The greatest barrier to fulfilling the United Nations' sustainable energy initiative is the resistance to change entrenched in the political, social and technological aspects of the energy system, said McCollum.
"The barriers for clean energy technologies are many, and that industry is still in a fledgling state, at least compared to the fossil fuels industry, which is mature, large, and powerful," he said. "Consider this: global fossil fuel subsidies currently amount to some $400 billion per year. That amount of money would, by our calculations, go a long way in achieving the SE4All goals."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
24 Comments
Add CommentHere comes the U.N. to the rescue! ROFL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs opposed to what? Exxon? What would be in it for them?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMake it worth their while to produce clean energy and they will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Consider this: global fossil fuel subsidies currently amount to some $400 billion per year."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly! Those arguing that we need to stop picking winners in energy markets first need to acknowledge that EVERY energy source is subsidized, with fossil fuels getting the largest chunk of the pie. Fossil fuels have also benefitted from these subsidies and government policy support for over a century now as opposed to the off-again, on-again support for clean energy, giving them HUGE incumbency advantages and investment certainty that is impossible with clean energy currently.
We need get rid of the $400B in annual subsidies and give clean energy AT LEAST a decade of policy certainty before every energy source can be on the path towards an equal footing. To make energy markets COMPLETELY fair, we would also have to consider the damages that pollution causes as well. For example, peer-reviewed studies have estimated that coal power ALONE causes between $100B and $500B in external damages EVERY YEAR, just in the USA. While fossil fuel apologists will maintain that you can't peg a firm price on the effects of pollution, it is undoubtedly a major problem that is more a factor of inadequate regulation than a failure to charge a penalty for releasing pollutants. If there is technology that CAN reduce pollution, fossil fuel users SHOULD employ it. Otherwise, somebody if profiting from an artificially cheap and unnecessarily dirty process that releases more pollution than it should, worsening the health and prosperity of society as a whole. In fact, this is the gist of the Clean Air Act, but the political influence of polluters in getting old coal power plants "grandfathered" out of its requirements and other moral lapses have caused the USA to deviate from the intent of the law.
And finally, each ton of CO2 released will change our climate in some way, causing a wide range of damages. A recent study determined that $50 a ton was the most likely value for the "social cost of carbon". However, a $20 / ton carbon tax that increases a small percentage every year can basically guarantee the carbon reductions for the USA to do its part in keeping the global temperature rise below 2C.
"Global fossil fuel subsidies" There are some countries that subsidize certain fossil fuels, but most countries put a very high tax on fossil fuels, especially road transport fuel. I do not think there is country in Europe where at least 50 percent of the amount you pay at he pump is for taxation. I suppose that might be a reason for some countries not to push EVs too hard. They could loose a major part of their tax income. If fossil fuels are subsidized by 400 B $ a year in some countries, they must be taxed by at least 800 B $ a year in other countries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're confusing apples with oranges. Fuel taxes are a requirement to get roads, bridges, tunnels, etc. built and maintained. They are necessary to get the system up and running and are the most straightforward way to institute a "user tax" on a country's transportation system. On a side note, fuel taxes in the USA are about HALF of what they need to be just to maintain the quality of our transportation infrastructure let alone improve it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSubsidies come in 2 flavors. Consumption subsidies artificially lower the price people pay to buy fuels while production subsidies provide cash payments or reduced tax rates for certain activities in the fuel production supply chain. While consumption subsidies ease poverty in some contries, production subsidies are pure pork, especially in the era of record oil company profits.
So, while fuel taxes are a necessary part of providing the infrastructure that fuel consumers use, subsidies, and especially production subsidies, are unnecessary and merely serve political ends (whether beneficial or corrupt). Since fossil fuel use also pollutes the environment and causes climate change, we are subdizing problems instead of solutions with these policies.
The reality is that the three billion people on the planet who do not currently have access to electricity WILL obtain access over the next 30 years or so. This same population will also be getting access to personal transportation. This is inevitable and it will result in CO2 emissions growing worldwide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not the 300 million in the US that will drive CO2 emissions over the next 30 years it is those 3 billion people who have every right to use power. In reality worldwide CO2 emissions will continue to rise for decades at least. Taking silly steps to reduce emissions in the US or elsewhere will not change the worldwide growth curve. Trying to push the implementation of new technologies when they do not have a clear business case is doomed to failure.
It is not the US that stopped a meaningful treaty from being adopted in the past. It was not accepted because such a treaty slows the development of countries whose people want a better lifestyle. Over time technology will advance and we will learn more about CO2’s impact good and bad.
Well said, and definitely true. Automobile usage is expanding rapidly in Developing Nations, while it is declining in Western Nations. Energy resources will shift to developing nations who couldn't give a hoot about "Clean Energy". They will burn the dirtiest, lowest grade Coal and use Coal to liquids if need be, (as South Africa is doing) to supply their Energy needs. These token reductions in the West are worse than worthless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ONE THING Western nations could do is develop a clean, green, cheap, mass produced energy source that can be exported to Developing Nations to supply their Energy Needs.
The ONLY energy source that meets that criteria is Nuclear Energy. Best best are factory produced Nuclear Barges & submersible Nuclear plants which could sell power & desalinated water to developing nations. And intrinsically safe, factory constructed Small Modular Reactors that can be exported in Vast Quantities.
Good example:
thoriumenergycheaperthancoal.com/
" double the share of renewable energy is me"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYup it will work if only the most renewable of renewables - nuclear energy is the source. Every dime wasted on the current wind/solar/ with inefficient fossil backup run inefficiently saves no GHG's over a all efficient fossil plant alternative.
Temperature will continue to rise likely beyond the figures predicted now. I believe our efforts will slow the rate but not the end result.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@sethdayal: "Yup it will work if only the most renewable of renewables - nuclear energy is the source."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRenewable energy does not includes power derived from nuclear fission, as uranium ore is mined and consumed without being replenished. Finding other sources of fuel is not renewability, not by any honest definition. Next, will you tell us all how up is really down in Australia?
For every individual who cares a little bit about the future of the human race and the planet, there are 10,000 individuals who don't give a you-know-what where the energy comes from as long as it's there 24/7/365. Why else do you think we commit 2 million people a year to premature deaths, from our addiction to burning fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fortunate ¼ of us who now use ¾ of the energy produced are already witnessing the other ¾ of the population striving for our standard of living. By 2050, when there are 10 billion of us, the fight will be on for energy security and resources. We will need 3 or 4 times the amount of energy being used now, for international peace and stability. In this world, you can forget the irritating white noise of the renewables lobby; all they are doing right now is delaying the introduction of the only technology with the answer.
Arithmetic done on the back of a fag-packet proves that the technology of the breeder reactor can provide an energy-rich future for 10 billion people, for all of time - from inexhaustible uranium and thorium fuel sources.
If or when the lights start to stutter, anti-nuclear sentiment will evapourate and that apathetic, vast majority, who just want energy on demand, will be screaming for their local Small Modular Breeder Reactor.
To the politicians, charged with getting energy planning right, for only 2 or 3 decades ahead, the message should be clear: "It's the Energy-Security, stupid"!
It sure is heartening to read so many rational comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy rational of course, I mean that they agree with my own views. Although I am always pushing the pro nuclear barrow there is one solar energy usage that I do approve of. Domestic solar hot water can be low tec & cheap. Ideally suited to many countries of the under developed world. A simple wedge shaped steel tank with the top surface painted black, covered with a sheet of glass or even plastic & roughly insulated with dry grass is capable of bringing water to the boil in areas of the world well to the polar sides of the Tropic of Cancer or Capricorn. There are a couple of other minor refinements that are cheap & low tec. The fact remains, only nuclear is has the potential of providing cheap 24/7 electricity.
Actually since the uranium mined will be reused in Gen IV reactors enough to power the world for a thousand years it is indeed sustainable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWind/solar on the other hand destroy far more non renewable resources in their 20 year trip to the landfill.
Sisko, you provide ZERO proof that any of your unnamed "alternatives" are silly or "don't have a business case". Since fossil fuels benefit from $400B in yearly subsidies, all while being able to poison our environment and our bodies with their pollution and destabilize our climate with their GHG emissions FOR FREE, maybe DIRTY energy is the one that doesn't have a business case absent MASSIVE government intervention on its behalf.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd your apathetic, defeatist argument that we cannot do anything about climate change is less than useless. Change has to start somewhere. Western Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia and, most importantly, the USA have all benefitted PROFOUNDLY from using the atmosphere as a dumping ground for GHGs. Accordingly, they should be the first to turn things around and develop the most effective ways to reduce emissions so that developing countries don't repeat the same mistakes they did. In addition, while these countries are responsible for 30 - 40% of global emissions, their demand for cheap goods drives another 30 - 40% of global emissions in developing countries. Therefore, trade policy, cooperation and development aid can go a long way in bringing about a lot of the emissions reductions we need. But if the USA, responsible for 20% of global emissions and owner of the largest economy, refuses to act, progress is stalled indefinitely like we have seen over the past 20 years. Why should poorer countries that are responsible for a tiny portion of the extra GHGs in the atmosphere move forward when the biggest cumulative emitter sits on its hands?
Nice switcheroo you did there, seth! You SPECIFICALLY said, "Yup it will work if only the most renewable of renewables - nuclear energy[sic] is the source."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrying to lie to us by claiming you said "sustainable" instead is insulting to our intelligence and undermines what little credibility you had.
And where's your proof to back up this whopper?
"Wind/solar on the other hand destroy far more non renewable resources in their 20 year trip to the landfill."
Since the only nuclear power plant ever to even be PARTIALLY decommissioned is Chernobyl, I know for a fact that YOU HAVE NO IDEA how much and what kind of waste a nuclear power plant generates over its lifetime.
How dumb do you think we are?
To everybody claiming that nuclear power is this silver bullet that will solve all our climate, environmental and energy problems, you have to realize that this is kind of a pipe dream.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn market economies that value safety, rectors take a decade or more to build usually. On top of that, cost overruns and outright cancellations of reactor builds after billion$$$ had already been spent were a common sight in the 1980's as the industry imploded. Yeah, once nuclear reactors are built and all the bad debt accumulated during their construction is offloaded on to taxpayers and ratepayers (The Pacific Northwest and Ontario come to mind), they produce clean and "cheap" energy for decades.
However, even in "safety, what's that?" China, they are struggling to grow nuclear power from 1% to 6% of their electricity supply by 2020. In short, nuclear power just can't grow fast enough to bring about the level of emissions reductions we need to avoid severe climate disruption.
And claiming that "breeder" reactors of some type will magically change that situation is a little short-sighted. The USA has spent $60B on breeder reactor research only to produce exactly ZERO commercial reactors. I agree, these reactors are promising, but will require 10 - 20 of development to see if they work in the real world under commercial conditions. A lot of the money appropriated for loan guarantees for LWRs and other nuclear supports should be used to get a commercial test reactor up and running.
Regardless, renewable generating capacity can be installed 10x faster or more than nuclear generating capacity. Just like we don't know how well LFTRs will operate in real-world conditions before we deploy the technology, we have learned a lot about renewables over the past 20 years. Costs have plummetted as economies of scale (in solar and wind especially) were realized and the industry rapidly moved down its learning curve. Regardless of the propaganda you hear coming from fossil fuel interests in some form or another, renewable energy WORKS. Just look at Germany and other countries that have supported them adequately for real-world proof.
So sure, develop LFTRs since they may be a big player after 2030, but in the mean time, efficiency / conservation / renewables are reducing emissions NOW and we should support them like nuclear and fossil fuels have been historically supported to level the playing field in energy markets.
You forgot the energy storage problem again. Renewables are too intermittent to make much difference. More efficient use of fossil fuels is like curing morphine addiction with heroin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with 9. sethdayal.
sault claims: "..nuclear power is this silver bullet..this is .. a pipe dream.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong. Nuclear power is a class of energy, like Renewables & Fossil Fuels. As a class of energy it is CERTAINLY quite capable of replacing all Fossil Fuel & Renewable energy. Already proven in France where they easily expanded to Nuclear to half their total energy supply in about 15yrs, starting virtually from scratch. With a safety record better than ANY other significant energy source. So if it could be done then, without any factory construction, assembly line production, CAD/CAM, computer simulation, DCS/PLC control systems or other modern tech, most assuredly it can be done now, and much easier.
Sault claims: "..all the bad debt accumulated.."
And idiotic comment. I have destroyed that claim of yours on many occasions and you still continue to relentlessly espouse it. Shows a total lack of intellectual honesty and scientific integrity on your part. The Ontario Gov't, by policy, did not pay off the capital cost of construction of its big Hydro & Nuclear builds, as it easily could have done by a charge on favorable power rates at the time. They ain't "bad debts". What on earth is that? They are debts. The Ontario Gov't has a big "bad debt" every year. $14.4B in 2012. The payment to retire the Hydro & Nuclear debt, the DRC, is a whopping 0.7 cents/kwh produced. Vs Wind getting 13.5 cents per kwh (mostly wasted) and Solar getting 40-80 cents per kwh. And analysis shows the Nuclear debt is actually paid off. The Nuclear cost, worst case Darlington, including Sault's "bad debt", was $6.4k/kwavg output ($2011), vs Wind at $10k to $30k per kwavg output, and solar even more than that. So quit spreading disinformation. Wind being a mostly useless, intermittent, unreliable, power-when-you-don't-need-it source of energy, with many added costs on top of the above.
The avg build time for Nuclear in the USA, without modern tech or factory construction or assembly line production, before Sault's greenie buddies were allowed to control Nuclear through the NRC, was 3-4yrs. Avg cost in $2012 was an incredibly low $1000 per kw. Far below the current minimum $10k per kw for mostly useless Wind & $20-60k for Solar. And these reactors have the best safety record of ANY source of Energy. So yep, after Sault's greenie buddies took over the NRC, they allowed perfectly good, built NPP's like Shoreham to be closed, because Greenies were allowed to block them.
phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
depletedcranium.com/why-i-hate-the-nrc/
Sault claims: "..renewable generating capacity can be installed 10x faster or more than nuclear.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong. Here is Germany's total Energy Production, 1971 to end of 2009:
iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DETPES.pdf
The thin little green line on top is their much-hyped Wind & Solar Energy. Any thickening of that green line is matched with a thickening of their NG line that is 5X larger. Notice how #1 anti-Nuclear country Germany, achieved a lot more and a lot quicker with their mundane Nuclear expansion than they have with their mega-subsidy Solar & Wind program. Their Renewable Energy program was "so successful" that they are building 23 humungous lignite dirt-burners to supply the bulk of their new electricity requirements. Why aren't they building Solar & Wind instead? Germany produces 601 gm CO2 per kwh of electricity generated (one of the highest in Europe), while Nuclear France produces 83 gm CO2 per kwh.
Now lets see what France did in the same amount of time:
iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRTPES.pdf
See the big fat yellow line - that's Nuclear. Notice how much Oil consumption it replaced. So that is what France achieved with a mediocre effort, using an ancient US design LWR. No Factory Construction. No Assembly Line production. No modern CAD or CAM. No modern PLC/DCS control systems. No Small Modular Reactors. No modern tech/science or computer simulations & modeling. No modern high efficiency, rapid construction techniques. And yet they managed to generate half of their Energy Supply with Nuclear in about 15 yrs. This is for a middle wealth nation, with the best health care & social services in the World, one of the most expensive, World Class Military in the World, and during the period improved their Standard of Living & productivity much faster than Renewables Germany, and instituted a 4 day, max 35 hr work week with minimum 5 weeks paid vacation - most get 8 weeks.
Solar & Wind are already mass produced in mind-boggling proportions. Factory construction. Done. Assembly line production. Done. Robotics. Done. Massive R&D. Done. Scale economics. Done. Vast Subsidies. Done. Learning curve reductions. Done. Supply Chain established. Done.
For commercial nuclear, even First-of-a-kind GENIII plants built. NOT Done. GENIV. NOT Done. Factory construction. NOT Done. Assembly line production. NOT Done. Robotics. NOT Done. Massive R&D. NOT Done. Scale economics. NOT Done. Vast Subsidies. NOT Done. Supply chain established. NOT Done.
Why, because ENGOs/Big Carbon have successfully shutdown Nuclear builds for 25 yrs.
How about hydrogen from water from Nuclear Power plant for transportation? No smog, no CO2. Oh, that's right, the green movement killed off the safest power industry on the planet. Kinda makes you wonder what else they got wrong...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell you could better ask how dumb I think you are?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about the stupidest troll that has disgraced the comment thread at SCIAM in years.
Here's a suggestion, look up the tons of the steel and concrete and other non renewable materials needed to generate a gwh of solar/wind and compare that to the tiny amount required for nukes. Few nukes if any will be decomned as they will simply have the cores replaced with Gen IV units with two due for service this year.
As I understand it, the 2 degree C limit isn't a limit that the climate science shows is OK, so why do science reporters keep citing it as though everything will be fine if warming is kept to 1.99 degrees or below? If the limit was informed by the climate science of the time it was adopted, how about now?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt takes many decades for energy infrastructure changes, so what is really needed is lifestyle changes. Emissions need to start dropping soon, and dropping quickly to have any chance of limiting the rise to 2 degrees but what will the world look like at 2 degrees (or 1.99 degrees)? Probably not very pleasant at all.
Sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou frequently write about $400 billion is fossil fuel subsidies, but you are either simply wrong about the basis of that number or intentionally being untruthful.
The vast majority of these subsidies are where independent nations charge their citizens less for oil than they could get if that oil was sold on the open market. Examples of this are widespread but you can examine Saudi Arabia and Venezuela to verify my point. I believe that actual tax advantage to US oil companies is about $5B per year. The funds do not go to oil companies. Who has the right to tell independent nations what they should be doing internally?
Sault, I wrote- “Trying to push the implementation of new technologies when they do not have a clear business case is doomed to failure.” That does not mean I am against renewable energy at all. It simply means that the technology needs to work effectively. Do we need to review the large number of renewable energy projects that have been undertaken that have been huge economic failures over the last few years around the world? Maintenance of windmills has clearly been much higher than was initially projected huh? How is Spain doing economically?
People want and need electricity and any source of getting it is fine. There are many companies whose only goal is to provide people with electricity at the lowest cost possible. If a technology works better than fossil fuel it will be adopted around the world. If it does not work better than fossil fuel it will not be adopted.
The article claimed that UN sustainable energy efforts could keep bla bla bla, but that is simply untrue. The UN is not the party building power plants for those 3 billion people wanting power. The UN will not be the one deciding what form of personal transportation those 3 billion will be using.
Each independent nation decides how they will generate electricity in their country and not the UN. Individuals generally decide what form of personal transport they use and they base that decision on what is the best available for them in a particular market. None of this has anything to do with the UN. The basis of the article is WRONG.