Month: June 2023

From Forbes

Tilak Doshi contributor

I analyze energy economics and related public policy issues.

Mr. Doshi has a fascinating article at Forbes on the transformation of the IEA from a useful energy advisory body to an ideologically driven body.

In May 2021, the International Energy Agency (IEA) – the West’s energy advisory body formed after the 1973 oil price shock – released an astounding report entitled “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector”. She advocated an end to all new investment in oil and gas (let alone coal) by 2021. The IEA’s “roadmap” has, predictably, met with strong support from “climate emergency” alarmists. For example, Climate Action 100+, an investor group with $68 trillion in assets under management, hailed the report as a “watershed moment” and reiterated the IEA’s call for an immediate end to new fossil fuel investments. However, it drew widespread ridicule from industry practitioners. The Saudi oil minister, for example, called the report a continuation of “La La Land”.

It is no surprise that the report’s assessments polarize between those within the climate industrial complex and those outside the climate complex. We now have a forensic analysis of the Energy Policy Research Foundation’s IEA report released last week. It was funded by the RealClearFoundation. The analysis was edited by Rupert Darwall, author of two insightful books on the climate debate. The analysis now enables the assumptions and conclusions contained in the IEA report to be presented.

Part:

The EPRF reveals the magical thinking of the IEA

The best of all possible worlds promised by the IEA in its “net-zero by 2050” vision (a cleaner energy system with the net addition of millions of well-paying jobs) will become a reality if policymakers halt all investment in anything new immediately Fossil fuel development projects, a ban on internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035 and a ban on all carbon emissions in the power generation sector by 2040.

Perhaps the most fundamental assumption of the IEA’s net-zero roadmap is that the falling costs of wind, solar and battery technologies will quickly crowd out demand for fossil fuels, which currently account for 82% of the world’s primary energy supply, according to BP’s latest annual statistics bulletin . (Nuclear power is hardly mentioned.) This assumption underpins the entire edifice of IEA claims regarding the “net zero” future. Take away the supposedly cheap and effective “renewable energy” offered by wind, solar and battery technologies, and all of the IEA’s political advocacy – paralleling Europe’s green fantasies – crumbles to the ash of history.

The IEA report states: “Ever cheaper technologies for renewable energy give electricity a head start in the race to zero.” In its forecasts up to 2050, the further use of solar panels and wind turbines will increase their share of electricity generation by 10% in 2021 rise to 69% in 2050. To achieve large-scale, low-carbon electrification around the world, further cost reductions in solar PV and offshore wind power are needed. Capital costs for solar PV will decrease by 57-63% by 2050 and for offshore wind by 60-68%.

EPRF analysis shows that the IEA’s optimistic expectations of wind and solar replacing fossil fuels are illusory. Cost declines in solar PV modules have been attributed to Chinese manufacturing practices with huge economies of scale, cheap coal-fired power supplies and ‘mercantilist’ support from Chinese central and local governments, which have been predatory in export markets.

The IEA’s net zero report does not take into account the additional high-voltage transmission lines connecting renewable power generators to distant demand centers and the sharp rise in intermittent renewable energy sources. Given the prohibitive cost of grid-scale battery storage, weather-dependent power generation from wind and solar with interruptions continues to be associated with insufficient storage capacity. This leads to grid vulnerability costs as grid operators must continuously balance fluctuations in the on-demand power from coal- and natural-gas-based power generators. The EPRF study confirms the link between intermittency and the cost of power grid integration. Eurostat data shows a trend of increasing household electricity prices in 28 European countries with intermittent share of renewable energy in electricity generation.

The EPRF study also points out that the world needs to mine vast amounts of critical minerals used for solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and grids. The study states that “the additional demand for critical minerals, particularly lithium, graphite, cobalt and nickel, will be at least 1,800% by 2040, even in a less ambitious scenario.” [IEA] Scenario.” Even the IEA, in its World Energy Outlook, conceded that while 80% of copper demand in its less ambitious net-zero scenarios could be met by announced production plans, “meeting the additional demand could be a major challenge.”

The IEA’s “magic thinking” about a “net-zero” future is exemplified by its absurdly optimistic projections of new innovations and technologies that have yet to be proven commercial viability. According to its flagship Energy Technology Perspectives, “Reaching net zero isn’t possible without more innovation.” In the IEA’s net-zero future, about 50% of all emissions reductions in 2050 will be achieved by technologies that are now in the prototype or demonstration stages. From a database of over 500 individual clean energy technologies at various levels of ‘technology maturity’, only 29 technologies (less than 6%) have achieved any degree of commercial competitiveness.

The IEA’s rosy forecasts for wind and solar power were beaten again last week when Siemens Energy’s share prices plummeted after the company announced its profits would take a big hit due to failures at many of its installed wind turbines. Energy economist Professor Gordon Hughes pointed out that this will inevitably mean that wind power will become even more expensive. In another recent development, Sweden’s new Conservative government approved a new energy target last week, citing the “instability” of solar and wind power generation. It gave “the green light to move ahead with plans to build new nuclear power plants in a country that voted to phase out nuclear power 40 years ago.”

In April, Father Gosselin pointed to a “catastrophic report” in Germany in which “a whopping 88% of respondents think the green energy transition is out of reach!” Germany is the poster child of the net-zero energy transition and most citizens were enthusiastic Proponents of wind and solar technologies. Gosselin reminds us, “Those days are gone.” The enormous costs and technical limitations of intermittent, weather-dependent renewable energy have become increasingly evident in recent years. Industry leaders have warned of manufacturing exodus to countries like China and the US over the past two years due to expected power shortages and soaring energy prices.

in summary

The IEA is now an advocacy organization

It is not possible to do justice in this column to the breadth of analytical criticism contained in the EPRF report. A brief list of the key assumptions made by the IEA that do not stand up to the EPRF’s forensic analysis would be as follows. The IEA’s scenarios assume that all countries in the world work together towards a net-zero future. And this despite the fact that many countries have no intention of jeopardizing their economic growth on the altar of green ambitions. This is in contrast to Western governments, which all seem willing to commit to net-zero targets, despite the negative impact on the well-being of their citizens. China, India, Russia, Vietnam and Indonesia are just a few of the larger countries on the Eurasian continent that, despite declared renewable energy targets, are expanding their coal consumption along with oil and gas to meet rising energy demands, as pointed out by David Blackmon.

The IEA attaches great importance to expected improvements in energy efficiency. According to the IEA, the historical average rate of annual improvements in energy intensity (ie reduction in energy use per dollar of GDP produced) is expected to nearly triple over the next decade. Another IEA assumption that seems obviously unlikely is that the share of all hydrocarbons (oil, gas, coal) in global primary supply will fall from around four-fifths in 2021 to less than one-fifth in 2050.

Other unrealistic assumptions are falling oil and gas prices in the forecast period despite falling production and high CO2 prices for all regions, including the poorest developing countries. The list could go on, but the reader must have already guessed the IEA’s dubious modeling based on such assumptions. In its summary, the EPRF study states: “The IEA has made many questionable assumptions and milestones for ‘net-zero emissions’ in relation to government policies, energy and carbon pricing, behavior change, economic growth and technology maturity.”

Energy economists might be surprised that the IEA relies on such questionable assumptions and performance milestones. However, once it is recognized that the IEA is no longer an authoritative source for analytical studies but has become an advocacy group in support of the Green movement, everything falls into place.

The IEA’s original mandate was to ensure the necessary energy supply at a reasonable cost. The undermining of that mandate is spelled out succinctly by Mr Darwall in his foreword to the report: “The IEA could have chosen to remain true to its original mandate, but as the Energy Policy Research Foundation report shows, it has attempted to to be a cheerleader.” for net zero,

The full article is interesting reading and can be found here:

Like this:

How Loading…

Related

Concerns about global light pollution are growing. Astronomers are noticing its increasing impact on astronomical observations, just as predicted over the past few decades. Our artificial light, much of which is not essential, interferes with our science.

But there is more at stake than just scientific advances. Can humanity afford to ignore the night sky’s possibilities for wonder, awe and contemplation?

We’ve all seen satellite imagery of the Earth at night, showing glittering, interconnected cities aglow like holiday lights. These images show us how our global civilization has grown, how we have progressed and how advanced we have become. But in reality we also see light pollution. And we’re beginning to pay a price for that pollution.

Remove all ads on Universe today

Join our Patreon for just $3!

Get the ad-free experience for life

In January 2023, the organization Globe at Night published a paper based on 10 years of data on the night sky. The data didn’t come from satellites—an important point we’ll come back to later—but from citizen scientists around the world.

Globe at Night published a research article showing that the night sky is getting 10% brighter every year. Each year, more of the darkest stars in the sky are drowned out by skylight from streetlights, traffic lights, and other sources. For more and more people around the world, there are fewer and fewer stars in the sky, not to mention the great arc of the Milky Way.

Globe at Night collected over 50,000 individual naked-eye observations of the night sky and asked citizen scientists to find the darkest stars. The decline in the number of faint stars visible in these observations over the decade effort indicated a steadily brightening sky.

Map of GLOBE at Night attendance 2022. Click on the image for more information. Photo credit: GLOBE at Night / NOAO

If the “Globe at Night” article was a rallying cry, other researchers are responding. A pair of researchers have published their own short article that acts as a sort of addendum to the Globe at Night article. They are Fabio Falchi from the Department of Applied Physics at the Universidade de Santiago de Compostela in Spain and Salvador Bara, an independent researcher in Spain. Falchi is also affiliated with the Light Pollution Science and Technology Institute in Italy.

A startling analysis by Globe at Night — a citizen science program from NSF’s NOIRLab — concludes that stars are disappearing from human vision at an astounding rate. Additionally, the Milky Way is invisible in our cities, obscuring humanity’s connection to nature and the cosmos. Photo credits: NOIRLab/NSF/AURA, P. Marenfeld

Satellite data paints a less worrisome picture, but satellites have a different perspective. They can only measure the light that reaches them and only the wavelengths their instruments are tuned to. But the light that reaches them is not necessarily the light that drowns out the sky as seen by people on the surface of the earth. That’s why the Globe at Night initiative eschewed satellite data in favor of citizen scientists spread around the globe.

Projections based on satellite data suggested that light pollution would increase by 2% each year, but the Globe at Night initiative found the actual number to be 10%. That’s a big discrepancy and means that light pollution will double in less than eight years. This number should grab everyone’s attention, but why this discrepancy? Why can’t high-tech satellites do this?

“Some of this discrepancy could be explained by the inability of these satellites to see the blue light.
“This is emitted in large quantities by LED light that has been used outdoors for about a decade,” the two researchers write. “Furthermore, these satellites are not able to clearly see the light that is mainly emitted horizontally, such as that emitted by the increasing number of ultra-bright LED billboards and illuminated building facades.”

Falchi and Bara are pushing for the construction of next-generation satellites that can overcome this weakness. Multi-band sensitivity is required, as well as “…multi-angle surveillance capabilities,” according to the pair.

You are not the only ones. In 2020, a group of researchers addressed the topic in a paper titled “Remote Sensing of Night Lights: A Review and a Forward Look”. One of the authors was Christopher Kyba, who also co-authored the Globe at Night article.

Stand next to the Milky Way. Blocking out the night sky blocks us from nature, and that’s not good for humans. Photo credit: P. Horálek/ESO

In this article, the authors agree with Falchi and Bara that we need satellites that can sense the fast-spreading LED lights. They also indicate that we need a better understanding of the angular patterns of light emission. You don’t stop here. “Perhaps most importantly,” they write, “we believe that higher spatial resolution and multispectral sensors covering the blue to NIR range are needed to more effectively identify lighting technologies, map urban functions, and monitor energy use.” “

That’s great. Detailed, actionable data is part of any real effort. But we already know that light pollution is increasing. “People, the media and politicians are used to associating artificial light with thaumaturgic properties with road safety and personal safety that it apparently does not deserve,” emphasize the two researchers. “Year after year, more and more light is installed to illuminate the night.”

What can we do against it?

Something in the human psyche wants to remove the darkness. We want comfort, security, convenience and an overall sense of well-being and wealth. There’s nothing wrong with providing security when well-lit areas can fight crime. But is more and more light the answer? Is there a point where the yield drops? Not just for us, but for nature?

“Life on Earth evolved with sunlight during the day and with starlight at night and the moon, if any,” write Falchi and Bara. “If we introduce artificial light into ecosystems at levels a thousand times or more in excess of levels observed under natural conditions, animal behavior will change accordingly.” Increased nocturnal lighting could disrupt predator-prey relationships, alter mating behavior and even contribute to the extinction of some populations or species.

It’s not just stargazing and nature that pays the price of light pollution. Science is also affected as observatories near urban centers face the problem of light pollution. Take the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mt. Wilson Observatory near Los Angeles.

From its completion in 1917 to 1949 it was the largest aperture telescope in the world. But as light pollution increased, it became increasingly difficult to make useful astronomical observations. The light snuffed out faint constellations and it only got worse. Eventually, the Hooker telescope was shut down in 1985 in direct response to the growing problem with artificial light.

The Hooker telescope housing at Mt. Wilson Observatory. The telescope was shut down in 1985 due to light pollution. Image Credit: By Craig Baker – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73093247

That was no small thing. The telescope was in good condition and played an important role in determining extragalactic distances, studying the nature of spiral galaxies, and noting the expansion of the Universe, among other things. Other instruments at Mt. Wilson Observatory are still operational, but the Hooker Telescope’s potential has been stymied by excessive skyglow.

No thoughtful person would say they want species to be threatened with extinction and powerful telescopes to be shut down while they’re still functional. Also, no one who is thoughtful would want their view of the sky to be restricted. But one of the main problems in this matter is our prosperity. As lighting keeps getting cheaper – and LEDs are cheaper – we’re building more and more lights, illuminating roads and pathways that never needed them before. what can be done

For example, we probably won’t launch a mass campaign to remove streetlights, but people have been trying other things. “Attempts to control light pollution have been made in several places over the past few decades, from the local to the national level,” write Falchi and Bara. These attempts were unsuccessful, even when the lights were aimed to only shine below the horizon level. “It’s not that approach
sufficient, since each new light, even if shielded, increases pollution at night after its installation
reflected by the surfaces to be illuminated,” they explain.

Instead, we must limit lighting, just as we do with other forms of pollution. As an example, the authors refer to the Clean Air Act in the USA, which restricts the use of air pollutants such as carcinogenic solvents and toxic fuel additives.

It goes without saying that human activities have an impact on nature. But that doesn’t mean we can put on blinkers and just accept it. In a world grappling with the mounting catastrophe of the global climate crisis, light pollution doesn’t seem like a big deal. Can’t we just go to the internet and look at the sky in much more detail, even from different parts of the world? Sure, but computer monitors aren’t the same as sitting out under the sky, staring and letting the thoughts sink in. These activities form memories that we think about and that move us. Even the wildest, most hallucinogenic notions of technology from a techie like Zuckerberg can never replace that.

This is an astronomy news website. But astronomy, detached from the natural mind of mankind, is a poor undertaking. Without the simple observing of the stars and the ways in which they can stimulate our imagination and our sense of wonder and awe, most of us might not even be interested in the science of astronomy.

Embrace the dark.

Like this:

How Loading…

Out of masterresource

By Steve Goreham – June 28, 2023

“The lesson from Europe is that dependence on wind, sun and imported natural gas is an expensive and risky energy policy. If you have a windless year, a cold winter, an embargo or a war, you cannot turn up wind and solar power.”

The year 2022 was an energy catastrophe for Europe. Citizens and businesses suffered from astronomical prices for natural gas and electricity, sky-high household electricity bills, closed industrial plants and bankrupt companies. Observers blame supply chain disruptions from COVID-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but Europe’s green energy policy has been the hammer of the room.

Over the past two decades, the closure of traditional power plants and renewable energy policies have left European countries heavily dependent on a combination of intermittent wind and solar sources, as well as natural gas. More than 100 nuclear power plants were closed or due to be closed, including 30 in Germany and 34 in the UK. At the same time, 23 nations announced their exit from coal.

By 2021, wind, solar and natural gas provided 48 percent of Germany’s electricity and provided most of electricity consumption in Italy (63%), the United Kingdom (64%) and the Netherlands (78%). Households in the Netherlands get 83 per cent of their heating energy from natural gas and gas provides 78 per cent of the heat in British households.

Imports provided a growing share of the continent’s energy. In 2000, Europe produced 56 percent of its natural gas and 44 percent of its oil. However, the region chose to invest in wind and solar power rather than boosting oil and gas production through hydraulic fracturing. In 2021, Europe produced only 37 percent of its own natural gas and 25 percent of its oil. In addition, increasing imports from Russia led to serious dependency. Russia supplied Europe with 27 percent of its natural gas, 17 percent of its crude oil and 38 percent of its coal in 2021.

In 2017, the European Commission published a study that identified 49 shale formations in Europe that contained either natural gas or oil, with high shale potential in Bulgaria, France, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. A large slate field, the Fennoscandian Shield, stretches across northern Europe from England to the Baltic States. But Europe chose not to break into any of these fields, relying on intermittent imports of wind, solar and natural gas.

Then, in 2021, the wind in Europe stopped blowing much. Electricity generation from wind was 20 to 30 percent below historical levels. To compensate for the loss of wind power, utilities burned gas to generate electricity. At the end of the year, natural gas inventories were unusually low and gas prices rose.

Natural gas prices in Europe averaged around 13 to 18 euros per megawatt hour (€/MWh) in 2019 and 2020. With the economic recovery and the decline in wind power production in 2021, prices increased to €80/MWh by December 2021. Prices increased by about five times compared to two months before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Electricity prices also skyrocketed, rising sixfold by the end of 2021, again before the invasion.

When Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, prices skyrocketed. Natural gas prices in Europe immediately jumped above €100/MWh and crude oil prices rose above $100 per barrel. Russian energy exports to Europe began to fall. In April, the European Union agreed to ban coal imports from Russia. Russian gas flows to Europe fell by 80 percent by July 2022. Natural gas prices rose to over €200/MWh by August. The monthly average electricity prices had doubled again, i.e. tenfold compared to the first half of 2020.

The unprecedented increase in energy prices has led to a gradual decline in living standards in Europe. Even after the UK government’s price controls, UK homeowners spent up to 10 per cent of their income on home and vehicle energy, which was more than during the oil crises of the 1970s. UK residents cooked less, showered less and turned down the heat in their homes. Household gas bills in Germany more than doubled from 2021 to 2022, and bills for oil heating increased by three quarters. Whenever possible, Germans showered and shaved at work. Italian families’ energy bills were the highest in 25 years.

The crisis has bankrupted several energy supply companies. By February 2022, 31 UK natural gas suppliers serving two million customers had gone out of business. Price controls had forced these companies to sell gas at prices below their wholesale purchase price. Uniper SE, Germany’s largest natural gas supplier, was forced to buy gas at inflated prices after Russian giant Gazprom halted supplies due to the war in Ukraine. In September 2022, the federal government acquired the company for over 20 billion euros, but the cost, including daily losses, is likely to approach the 100 billion euro mark.

High energy prices have had a major impact on energy-intensive industries. Natural gas is essential for the production of ammonia, which is used to make urea and ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Europe’s fertilizer producers without long-term gas contracts were losing money with every tonne of fertilizer produced. More than half of Europe’s ammonia production and 33 percent of nitrogen fertilizer production will be phased out in 2022.

Metal producers were crushed. A ton of aluminum requires around 15 megawatt hours of electricity and costs 7,000 euros at August 2022 prices, but could only be sold for less than 2,500 euros. Half of Europe’s aluminum and zinc production had to be shut down. Hundreds of chemical, fertilizer, energy, metals, steel, glass, paper and food processing companies have struggled to keep operating. Energy policy seems to have laid the foundations for a new era of deindustrialization in Europe.

Publicly, European officials continue to support Net Zero and the transition to renewable energy. But nations are retreating from green politics. On July 6, 2022, the European Parliament voted to classify nuclear and natural gas projects as “environmentally sustainable”. The Netherlands resumed gas drilling and Denmark, Italy and Norway announced plans to increase gas production. By fall 2022, 25 new liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals were under construction or planned. It was the surge in LNG shipments from the US and other countries in 2022 that caused quite a stir in Europe last winter.

Coal-based power generation in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom combined grew by more than 20 percent in 2021-2022 as gas prices rose. Germany has restarted 27 coal-fired power plants. This increased coal consumption contradicted national commitments to phase out coal.

Natural gas and electricity prices have fallen over the past six months but remain high. Gas prices have fallen to around €30/MWh, double 2020 prices, and electricity prices remain around triple 2020 prices. But Europe could find itself in trouble again if the coming winter gets cold.

The lesson from Europe is that dependence on wind, sun and imported natural gas is an expensive and risky energy policy. If you’re going through a low wind year, a cold winter, an embargo, or a war, you can’t turn up wind and solar power.

—————————-

Steve Goreham is an energy, environment and public policy speaker and author of the new book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.

Like this:

How Loading…

Related