attack on my thoughts as “cheap and inane,” and substitute something more reasoned, perhaps: “discussions of energy policy and politics should not be mixed.” From the dozens of conversations you and I have had on the subject over the years, I’ve come to know that you think that way. But I don’t.
The money and politics that drives energy policy is a far more effective force in determining which way we’re headed than the technology itself, and the political forces behind Big Energy and climate change denialism are absolutely huge—and growing by the day.
I wish that weren’t the case, but as long as it is, it needs to be understood.
Hi Craig.
I didn’t think much of your post “Examining the Validity of Different Energy Resources”, and I won’t rehash it point by point here, but I expect your friend Cameron Atwood didn’t get an answer to his question at all.
Cameron like many people is actually interested in the genuine cost of any given technology to PRODUCE energy, and was not inquiring about the PRICE of energy at the wholesale or retail level. You missed the nuance of what Cameron was alluding to Craig. If Cameron had asked me this same question I would have referred him to a Haitian witch-doctor or Ouija Board for the answer, because there is no answer forthcoming from the energy sector, and worse, there is no answer from academia also.
This is a lamentable, unforgiving and dangerous situation that needs to be arrested for the world’s best and brightest scientists, engineers and researchers, to have any chance of developing the “equalizing energy based technologies” we desperately need to move into the modern global focused era, which only blind Freddy would not be aware of.
Focusing back on the bed mates of politics and energy, I don’t know Marco Polo’s views but from my experience “potential energy as a concept” is an immutable component of physics presided over by the natural world, whilst on the other hand “useful energy for the use of human beings to prosper” is an engineering science presided over by local/regional/national (and now becoming) international political policy. They are bed mates – and politics is on top!
Importantly, without the latter, the former remains a component of physics alone and the nexus is well established and documented. The history of national energy policies mirrors the history of the overall development of nations that we see today. The USA for example developed on the back of central government policy relating to the transformation of the energy sectors in all of their specialized forms.
I had a one on one discussion last December with the president of Eritrea who was wrestling with this exact point, politics; energy technologies, and costs; just like Cameron Atwood. The president is very perceptive, and I am confident Eritrea as a late comer to wide coverage electrification policy based on global standards, may turn out to be a showpiece on how politics and energy technology work best together in the modern era.
Lawrence Coomber
At this risk of sounding rude, I think the reason you didn’t think too much of it is that you didn’t understand it. If you look up LCOE, you’ll see that the concept has nothing to do with the retail or wholesale price; the “C” stands for “cost,” and that is what Cameron was asking about.
I would love to see Eritrea lead the way into some social good; they don’t have a terrific reputation for that thus far, but I remain hopeful.
Lawrence,
What an interesting post. President Isaias Afwerkiof of Eritrea is certainly a dictator with very few scruples when it comes to democracy and human rights. However, having regard to Eritea’s recent history and chaotic demographic, he’s done well just to stay alive and in power.
Nor is his government without achievements, and still has powerful enemies in Ethiopia disseminating disinformation and propaganda.
Commercial viability must be the final arbiter that underpins great engineering designs before gaining traction.
Engineers, not surprisingly, are not so good at evaluating their own designs from this standpoint (me included) and this is the major reason that once we all engage with a technology that looks impressive, we can’t cut it loose no matter how far removed from commercial reality it is. Big wind is a case in point.
The key take away is this, we can be fairly sure that once some new renewable energy labeled technology hits the ground and is taken up, it is already moving rapidly to obsolescence. And this equates to very expensive stranded assets sitting idle everywhere.
We need to be highly circumspect about “zombie” energy technology breakthrough’s in particular. I run some PV projects in Gujarat India with energy engineers and I am totally over some researcher asking my opinion on some new fangled PV breakthrough like solar cells made from vegetable waste etc etc.
Stay focused on enduring and energy dense energy solutions that can withstand the commercial viability test and we can move forward confidently and cost effectively.
Here is an interesting post I found:
“I can only agree particularly with respect to climate change and the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions.
“Forty years of real world data shows that only nuclear can replace fossil fuel electricity generation. France replaced most of its fossil fuel electricity generation with 63GW of nuclear between 1975 and 1995 and today has CO2 emissions of just 44g/kWh.
http://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/chiffres-cles-en
“Only three countries have lower electricity emissions, Norway which uses hydro and Switzerland and Sweden which both use a nuclear hydro mix.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/Tables/t0305.pdf
[Especially note the following:]
“Since 2000 Germany added 85GW of renewable energy giving a total of 95GW, which in 2015 only generated 30% of their electricity. Just 11GW of nuclear produced 14%. Most was provided by fossil fuels when there was insufficient wind or sun giving CO2 emissions of 484g/kWh, 10 times higher than France.
http://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2016/Jahresauswertung_2016/Agora_Jahresauswertung_2015_Slides_web_EN.pdf
“For 2015 divide 313million tonnes on p41 by 647TWh on p13 gives 484gms/kWh.
“Even if global community and political support can be gained to replace fossil fuels with nuclear for electricity generation we still need to reduce emissions for transport, industry heat and land use.”
Can there be any doubt about the essentialness of nuclear power?
Here is the source of the quotation:
https://bravenewclimate.com/2016/05/27/bnc-3-0/
From the same web site, here is a problem facing Tasmania, one of the states in Australia:
“I am just giving a heads up to anyone who missed it about the 7.30 report segment (Friday 3rd June, 5 minutes) on Tasmania’s current power crisis I wasn’t previously aware, but their dams are very low on water, so hydro is in short supply and the HVDC cable to the mainland broke in December and is not fixed yet. Temporary diesel power units are blowing smoke everywhere and power rationing is required.
If ever there was a succinct example of the limitations of renewables this is it. Barry Brook is in Tassy and should be able to give us more details.
Somebody call Bob Brown, he’ll be able to fix it!
Don’t laugh SA, we rely on one link to back up the intermittents as well.”
“That underlines an aspect of climate change few are aware of: hydro reservoir water inventories are impacted by shifting precipitation patterns and there is not always enough thermal back-up to offset this.”
“There is a good discussion of the issue here
http://euanmearns.com/the-tasmanian-energy-crisis/
Tassie has started to come good with the recent rain, though, so they’ve been able to turn the diesel off and gas down. Their 2 wind farms have helped at times and not at all at others (as you’d expect)”
Craig,
I’m puzzled by your belief that I consider “discussions of energy policy and politics should not be mixed.”
I can’t think how you reach that astonishing conclusion.
Obviously, it’s unavoidable that energy policy, like any public policy will be the subject of political process.
I think you have misinterpreted my belief that when planning, analyzing or discussing energy technology, it’s unhelpful to insist the validity of technology be subject to the narrow values of any particular political or ideological agenda.
Viewing any project or technology through the distortion of a political or ideological prism, is most unlikely to produce an accurate or realistic evaluation.
It’s true I can’t see how using complex environmental, or developing technology for partisan point scoring against political or ideological enemies, is productive.
Divisive attacks on perceived political, ideological, cultural or just plain personal enemies are counter-productive when it comes to formulating policies which need inclusive cooperation to implement.
But your remarks do highlight the essential difference in our approach to the issue of environmental progress and energy technology.
By your own admission you tend to see everything in terms of a grand struggle, or “Crusade”. Your Crusade combines a leftist agenda with environmental issues. You see the world as inhabited by “evil” cabals of grand omnipotent forces of darkness. These forces must be defeated before any progress can be achieved. (That may be a bit exaggerated :)).
I see things differently. I don’t believe any such omnipotent cabals exist. Instead I believe, given time, developing technology will resolve environmental and alternate energy problems. To gain public acceptance, Environmentalists must formulate realistic, practical proposals, no matter how small scale, in order the cooperation of citizens from every walk of life and political persuasion.
An example of our different approach is the problem of climate change emissions from ruminants.
It’s true that ruminants, primarily sheep and cattle, are a serious cause of excessive methane.( 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.).
While most of the negative environmental aspects of meat farming can be ameliorated by better farm practices, the problem of emissions from the animals digestive system remains. Oddly enough, the gases produced are not realy natural. They result from an ancient genetic defect created by a long extinct virus. The animals would be happier and healthier without the gas problem !
So let’s contrast our differing method of solving this environmental problem :-
1) Craig’s Solution :
Political action involving an ideological/moral campaign to prevent the eating of read meat. ( it still leaves the problem of milk and wool production) This approach also strikes at the heart of other businesses such as McDonald’s etc, American corporations who don’t fit his political agenda.
Or-
2) Marcopolo’s Solution.
Invest in scientific research to genetically correcting the defect in the animal’s digestive system. While this wouldn’t solve all environmental problems associated with animal husbandry, it might negate 90%.
What’s difference ? Well, getting people to stop eating red meat isn’t really feasible, nor likely to gain support. Lot’s of political activity, but no real result.
On the other hand, we are only 7-10 years away from raising animals that no longer suffer from excessive gas. The technology can easily be transferred to wild creatures. The animal will be able to eat a wilder selection of food sources, while a more efficient dietary process needs less food and water, and still gains weight.
The second approach has encountered lightweight opposition from some fringe groups who misunderstand the evolutionary process, but in general is widely supported. It can, and will be, a major win for the environment.
Readers can draw their own conclusions as to the effectiveness of the two approaches from the environments point of view.
Craig, despite all of the above, I really believe you’re as interested in me about developing and gaining acceptance for environmentally beneficial technology. I have always greatly admired your dedication as an advocate for promoting Clean Tech innovation.
( oh by the way, the observation “cheap and inane,” was not directed at you personally, merely a general observation concerning the use of cliched partisan slogans to comment on complex issues).
Thanks for the kind words.
I agree that you have a good solution to the red meat issue; I hope that works out.
I don’t propose the solution you attribute to me, btw. Please see my post on this in a few minutes.