The View from Right Field

Cutting Carbon Now

New York is shutting down the Indian Point nuclear power plant, which in the past has supplied upwards of 25% of the electricity for New York City and Westchester County.  So where is the electricity going to come from, especially since New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has blocked the construction of pipelines that would bring natural gas to New York City?  Governor Cuomo has proposed building 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind power and a 250-mile transmission line from upstate New York to bring in renewable energy, but they aren’t ready yet - obviously.  Also, given the opposition there will be to such proposals, who knows when they will be built, if ever.  After all, the Biden administration has already withdrawn proposals for offshore wind power developments off certain parts of Long Island because ….  Well, there are always good reasons for not building such things in one’s own backyard.  (Here.)

But, don’t worry about power blackouts in New York because, even if there is a shortage of natural gas, gas-powered plants can switch to oil.  Huh?  We’re trying to cut carbon emissions, so the solution is to: (i) shut down an existing nuclear plant, which supplies, by definition, at least once it is built, carbon-free power; (ii) block natural gas pipelines because natural gas emits carbon and we want to be carbon-zero; and (iii) use oil, the most carbon-intensive of all three, as the back-up power source until we can get wind farms and transmission lines for renewable energy built.

Models, Calculators, and Certainty

Last weekend, The Wall Street Journal had an interview with Steven Koonin, who was chief scientist for the Energy Department under Barack Obama.  In the course of the interview, Dr. Koonin said some things about models and how they are used that resonated with me (probably because I have some of the same concerns.

Dr. Koonin said, of younger scientists today: “They have grown up with the models.  They don’t have the kind of mathematical or physical intuition you get when you have to do things by pencil and paper.”

Getting to Carbon-Free

Carbon-free.  That is the goal.  Companies, countries are setting a goal of becoming carbon-free.  Some are aiming at 2030.  Others 2040.  And others still 2050.  But regardless of the date, the goal is the same.  To become carbon-free.  To not only reduce the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere each year, but to get to zero.

But how we get to carbon-free is important, too.   And that is where it gets tricky.  The point is that carbon in the atmosphere doesn’t go away (or at least not very fast).  While getting to carbon-free is important to minimize the effects of climate change, how much carbon we put into the atmosphere while we are getting to carbon-free is important, too. 

The Killing of Qassem Soleimani and the Dog That Didn’t Bark

“The Adventure of Sliver Blaze,” one of the most popular Sherlock Holmes stories, involves the theft of a famous race horse, Silver Blaze, and the killing of its trainer, just before an important racer.  In a conversation with a Scotland Yard detective, Sherlock Holmes explains a key clue:

“Gregory: Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?
Holmes: To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.
Gregory: The dog did nothing in the night-time.
Holmes: That was the curious incident.”

Youth Climate Activists Call for a Halt to Fossil Fuel Investment – Right Now

Greta Thunberg and twenty other youth climate activists have issued a letter in which they “demand” (their word) that, at the World Economic Forum meeting scheduled for later this month in Davos, Switzerland,

“all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.”

And they want these things done “right now” (their emphasis).¹

While they go on to say that they understand “that the world is complicated and that what [they] are asking for may not be easy”, they don’t seem to care.  The climate crisis “is an emergency”, and it seems like nothing else matters.

@BernieSanders’s “Green New Deal”. Is He Trying to Re-elect @realDonaldTrump?

Senator Bernie Sanders was an early supporter of the Green New Deal, and last week he issued his version of what that would mean.  Let’s just say his plan is big.  It would require lots of government and lots of money, though as to the latter, his plan says it’s all paid for with taxes on big energy, reduced military spending (because we can “scal[e] back military spending on maintaining global oil dependence”), taxes paid by all the people with new, good-paying jobs, and, of course, the rich “pay[ing] their fair share.”

Most of the news articles did not go into the details of Senator Sanders’ plan, though “Vox” did include some of them.  Perhaps the most comprehensive list was in The Wall Street Journal’s editorial this morning.  (Not surprisingly, the WSJ’s editorial page is not supportive.)  On the other hand, if you really want to see what’s in the plan, just go to berniesanders.com.  It’s there.

“Investing” in Light Bulbs

I needed to buy some light bulbs last week, and when I went to the store, I had sticker shock.  I have noticed that light bulbs are costing more, but the price increase really hit me the other day at Menards.  Maybe Menards is not the cheapest place to buy light bulbs, and maybe the ones I bought weren’t the least expensive.  But still, four 100-watt equivalent light bulbs cost me $16.97 plus 10.5% sales tax – and that was only because I had a 15% off coupon.  Otherwise, they would have been $19.97 plus 10.5% sales tax.  That’s $5.52 per bulb.

I can afford to pay that much for light bulbs, and I understand that, over the long run I will save lots of money on my electric bill (the 100-watt equivalent bulbs only use 16 watts and the supposedly last for thirteen years), not to mention that they are better for the environment because I am using less electricity.

Increasing Gasoline Taxes to Save the Planet. I Wonder How Emmanuel Macron Feels About That Now.

I think I can say, without needing to provide a link, that the consensus among Democratic (and many Republican) politicians, most scientists, and the almost all of the media is that Donald Trump’s views, and the views and policies of his Administration, on climate change are beyond being just wrong.  They are almost maliciously wrong.  The facts are clear, the consequences are grave, and we need to start doing something now.

One question, though.  Even if the facts are clear and the consequences grave, what do you do if the voters won’t approve “what needs to be done”?  While the protests of the gilets jaunes, or yellow vests, in France seem to have morphed into all-around protests against French President Emmanuel Macron, it is important to remember the issue that ignited them: an increase in fuel taxes that was part of France’s plan to reduce its carbon emissions.

Did Barack Obama Really Make America the Biggest Oil and Gas Producer?

In a speech at the Baker Institute at Rice University in Houston last week, former President Barack Obama said:

“You wouldn’t always know it, but it [oil production] went up every year I was president. … [S]uddenly America’s like the biggest oil producer and the biggest gas [producer] — that was me, people."

Two comments.  First, separate from whether it’s true (it’s not, see below), could you imagine George H.W. Bush ever bragging about himself like this?  I can’t either.

Shale-Oil: A Win-Win

An article in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal was headlined “Warning Is Sounded on Shale” (print edition).  The first sentence explained: “U.S. shale companies are churning out crude oil at a record pace that could overwhelm global demand and reverse the oil market’s fragile recovery, a top energy-market observer said Tuesday.” 

After reading this, I thought to myself, how is this a problem?  I understand companies in the energy business might prefer prices to be higher (and life easier), but shale-oil companies increasing the supply of oil sounds great for customers and consumers.

According to the article, the  flexibility of U.S. shale companies to increase production reduces the likelihood of price spikes like we had in 2011 to 2014, when oil was over $100 a barrel.  This helps consumers.  It especially helps those consumers who have to pay a relatively high percentage of their income for heat and electricity.  If your energy costs are only 1% or 2% of your budget, a 50% increase is eminently manageable.  But if energy costs are 10% of your budget, as they are for poorer people in much of the United States, a 50% increase, or even a 25% increase, in energy costs is a problem.