A review and commentary on topical matters concerning the science, economics, and governance associated with climate change developments.
Political and economic issues
Tilak Doshi analyses the differences between the Biden and Trump energy policies. Biden has adopted the key Bernie Saunders policies. Though he would not phase out fracking, he favours “near-zero” emissions by 2040, ending the sale of gasoline and diesel cars by 2030, denying federal permits for new fossil fuel infrastructure projects. As James Taylor points out, Kamala Harris sought 100% renewables by 2030.
The Democrats plan to spend more than $400 billion a year (11 per cent of federal revenue) to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This excludes cost-enhancing renewable regulations.
Only one per cent of Americans place climate change issues as their major consideration in spite of which it is central to Biden’s policies. However, as well as with fracking he diverges from radical Democrats in promoting nuclear, reversing 50 years of Democrat dogma. Perhaps his advisers recognise the economy-crushing implications of a renewables-rich electricity supply, especially one lacking a counterbalance to wind/solar’s inherent instability.
Woke California shows the consequences of replacing fossil and nuclear plant with wind/solar. Francis Menton explains the rolling blackouts effect of a heat wave (predictably, blamed on climate change). To meet demand of 42–44 GWh California has 76 GW capacity, but 33 GW of this is wind/solar and often useless. Here is the daily production from renewables.
As Frank Wolak points out, 33 per cent of supplies are required by state law to come from renewables. By relying increasingly on these variable supplies, California has put itself “in a position where regular intentional blackouts are inevitable”. Christopher Horner notes increasing blackouts were predicted by the main supplier, PG&E, after those in October 2019. The State legislature is having second thoughts about going deeper green, as is renewables advocate Governor Newsom. Due to its renewables policy, prices in California are 60 per cent above the US average.
Virginia too is plumping for zero net emissions in a policy that will cost households over $500 a year in higher energy bills as well as reducing reliability.
EU governments are committed to spending 30% of the EU’s budget on climate — a 10% jump from the 2014–20 budget. With a total package of 1.8 trillion euros ($2.1 trillion), the climate tag comes in at 600 billion euros. But environmental groups claim half of this is actually being spent on subsidies within the Common Agricultural Policy. Angela Merkel wants to accelerate the carbon phase-out with a new pricing mechanism, the euphemism for a carbon tax.
In a report prepared for Senator Roberts, I estimated the annual cost of renewable energy policies in Australia at $13 billion a year. The cost per household in electricity alone is $536, representing 39 per cent of the bill. The $536 total comprises $90 in requirements for renewable energy itself, $75 for increased network and administrative costs, $219 due to increased wholesale prices and $151 in taxpayer subsidies for renewables.
Australian committed new investment in wind and solar has fallen markedly.
Source: Alan Moran | Regulation Economics
No comments:
Post a Comment