From the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN
April 24, 2021 / Francis Menton
It surprises me again and again how the mere mention of the word “climate” leads to people losing touch with their rational abilities. And, of course, I’m not just talking about the common man on the street, but also about our elected leaders and government officials.
The most recent example is President Biden’s pledge, made at his “World Climate Summit” on April 22nd, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the US by 50 to 52% compared to 2005 and to do so by 2030. On my last a few days ago, I remarked, “Biden himself has absolutely no idea how this could be accomplished. Indeed, it will not be achieved. “These things are certainly true, but they also do not do justice to the extent that our President and his leaders have left the real world and gone into total fantasy.
In 2016, when Barack Obama was President and it was time to follow the Paris Agreement (or not), the government still had the idea that commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were somewhat related to reality should. Obama pledged on behalf of the USA in the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28% compared to 2005 and by 2026. In 2016, greenhouse gas emissions in the US had already decreased by more than 12% from the 2005 level from 7,423.0 MMT CO2e in 2005 to 6520.3 MMT CO2e in 2016 according to the EPA’s inventory of US greenhouse gas emissions and sinks ( see graphic on pages ES 7-9); and that was done with very little government intervention. If a 12% reduction could be achieved in the first 11 years, then a further 14% reduction in another 10 years would not be entirely inappropriate.
Indeed, it seemed like Obama’s people saw the already existing gradual pace of decline as they made their commitment. A large part of the decline in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 to 2016 can be attributed to the fracking revolution and the associated substitution of (lower-emission) natural gas with (lower-emission) coal. Most of the remainder resulted from incremental efficiency improvements in energy use across the economy. It wouldn’t have been crazy in 2016 to expect these things to continue at about the same pace.
But let’s see where we are now. The greenhouse gas emissions for 2019 were 6,558.3 MMT CO2e, which was actually an increase compared to 2016. Emissions for 2020 are expected to have decreased by around 10% compared to 2019, but almost exclusively due to the sharp decline in traffic and air traffic due to the pandemic. These transport emissions will almost certainly return, perhaps not immediately, but almost all of them within a few years if in fact there are no increases.
Even with emissions declining by 10% in 2020, we are only about 20% lower than in 2005. If you believe that travel will soon return to pre-pandemic levels, we will only be about 10% down from 2005 The promise is a 50% reduction from 2005, something on the order of 30-40% additionally in just nine years. And note that Biden is not only talking about the electricity sector (only about 30% of emissions), but also things like transportation (driving and flying), heating, agriculture, and industry, which now depend almost entirely on fossil fuels.
In a play at Substack on April 22nd, Roger Pielke Jr. gives an idea of what Biden’s promise would mean in the real world.
Net greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 were 6.635 gigatons (Gt) carbon dioxide equivalent, so a target of 50% for a reduction of 3.318 Gt has been set for 2030. There were 5,769 Gt net emissions in 2019, which means the US must do so by 2030, reducing emissions by about 2,450 Gt, or more than 270 Gt per year. This corresponds to an annual emission reduction rate of around 6.3% by 2030.
Since we are unlikely to have solar powered airplanes or steel mills in the near future, the focus of emissions reductions of this magnitude can only be in the electricity sector. And then, since the entire electricity sector only accounts for around 30% of emissions, the entire sector must basically go to zero emissions to meet the Biden target. What would that look like? Pielke:
In January 2021, according to the US Energy Information Agency, there were 1,852 coal and natural gas power plants generating electricity in the US. To meet President Biden’s goal, all of these power plants must either be shut down or converted to zero-emission power plants by 2035 (using carbon capture and storage technologies that do not currently exist). There are 164 months until 2035. This means that more than 11 of the fossil fuel power plants in operation in January 2021 will have to be closed on average every month from now until 2035.
And of course, there is nothing that can remotely fill the void created by sealing these 1,852 plants. The wind and sun, even if you cover the land with them, are all but useless without keeping the majority of coal and natural gas plants as backups. Nuclear? In theory it could work, but given the lead times involved, hundreds of such plants would have to be well in the planning and construction stages to achieve this type of goal. There is none. The same environmentalists who are calling for an end to fossil fuels oppose nuclear power with equal fanaticism and would block you at every step of the process.
To take a closer look at the reality on the ground, let’s look at some of the most recent developments in New York. New York introduces itself as the great climate messiah leading the country and even the world into the future zero-emissions utopia. In 2019, New York passed what is known as the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which they describe on their website as follows:
On July 18, 2019, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed the Climate Act. The New York State Climate Act is one of the most ambitious climate laws in the world and obliges New York to reduce macroeconomic greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and by at least 85 percent by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.
The regulations to implement these drastic emissions reductions, which are required by law, were finalized by the governor in December 2020. Then surely we have a good start for our emissions reductions?
Simultaneously with the passing of this noble-sounding law and regulations, we closed our large zero-emission nuclear power plant and replaced it with brand new natural gas systems. Until last year, about 25 to 30% of the electricity for New York City came from a nuclear power plant called Indian Point about 40 miles north of the city. Governor Andrew Cuomo has made closing the Indian Point reactors a political priority despite talking endlessly about reducing CO2 emissions. Of the two reactors currently in operation at Indian Point, one was closed in 2020, and the second is now due to cease operations on April 30, 2021 – i.e. at the end of the current week.
But they couldn’t close Indian Point without something to replace power. Two large new natural gas incineration plants have been opened in recent years. First, a 680 MW natural gas facility called the CPV Valley Energy Center opened in Wawayanda, New York, in February 2018. In April 2020, a 1,000 MW natural gas facility called the Cricket Valley Energy Center opened in Dover, New York.
Allegedly, the big solution in the future will be to build huge amounts of offshore wind turbines in the Atlantic off Long Island. So far it’s nothing but talking. One of the proposals to make the furthest possible move is to have 15 large wind turbines off the eastern tip of the island. When the turbines are built, the electricity has to come ashore at a specific location by cable. In January, the city of East Hampton granted relief for the cable landing in an area called Wainscott – and immediately a group of wealthy homeowners in the area filed a lawsuit to block it. We’ll see where this leads.
But it gets worse. Just last week, the federal government’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management canceled two of the wind energy development zones off Long Island. According to an April 20 report in the Wall Street Journal:
Officials with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said the zones off the island’s coast pose problems with maritime traffic, feeding grounds for marine life and concerns about visibility from the beaches on the south coast. In short, they were a nuisance to fishermen, shippers, and nobles who lived in the Tony Hamptons area full of Manhattan residents during the summer. “
In other words, despite the big talk and a lot of spending and subsidies, all “progress” towards zero emissions so far has been negative.
Read the full article here.
2.8
4th
voices
Item rating
Like this:
Loading…
Comments are closed.