Green Energy Revolution Megathread

[Malthus]

Extraction of fossil fuels is itself a pretty carbon intensive activity and may involve significant burnoff of excess or "waste" gas or oil.
Whether it is fair to "charge" that all to the extracting nation is another question.

This is my point: it seems to me absurd to charge the carbon to the extracting nation, rather than to the consuming nation.

Say country A runs all of its vehicles and generates all of its electricity using oil extracted from country B. The chart will show that country A has basically no carbon use (if the carbon value of all oil is attributed to the nation of origin) or much less carbon use (if the processing alone is charged to the producing nation). Thus, people in country A will (assuming they care about these charts) feel less pressure to stop using cars or electricity, because the charts show they aren't significant creators of carbon, especially compared to dastardly country B, the real carbon criminals! Even though the only reason country B is extracting oil in the first place is to sell it to country A.

It is similar to blaming Columbia for the cocaine problem ...

[The Minsky Moment]

Extraction of fossil fuels is itself a pretty carbon intensive activity and may involve significant burnoff of excess or "waste" gas or oil.
Whether it is fair to "charge" that all to the extracting nation is another question.

This is my point: it seems to me absurd to charge the carbon to the extracting nation, rather than to the consuming nation.

I don't think it's quite that simple.
The reason why oil producers burn off gas is because it's more expensive to capture it and ship it for use then it would be worth to sell it.  But that implicates national policy. If the Saudis decide to burn off gas rather then shave a tiny slice off Aramco profits, shouldn't they bear some responsibility for that choice?  Same analysis if US (non-)regulation  of fracking permits this practice in order to encourage exploitation of more marginal deposits.

[Admiral Yi]

Does anyone know if carbon tax proposals impose the tax at point of extraction or point of combustion?

[Malthus]

Extraction of fossil fuels is itself a pretty carbon intensive activity and may involve significant burnoff of excess or "waste" gas or oil.
Whether it is fair to "charge" that all to the extracting nation is another question.

This is my point: it seems to me absurd to charge the carbon to the extracting nation, rather than to the consuming nation.

I don't think it's quite that simple.
The reason why oil producers burn off gas is because it's more expensive to capture it and ship it for use then it would be worth to sell it.  But that implicates national policy. If the Saudis decide to burn off gas rather then shave a tiny slice off Aramco profits, shouldn't they bear some responsibility for that choice?  Same analysis if US (non-)regulation  of fracking permits this practice in order to encourage exploitation of more marginal deposits.

It would help the analysis to know exactly what was counted - is it the carbon used in processing, or the total carbon extracted? I have no idea what the charts represent, other than noting that producers seem to get the lion's share on a per capita basis.

Still, it seems to me that national policy is implicated among consumers moreso than producers: Aramco is only extracting oil in response to demand. If (say) Europeans and Americans drive cars fueled by Aramco oil, that's mostly a function of the transportation policies in those areas. If they did not demand oil, Aramco would leave it in the ground. While presumably Saudi Arabia could enact regulations that would make extraction more carbon efficient, ultimately the whole point of the exercise is to extract carbon to burn it in various ways, so the only real solution lies in the hands of the consumers.

Though I suppose the producers could simply refuse to produce, thus forcing consumers' hands. This may not lead to greater carbon efficiency though.

[The Minsky Moment]

Let's say the United States of Trumpville produces cheap oil by burning off excess gas that it then exports to world markets.  The Union of Balls of Light attempts to address this by imposing a border carbon tax that takes account the entire carbon content of exported oil.  Result: trade war.

[mongers]

I wonder how Mono will choose to 'troll' this:

[Monoriu]

I mean, renewables and coal are not mutually exclusive.  It is possible for Mainland China to have lots of electric vehicles, and lots of coal-fired power plants at the same time.  Just because they buy electric cars doesn't mean they will shut down their coal plants, stop producing and using coal, and stop building coal plants in Africa. 

Shanghai buys electric cars because they want to improve local air quality.  Or because some official has invested a lot of money in electric cars.  Not because the politburo wants to combat global warming. 

[Monoriu]

As world leaders gather in Spain to discuss how to slow the warming of the planet, a spotlight falls on China — the top emitter of greenhouse gases.

China burns about half the coal used globally each year. Between 2000 and 2018, its annual carbon emissions nearly tripled, and it now accounts for about 30% of the world's total. Yet it's also the leading market for solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles, and it manufactures about two-thirds of solar cells installed worldwide.

"We are witnessing many contradictions in China's energy development," said Kevin Tu, a Beijing-based fellow with the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. "It's the largest coal market and the largest clean energy market in the world."

That apparent paradox is possible because of the sheer scale of China's energy demands.

But as China's economy slows to the lowest level in a quarter century — around 6% growth, according to government statistics — policymakers are doubling down on support for coal and other heavy industries, the traditional backbones of China's energy system and economy. At the same time, the country is reducing subsidies for renewable energy.

At the annual United Nations climate summit, this year in Madrid, government representatives will put the finishing touches on implementing the 2015 Paris Agreement, which set a goal to limit future warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Nations may decide for themselves how to achieve it.

Full article here.

https://fortune.com/2019/12/02/china-coal-plants-renewable-energy-funds-cop25/

[mongers]

What's surprising about that graph is how poorly London, New York, Paris and Tokyo are doing relative to Chinese and Californian cities.

Four huge urban areas with a total population of what, 40-45 million people saw just about 300,000 electric/hybrid vehicles added to their 'fleet' in 2018, at that constant rate it might take similarly 40-50* years move to a composite electric stable of cars/light vehicles.



* figure plucked out of thin air, one vehicle for every three inhabitants. 

[Monoriu]

What's surprising about that graph is how poorly London, New York, Paris and Tokyo are doing relative to Chinese and Californian cities.

Four huge urban areas with a total population of what, 40-45 million people saw just about 300,000 electric/hybrid vehicles added to their 'fleet' in 2018, at that constant rate it might take similarly 40-50* years move to a composite electric stable of cars/light vehicles.



* figure plucked out of thin air, one vehicle for every three inhabitants.

In China, sometimes all it takes for stuff to happen is the party secretary to say so.  If the Shanghai party secretary says he wants more electric cars, then it happens.  It doesn't always work like that, but in this case it does. 

[Admiral Yi]

A lot of Chinese cities have caps on new registrations and lengthy waiting periods, unless the car is electric.

[Valmy]

In China, sometimes all it takes for stuff to happen is the party secretary to say so.  If the Shanghai party secretary says he wants more electric cars, then it happens.  It doesn't always work like that, but in this case it does. 

I have talked about this before. Chinese Officials have been to Texas to discuss their big alternative energy push. It is kind of funny whenever I talk to actual Chinese officials what they say and what you say are usually almost completely the opposite. They have a reputation for lies and you have a reputation for being wrong about everything so I am not sure what to think,

[Tamas]

I find it laughable that people handle statistics coming out of China as even remotely reliable.

[The Minsky Moment]

That's a rather sweeping statement.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Fortune article seems to peg it.  China is pushing for a greener energy profile but it is like trying to turn the Titanic at full steam.  It is a big economy with a big established fossil fuel base and infrastructure and the economy is still growing very fast by developed economy standards (which China sortof is now).  Growing energy needs have to be met in the short term and shoveling more coal is a quick way to do it, even if at the same time resources are being poured into renewables.

The apparently slowing Chinese GDP growth rates also have to be seen in a proper demographic context.  GDP measures absolute value added output.  Output goes up as a result of higher factor productivity but also because there are more factors.  I.e. labor.  If a country's labor force is increasing, GDP will go up even if productivity is stagnant.  Conversely, if the labor force is stable or decreasing, then GDP growth rates will be lower.  Thus, comparing Chinese growth rates in the 90s when working age population was still growing rapidly to rates now when the labor force is shrinking is not an apples-to-apples comparison.  The fact the China is still reporting healthy GDP growth rates as its labor force is shrinking indicates continuing economic resilience.