Green Energy Is Going Nowhere

The economic and scientific reality, according to Obama’s Energy Department, is that abundant, low-cost fossil fuels will continue to dominate the US fuel mix for at least the next quarter century, and probably much, much longer into the future. Meanwhile, politics aside – the economic and scientific reality according to the Energy Department is that renewable sources of energy will continue to play a minor role in America’s energy mix. In other words, the Energy Department’s not expecting a lot of progress for renewable energies as a fuel source for America, even after almost 100 years of efforts from politicians like Obama and billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars. –Mark J. Perry, AEIdeas, 9 July 2013

 

fuels

 

 

The world was moving faster towards reducing its reliance on carbon intensive energy consumption in the 1970s and 1980s than in the past several decades. In fact, over the past 20 years there has been little if any progress in expanding the share of carbon-free energy in the global mix. This stagnation provides further evidence that the policies that have been employed to accelerate rates of decarbonization of the global economy have been largely ineffective. –Roger Pielke Jr., The Breakthrough Institute, 9 July 2013

 

 

 

The latest models of Mercedes cars cannot be sold in France as they still use an air conditioning refrigerant the EU says emits excessive greenhouse gases and should be replaced, the German auto company said. “Only new cars are subject to the measure,” a company spokesman told AFP, adding that customers confronted with the ban are to be offered alternate models. –The Daily Telegraph, 9 July 2013

The Tata steel company told a government minister that it was losing business because of the high cost of energy prices in the UK. The company claims its energy bill is almost twice its European competitors and an offer of financial support announced by the Treasury last week is not enough. –BBC News, 8 July 2013

The US Congress plans to cut climate change initiatives by $3.8 billion whilst boosting funds for space exploration. The new NASA budget for 2014-15 will see $4 billion set aside for space exploration while only $1.2 billion for climate change research, down from $5 billion in 2012. Congress has been largely hostile to any new climate change initiatives during Barack Obama’s term in office, leading the President to explore other ways of cutting the country’s carbon footprint. –Nilima Choudhury, RTCC News, 10 July 2013

Fortunately, the U.S. did not sign the idiotic United Nation’s Kyoto Protocol that Democrats attempted to force on the U.S. And, thank goodness for common sense, most Americans did not swallow the incredibly lame global warming fear-mongering that is a staple of left-wing, liberal politics – instead, the U.S. relied on innovation and competition, which led to the natural gas/shale fracking revolution and massive CO2 emission reductions. –C3 Headline, 8 July 2013

1) Obama Administration Forecasts Bright Future For Fossil Fuels – AEIdeas, 9 July 2013

2) The Green Energy Stagnation – The Breakthrough Institute, 9 July 2013

3) Green Jobs Cull: US Congress To Slash Climate Research By $3.8 Billion – RTCC News, 10 July 2013

4) A Fracking Revolution: U.S. Now Leads World In CO2 Emission Reductions – C3 Headline, 8 July 2013

5) France Bans New Mercedes Cars Over ‘Greenhouse Gases’ – The Daily Telegraph, 9 July 2013

6) UK Steel Industry No Longer Competitive, Tata Claims – BBC News, 8 July 2013

7) The Great Green Energy Tax Swindle – The Commentator, 5 July 2013

1) Obama Administration Forecasts Bright Future For Fossil Fuels
AEIdeas, 9 July 2013

Mark J. Perry

fuels

 

 

 

President Obama has frequently promoted renewable energy sources, and said during his 2012 campaign that “We’ve got to look at the energy sources of the future, like wind and solar and biofuels, and make those investments.” By “investments” Obama most likely means massive “taxpayer-funded subsidies” for wind, solar and biofuels. At the same time, Obama has often dismissed fossil fuels as “energy sources of the past.” But according to projections from Obama’s Department of Energy, the reality is much different – fossil fuels will continue be America’s dominant source of energy for at least the next quarter century, while renewables, even with taxpayer life support, will continue to play a relatively minor role as an energy source for the US.

Here’s what the Department of Energy reported on its website last week:

While the overall energy history of the United States is one of significant change as new forms of energy were developed, the three major fossil fuels—petroleum, natural gas, and coal, which together provided 87% of total U.S. primary energy over the past decade—have dominated the U.S. fuel mix for well over 100 years. Recent increases in the domestic production of petroleum liquids and natural gas have prompted shifts between the uses of fossil fuels (largely from coal-fired to natural gas-fired power generation), but the predominance of these three energy sources is likely to continue into the future.

MP: The chart above illustrates the importance of fossil fuels to America as an energy source — in the past, today, and in the future. Over almost a one-hundred year period from 1948 to 2040, fossil fuels have provided, and will continue to provide, the vast majority of America’s energy by far (based on Department of Energy data here, here and here). Last year, fossil fuels provided almost 84% of America’s energy, which was nearly unchanged from the 85% fossil fuel energy share twenty years ago in the early 1990s. Even more than a quarter of a century from now in 2040, the Department of Energy forecasts that fossil fuels will still be the nation’s dominant energy source, providing more than 80% of our energy needs. So, despite President Obama’s dismissal of fossil fuels as “energy sources of the past,” the Department of Energy’s own forecasts tell a much different story of an energy future where fossil fuels serve as the dominant energy source to power our vehicles, heat and light our homes, and fuel the US economy.

Further, President Obama says we should “invest” in “energy sources of the future” – renewables like solar, biofuels and wind — instead of focusing on oil. But again, the Department of Energy’s forecasts tell a much different story. Even after “investing” billions of dollars in government taxpayer subsidies in renewable energy already, those sources provided only 7.5% of America’s energy last year, which was actually less than the 9.3% share of renewables in 1948, more than 60 years ago – that’s not a lot of progress for the politically-popular, taxypayer-subsidized renewables. When it comes to solar and wind, those energy sources provided only 1.8% of America’s energy last year – an almost insignificant amount. Even in 2040, more than a quarter century from now, solar and wind together will account for only 3.6% of America’s energy, according to the Department of Energy forecasts, and all renewables together will provide less than 11% of the nation’s energy.

Bottom Line: The economic and scientific reality, according to Obama’s Energy Department, is that abundant, low-cost fossil fuels will continue to dominate the US fuel mix for at least the next quarter century, and probably much, much longer into the future. Meanwhile, politics aside – the economic and scientific reality according to the Energy Department is that renewable sources of energy will continue to play a minor role in America’s energy mix. In 2040, the Energy Department’s projected 10.8% share for renewables will be almost inconsequentially different from the 9.3% share in 1948. In other words, the Energy Department’s not expecting a lot of progress for renewable energies as a fuel source for America, even after almost 100 years of efforts from politicians like Obama and billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars.

2) The Green Energy Stagnation
The Breakthrough Institute, 9 July 2013

Roger Pielke Jr.

The world was moving faster towards reducing its reliance on carbon intensive energy consumption in the 1970s and 1980s than in the past several decades. In fact, over the past 20 years there has been little if any progress in expanding the share of carbon-free energy in the global mix. Despite the rhetoric around the rise of renewable energy, the data tells a far different story

{photo_credit}

 

 

 

Long before climate policy became fashionable, global energy consumption data shows that from 1965 to 1999 the proportion of carbon-free energy more than doubled to more than 13 percent. Since then, there has been little if any progress in expanding the share of carbon-free energy in the global mix. Despite the rhetoric around the rise of renewable energy, this stagnation suggests how policies employed to accelerate rates of decarbonization of the global economy have been largely ineffective.

Policy makers around the world have frequently expressed their desire to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide to a level consistent with stabilizing the amount in the atmosphere at a low level. Conceptually, the challenge is akin to stabilizing the amount of water in a bathtub by modulating the amount filling the tub from a spigot. If there is an open drain at the bottom letting a bit of water out, then stabilization of the water’s height occurs when the amount coming into the tub equals the amount draining out.

The carbon dioxide is akin to the water filling the bathtub and the oceans and the land surface provide some take-up of carbon dioxide, serving like a small open drain at the bottom of the tub. For the stabilization of carbon dioxide, this means that emissions of carbon dioxide, which result primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal), must be reduced by something like 80 percent or more.

However, instead of looking at the issue through the lens of emissions, another way to look at the challenge of stabilizing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is through energy consumption. Whatever the total level of future energy supply turns out to be, to be consistent with stabilization – metaphorically stopping the rise of the water in the bathtub – the proportion of global energy that comes from carbon-free sources needs to exceed 90 percent.

So how are we doing working towards that 90 percent?
BP, in its excellent annual statistical report on world energy, provides data that allows us to answer this question. The figure above shows the proportion of global energy consumption that comes from carbon-free sources. These sources include nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass. The graph shows that from 1965 to 1999 the proportion of carbon-free energy in global consumption more than doubled to more than 13 percent, coincident with nuclear power increasing by a factor of 100 and hydropower by a factor of 6.

However, since 1999 the proportion of carbon-free energy in the global mix has dropped slightly. In fact, 1999 was the peak year for non-carbon energy. From 1999 to 2012 consumption of nuclear power dropped by 2 percent. While solar has increased its contribution to consumption by a factor of 100 and wind by 25 from 1999 to 2012, these sources remain at about 1 percent of total global energy consumption, and are dwarfed by the resurgence of coal.

 

Much is often made about the rise of renewable energy, but the data tells a more sobering story

Full story

3) Green Jobs Cull: US Congress To Slash Climate Research By $3.8 Billion
RTCC News, 10 July 2013

Nilima Choudhury

The US Congress plans to cut climate change initiatives whilst boosting funds for space exploration.

The new NASA budget for 2014-15 will see $4 billion (up from $3.8 billion in 2012) set aside for space exploration while only $1.2 billion for climate change research, down from $5 billion in 2012.

A provisional Bill released in June stated: “It is the policy of the United States that the development of capabilities and technologies necessary for human missions to lunar orbit, the surface of the Moon, the surface of Mars, and beyond shall be the goals of the Administration’s human space flight program.”

Congress has been largely hostile to any new climate change initiatives during Barack Obama’s term in office, leading the President to explore other ways of cutting the country’s carbon footprint.

Full story

4) A Fracking Revolution: U.S. Now Leads World In CO2 Emission Reductions
C3 Headline, 8 July 2013

Fortunately, the U.S. did not sign the idiotic United Nation’s Kyoto Protocol that Democrats attempted to force on the U.S. And, thank goodness for common sense, most Americans did not swallow the incredibly lame global warming fear-mongering that is a staple of left-wing, liberal politics – instead, the U.S. relied on innovation and competition, which led to the natural gas/shale fracking revolution and massive CO2 emission reductions.

2012 co3 emission reductions US versus world over last 5 years

2012 co3 emission reductions US versus world over last 5 years

 

Thanks to fracking, U.S. carbon emissions are now lower than they were in 1995.
While global warming has all but disappeared (being replaced with a slight cooling trend) the U.S. free market has been busy reducing America’s CO2 emissions tonnage. As the adjacent chart attests to, the U.S. leads the world’s major powers over the last 5 years. […]

Conclusions:

1. The U.S. will continue to reduce its CO2 footprint by a greater utilization of new fossil fuel technologies and free market forces

2. The vast majority of countries could also reduce their CO2 emission level/growth rate if they too embraced market forces instead of more government regulations, control and fraud that only bureaucrats and cronies love and prosper from

3. The Kyoto Protocols were an abject failure as the world’s CO2 emissions increased by some 10%+ over the last 5 years

4. Obama and the Democrats’ most recent push for more crushing, byzantine, Kyoto-type regulations/taxes on America’s industrial base will not arrest civilization’s CO2 emissions; only new fossil fuel technologies (such as fracking) and open competition will produce a smaller growth rate of human industrial/consumer CO2

5. California recently rejected the alarmist lies about fracking – the U.S. will continue to lead the world in CO2 reductions if all Americans reject the 5 great fracking lies

5) France Bans New Mercedes Cars Over ‘Greenhouse Gases’
The Daily Telegraph, 9 July 2013

The latest models of Mercedes cars cannot be sold in France as they still use an air conditioning refrigerant the EU says emits excessive greenhouse gases and should be replaced, the German auto company said.

“Only new cars are subject to the measure,” a company spokesman told AFP, adding that customers confronted with the ban are to be offered alternate models.

Since January 1, European Union norms demand that car makers use a cleaner R1234yf refrigerant, deemed less polluting than older products.

But Daimler is sticking to R134a, an older coolant, as it claims studies have shown that the new gas catches fire more easily and puts cars at a greater risk of explosion in case of a crash.
The makers of R1234yf reject Daimler’s claims but in Germany, the auto giant was given special permission to keep using the older gas.

Full story

6) UK Steel Industry No Longer Competitive, Tata Claims
BBC News, 8 July 2013

The Tata steel company told a government minister that it was losing business because of the high cost of energy prices in the UK.

The company claims its energy bill is almost twice its European competitors and an offer of financial support announced by the Treasury last week is not enough.

During a tour of Tata’s steelworks in Corby, Northamptonshire, Energy Minister Greg Barker said the special exemption created by the government for energy-intensive industries would make a difference, but not immediately.

7) The Great Green Energy Tax Swindle
The Commentator, 5 July 2013

Alex Wild

It seems that MPs don’t mind pricing poorer people out of heating their homes so rich people in London can feel good about saving the planet

We’re constantly led to believe that our energy bills are increasing because of the actions of unscrupulous, greedy energy companies, rising wholesale gas prices and just about everything that the SW1 gang couldn’t possibly be responsible for.

It’s true that gas prices have increased and fed into higher bills for consumers, but Ed Davey and his posse are determined to pile the pressure on households at what are already difficult times. The government typically pockets £191 of your energy bill every year through various green charges and taxes, but by 2020 their ludicrous policies will see this number soar to £620.
The reason they need to get their hands on more of your money is to subsidise inefficient renewables like the offshore wind farm David Cameron was enthusing about this morning. Simply put, the government’s energy policy is to subsidise inefficient renewables until they become competitive and then hand the bill to consumers. By making you use energy that costs twice as much (onshore wind) or three times as much (offshore wind), your energy bills will obviously go up.

The government says that Chris Huhne’s “Green Deal” will make bills £166 lower than they otherwise would be by 2020. The program was estimated by the Department for Energy and Climate Change to reap up to £27.8 billion worth of benefits but has proved shockingly unpopular with just 4 households signing up since the scheme’s launch in January. People less profligate than politicians have been deterred by the catalogue of hidden charges and sky-high interest rates.

There seems to be little opposition to huge energy bill hikes in Parliament: just 5 MPs voted against the £18 billion a year Climate Change Act in 2008 and one of them has retired. It seems that MPs don’t mind pricing poorer people out of heating their homes so rich people in London can feel good about saving the planet. But they’re not. Exporting out CO2 emissions (which account for less than 2 per cent of the global total) from Runcorn to Guangdong does nothing to stop climate change.

But today the TaxPayers’ Alliance has launched a campaign to Stop the Energy Swindle. To expose the rip-off for what it is. Go on http://thegwpf.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=8da08d40de&e=66880b4e4f where an online tool will show you exactly how much the government will increase your bill by and you can send a message to your MP to demand an end to the scam.

Follow on Twitter Forward to Friend
Copyright © 2013 Global Warming Policy Foundation, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
Global Warming Policy Foundation
10 Upper Bank Street
London, London E14 5NP
United Kingdom
Add us to your address book


SAS Volunteer

We publish content from 3rd party sources for educational purposes. We operate as a not-for-profit and do not make any revenue from the website. If you have content published on this site that you feel infringes your copyright please contact: webmaster@scotlandagainstspin.org to have the appropriate credit provided or the offending article removed.

4 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *