As a physicist, my belief is that one of the reasons that intelligent energy policies have not gained sufficient traction is that we are allowing those with political agendas (vs scientists) to define some key energy terms. And as a golfer, I know that a wager can be won or lost at the first tee — where the terms and conditions are agreed on.
Outside of “fiscal responsibility” probably the most significant misused concept that we have unwittingly gone along with is the term “renewable energy”. Giving some critical thought to this moniker is no academic matter, as the majority members of the U.S. Senate’s Energy Committee are currently pushing for a national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), or what is now called the Renewable Electrical Standard (RES). Their decision as to what is a “renewable” will have profound technical, economic and environmental consequences on the United States.…
Continue Reading[Editor note: the current debate over climate policy has obscured another important energy-policy controversy: the notion that the production of hydrocarbons (even coal) has, or will soon, reach a physical peak. This post, like the author’s previous ones on this subject, shed light on the fallacious concept (from a business/economic viewpoint) that mineral supply is fixed and thus depleting.]
The recent death of Patrick McGoohan brings to mind one of the best lessons offered by television, and one ignored by all too many analysts (including academic economists). In an episode of his cult-classic series The Prisoner, McGoohan is confronted with a unique teaching system, wherein “The General” pumps information into villagers while they sleep. The General proves to be a ‘supercomputer’ (presumably less capable than desktops now available) containing all known information.…
Continue ReadingIn a provocative post, Joe Romm argues that even “strong climate action” would be well worth the effort. Yet Romm’s claim that stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases at 445–535 ppm (CO2-eq) would cost only “one tenth of a penny on the dollar” (through 2050) understates the IPCC’s actual cost estimate by about 95%. In reality, the IPCC’s reported estimate translates into a mitigation cost of about 2.2 cents on the dollar–far far higher than Romm’s figure. Romm’s mistake has nothing to do with climate science: he simply confuses the rate of growth in income, with income itself.
To make matters worse, even when correctly interpreted, the IPCC estimate significantly understates what the cost will be in practice. The IPCC admits that its estimate is a theoretical textbook case, which assumes all participating countries implement their mitigation policies perfectly, and keep them in force throughout the 21st century.…
Continue Reading