US will meet Paris accord commitments even if Donald Trump withdraws

engineer · July 2017

I found a report in the "Independent" claiming that the US will meet Paris accord commitments even if DonaldTrump withdraws because renewable energy will be the cheapest form of power in almost every country by 2020 (With the exception of a few countries in Southeast Asia).
Which means that prices for clean energy will soon sink to lower than more polluting sources so the US will use more renewable resources not because they like them but because they are cheaper.

sounds like good news ( of course not for Trump!)

bill von novak · July 2017

engineer said:

I found a report in the "Independent" claiming that the US will meet Paris accord commitments even if DonaldTrump withdraws because renewable energy will be the cheapest form of power in almost every country by 2020 (With the exception of a few countries in Southeast Asia).

Well, unless Trump manages to sabotage the industry. There's probably several ways he could do that - outlaw net metering, put up killer tariffs for solar equipment, just outlaw solar and wind in general. Hopefully his current troubles will keep him occupied so he doesn't have time to pursue such avenues.

westbranch · July 2017

engineer said:

I found a report in the "Independent" claiming that the US will meet Paris accord commitments even if Donald Trump withdraws because renewable energy will be the cheapest form of power in almost every country by 2020 (With the exception of a few countries in Southeast Asia).
Which means that prices for clean energy will soon sink to lower than more polluting sources so the US will use more renewable resources not because they like them but because they are cheaper.

I don't think that your assumption is totally correct..... Hydro power up here, particularly in BC, is the dominant source, not coal or nat gas fired plants and the length and depth of the winter (winter storms) causes us to have to spend more $$$ on PV to fill the minimum size of battery...
ps and 2020 is only 2 1/2 yrs from now so that must mean that PV power generation costs must have had a precipitous fall this summer...???

BB. · July 2017

The reason for CO2 reduction, primarily, in the US was because of the recent recession (and probably outsourcing of heavy industries), and the fracking of natural gas reducing the usage of coal (which releases something like 2x the CO2 vs natural gas).

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601415/carbon-dioxide-emissions-keep-falling-in-the-us/

As industry recovers, and the US exports more natural gas (world market rates), you will probably see an increase in CO2 production.

Germany is having issues now with meeting future CO2 "goals":

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-carbon-emissions-rise-2016-despite-coal-use-drop

China is already swamping the world CO2 production, and was still planning on ramping up on coal fired power plants (using Australian coal and others) through 2030:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

Other countries (such as India) will be continuing to increase their coal fired electrical power plants too for the future:

It is estimated that Human CO2 production is ~3-4% of the "natural" carbon cycle:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

CO2 is a fertilizer and is at a historic low (plants are stressed by low CO2).

https://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide

And CO2 is at a (relatively) low level vs the earth's age:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

Take the above numbers with a "grain of salt"... Between the large error bars and politicized government statistics--Arguing the numbers will probably just end up going in circles.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/errors-in-estimating-temperatures-using-the-average-of-tmax-and-tmin-analysis-of-the-uscrn-temperature-stations/

Personally, I do not see any data that links high(er) levels of CO2 to high(er) global average temperatures. There are processes that have "higher" temperatures that follow with a rising CO2 atmospheric levels (such as increasing ocean temperatures reduces dissolved gasses carrying capacity of sea water) with an ~800 year lag (ice core logs).

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

-Bill

cow_rancher · July 2017

engineer said:because renewable energy will be the cheapest form of power in almost every country by 2020 (With the exception of a few countries in Southeast Asia).

sounds like good news ( of course not for Trump!)

Currently, and call me out on this experts, but Solar is not now, and probably will never be cheaper than other current types of energy, Coal, Natural gas, Hydro, Nuclear .

Solar has been and is only cheaper with net metering at sell back rates equal to buy rates, and then only with rebates from the US Government (that's our tax dollars at work), and rebates from Electric Utilities which were mandated to have 5% renewable energy by 2020, that is going away as well as the net metering dollar for dollar by/sell rates.

We pulled out of the Paris accords because of the Billions of dollars that we the US Government (that's our tax dollars at work), would have had to pay other countries to clean up their CO2 emissions... sound fair to you, not to me...

I'm not sure what your "not for Trump" comment applies to, do you think Trump is against more sustainable energy sources, or is he just a smart businessman?

Rancher

Solray · July 2017

Trump is not against clean energy Trump is only against clean energy that forces the US to pay extremely high costs thereby depleting our resources faster.

MarkC · July 2017

BB. said:

The reason for CO2 reduction, primarily, in the US was because of the recent recession (and probably outsourcing of heavy industries), and the fracking of natural gas reducing the usage of coal (which releases something like 2x the CO2 vs natural gas).

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601415/carbon-dioxide-emissions-keep-falling-in-the-us/

As industry recovers, and the US exports more natural gas (world market rates), you will probably see an increase in CO2 production.

Germany is having issues now with meeting future CO2 "goals":

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-carbon-emissions-rise-2016-despite-coal-use-drop

China is already swamping the world CO2 production, and was still planning on ramping up on coal fired power plants (using Australian coal and others) through 2030:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

Other countries (such as India) will be continuing to increase their coal fired electrical power plants too for the future:

It is estimated that Human CO2 production is ~3-4% of the "natural" carbon cycle:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

CO2 is a fertilizer and is at a historic low (plants are stressed by low CO2).

https://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide

And CO2 is at a (relatively) low level vs the earth's age:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

Take the above numbers with a "grain of salt"... Between the large error bars and politicized government statistics--Arguing the numbers will probably just end up going in circles.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/errors-in-estimating-temperatures-using-the-average-of-tmax-and-tmin-analysis-of-the-uscrn-temperature-stations/

Personally, I do not see any data that links high(er) levels of CO2 to high(er) global average temperatures. There are processes that have "higher" temperatures that follow with a rising CO2 atmospheric levels (such as increasing ocean temperatures reduces dissolved gasses carrying capacity of sea water) with an ~800 year lag (ice core logs).

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

-Bill

Thanks Bill - as usual, a voice of reason with facts to back up the reasoning. OTOH, minimizing our glutinous consumption of coal/hydrocarbons for energy/fuels is an admirable goal - future generations should have hydrocarbons for building blocks of chemicals, plastics, pharma, insecticides, herbicides, composites, paints, solvents, etc, etc.

IMO, the great thing about this forum is that we are invested in minimizing the use and finding good alternatives to coal, nat gas, fuel oil, gasoline, diesel, as our source of energy and transportation.

Solray · July 2017

I have no problem with meeting the accord mandates as long as it's done to promote US economic growth and not to further some mumbo jumbo witchery that says we are doing things without any scientific proof. I am glad we have a living, evolving planet instead of a stagnant one. If the Earth was maintained in it's purest state, human life would not exist on it, nor would any other life, save for the bacteria, but then again, they would be causing change, so they would have to be wiped out too.

bill von novak · July 2017

cow_rancher said:

Currently, and call me out on this experts, but Solar is not now, and probably will never be cheaper than other current types of energy, Coal, Natural gas, Hydro, Nuclear .

Solar has been and is only cheaper with net metering at sell back rates equal to buy rates, and then only with rebates from the US Government (that's our tax dollars at work), and rebates from Electric Utilities which were mandated to have 5% renewable energy by 2020, that is going away as well as the net metering dollar for dollar by/sell rates.

Unsubsidized solar is now considerably cheaper than coal. A project in Abu Dhabi was just approved that will sell solar energy for 2.4 cents a kilowatt-hour, cheaper than conventional fossil sources of power. (And obviously no US government subsidies there.) There have been similar prices accepted for projects in Chile and India.

Here in the US, unsubsidized costs of solar are around 4.5 to 6 cents per kwhr, due to higher labor and land costs mainly. Compare that to natural gas (4.5 to 7.5 cents) coal (6 to 14 cents) and nuclear (9.5 to 13 cents.) It's taking off pretty rapidly as a result.

bill von novak · July 2017

Solray said:

I have no problem with meeting the accord mandates as long as it's done to promote US economic growth and not to further some mumbo jumbo witchery that says we are doing things without any scientific proof.

You will be happy to know, in that case, that the accord's goal is reduction of CO2 to reduce the impact of climate change, which has a tremendous amount of scientific proof behind it.

bill von novak · July 2017

Solray said:

Trump is not against clean energy Trump is only against clean energy that forces the US to pay extremely high costs thereby depleting our resources faster.

So higher costs increase consumption? That sounds a bit backwards. In standard economic theory, high costs reduce consumption and drive developments of alternatives.

BB. · July 2017

"Carbon taxes" and payments to less developed countries.

Turkey is talking about pulling out of Paris because nobody is giving them any climate money.

-Bill

westbranch · July 2017

I hate it when you long term memory kicks into action and dredges up things that you placed on the side board....
In 1970, in Dendrology, the study of trees and their growth, we were taught that the bigger rings found inside the trees was a result of more moisture, and more recently, a PHD Dr., Forester, friend (a denialist) delivered a presentation, in China, at an international symposium on CO2 levels, that there is solid evidence that ALL PLANTS and specifically trees, are growing larger and taller with the small increases of CO2 in the atmosphere!... Hence crop yields are increased per acre, more food per acre ..... so if true, is GCC a good or a bad thing for the people who have to eat? just saying...
later in 1972, Forest planning, we were discussing PARKS and the Victorian concept of a park, they believed that once you declared an area ''a Park'', it would stop all change in that area.... they had never heard/thought of Ecological Succession, evolution on a different time scale, take the National parks along the Rockies, fires were fought and thus an essential part of the areas ecology was eliminated and "Oh no, or beautiful Ponderosa Pine stands are now burning up''.... because man stopped the small annual fires from doing 'their' job.... !
end of rant...

Solray · July 2017

bill von novak said:

Solray said:

I have no problem with meeting the accord mandates as long as it's done to promote US economic growth and not to further some mumbo jumbo witchery that says we are doing things without any scientific proof.

You will be happy to know, in that case, that the accord's goal is reduction of CO2 to reduce the impact of climate change, which has a tremendous amount of scientific proof behind it.

There is also a tremendous amount of proof that climate change precedes mankind's tiny input by millions of years.

So, what cars caused the end of the last ice age and period of global warming? What about the one before that? and the one before that one? Yep, it's been happening for as long as the earth has been here, the planet is governed by cyclical changes in climate and always has been. We cannot stop that no matter what we do, short of blowing it all up and even then it will continue, we just won't see it.

Solray · July 2017

westbranch said:

I hate it when you long term memory kicks into action and dredges up things that you placed on the side board....
In 1970, in Dendrology, the study of trees and their growth, we were taught that the bigger rings found inside the trees was a result of more moisture, and more recently, a PHD Dr., Forester, friend (a denialist) delivered a presentation, in China, at an international symposium on CO2 levels, that there is solid evidence that ALL PLANTS and specifically trees, are growing larger and taller with the small increases of CO2 in the atmosphere!... Hence crop yields are increased per acre, more food per acre ..... so if true, is GCC a good or a bad thing for the people who have to eat? just saying...
later in 1972, Forest planning, we were discussing PARKS and the Victorian concept of a park, they believed that once you declared an area ''a Park'', it would stop all change in that area.... they had never heard/thought of Ecological Succession, evolution on a different time scale, take the National parks along the Rockies, fires were fought and thus an essential part of the areas ecology was eliminated and "Oh no, or beautiful Ponderosa Pine stands are now burning up''.... because man stopped the small annual fires from doing 'their' job.... !
end of rant...

Happily, they now manage a lot of wildfires instead of trying to stop them.

Solray · July 2017

bill von novak said:

Solray said:

Trump is not against clean energy Trump is only against clean energy that forces the US to pay extremely high costs thereby depleting our resources faster.

So higher costs increase consumption? That sounds a bit backwards. In standard economic theory, high costs reduce consumption and drive developments of alternatives.

Our nations capital (with an 'a') is also a national resource a lot of folks forget about, as it the M1 money supply.

Solray · July 2017

bill von novak said:

cow_rancher said:

Currently, and call me out on this experts, but Solar is not now, and probably will never be cheaper than other current types of energy, Coal, Natural gas, Hydro, Nuclear .

Solar has been and is only cheaper with net metering at sell back rates equal to buy rates, and then only with rebates from the US Government (that's our tax dollars at work), and rebates from Electric Utilities which were mandated to have 5% renewable energy by 2020, that is going away as well as the net metering dollar for dollar by/sell rates.

Unsubsidized solar is now considerably cheaper than coal. A project in Abu Dhabi was just approved that will sell solar energy for 2.4 cents a kilowatt-hour, cheaper than conventional fossil sources of power. (And obviously no US government subsidies there.) There have been similar prices accepted for projects in Chile and India.

Here in the US, unsubsidized costs of solar are around 4.5 to 6 cents per kwhr, due to higher labor and land costs mainly. Compare that to natural gas (4.5 to 7.5 cents) coal (6 to 14 cents) and nuclear (9.5 to 13 cents.) It's taking off pretty rapidly as a result.

Abu Dhabi may have a few oil dollars funding such projects, so yes, there are almost all US dollars floating the projects there.

Estragon · July 2017

This is a political question, not a technical one. The reality is that much of the western world now believes that human caused CO2 emissions are causing climate change. Deal with it.

Solray · July 2017

Estragon said:

This is a political question, not a technical one. The reality is that much of the western world now believes that human caused CO2 emissions are causing climate change. Deal with it.

The other reality is that the rest of the western world and many scientists that have studied the ice sheets at the poles do not believe we have in less than a hundred years of industrial revolution made any difference at all over what would have happened if we were not here, and happened several times before we were here. Deal with it.

Photowhit · July 2017

I like The question and obviously there are no 'pure' answers with out a lot of related costs/facts evaluated.

I'm also a fence sitter on global warming!

...but I do believe we humans can and do effect the climate. Past history of the "Dust Bowl" from over development of marginal land, "Acid Rain" for the U.S. caused by dirty coal burning and depletion of the Ozone layer (more direct causal than global warming) Show our direct involvement in the environment.

I also believe fossil fuels are finite, continuing increase in population and the demands it puts on energy resources will continue to create social and economic problems. As well as any environmental problems.

We may have reached peak oil, at least for the easy to obtain oil. Peak oil is the idea that we have extracted 50% of the readily available oil. I think we are in stage 2, creating more environmental problems by harvesting the harder to extract oil shale. No I don't think it's a coincidence that there are increased earthquakes in regions where we are pumping slurry into the ground to extract oil. Don't think the local water contamination is innocent byproduct of fracking.

Even not knowing, or caring if "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" is real, Mankind, needs to look at and develop alternatives to fossil fuels. Truly our planet is "Infested with Humans". I'm either a fatalist or a realist, I suspect I've got maybe another 20 years. I might get to see which.

Solray · July 2017

We have more oil sitting under us in the US than in the middle east. We are just letting them use up theirs before we sell them ours to get even.

(the last bit is a joke)

Photowhit · July 2017

Solray said:

We have more oil sitting under us in the US than in the middle east.

Been a long time and many discoveries since I was researching this, but back in the stone age, I think Canada had more than all of us combined, locked in oil shale.

Mangas · July 2017

Don't tell the cattle. . .

cow_rancher · July 2017

bill von novak said:

cow_rancher said:

Currently, and call me out on this experts, but Solar is not now, and probably will never be cheaper than other current types of energy, Coal, Natural gas, Hydro, Nuclear .

Solar has been and is only cheaper with net metering at sell back rates equal to buy rates, and then only with rebates from the US Government (that's our tax dollars at work), and rebates from Electric Utilities which were mandated to have 5% renewable energy by 2020, that is going away as well as the net metering dollar for dollar by/sell rates.

Unsubsidized solar is now considerably cheaper than coal. A project in Abu Dhabi was just approved that will sell solar energy for 2.4 cents a kilowatt-hour, cheaper than conventional fossil sources of power. (And obviously no US government subsidies there.) There have been similar prices accepted for projects in Chile and India.

Here in the US, unsubsidized costs of solar are around 4.5 to 6 cents per kwhr, due to higher labor and land costs mainly. Compare that to natural gas (4.5 to 7.5 cents) coal (6 to 14 cents) and nuclear (9.5 to 13 cents.) It's taking off pretty rapidly as a result.

OpenEI, sponsored jointly by the US DOE and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), has compiled a historical cost-of-generation database[61] covering a wide variety of generation sources. Because the data is open source it may be subject to frequent revision.

LCOE from OpenEI DB as of June, 2015
Plant Type (USD/MWh)		Min	Median	Max	Data Source Year
Distributed Generation		10	70	130	2014
Hydropower	Conventional	30	70	100	2011
Hydropower	Small Hydropower		140		2011
Wind	Onshore (land based)	40		80	2014
Wind	Offshore	100		200	2014
Natural Gas	Combined Cycle	50		80	2014
Natural Gas	Combustion Turbine	140		200	2014
Coal	Pulverized, scrubbed	60		150	2014
	Pulverized, unscrubbed		40		2008
	IGCC, gasified	100		170	2014
Solar	Photovoltaic	60	110	250	2014
Solar	CSP	100		220	2014
Geothermal	Hydrothermal	50		100	2011
	Blind		100		2011
	Enhanced	80		130	2014
Biopower		90		110	2014
Fuel Cell		100		160	2014
Nuclear		90		130	2014
Ocean		230	240	250	2011

westbranch · July 2017

Photowhit said:

Solray said:

We have more oil sitting under us in the US than in the middle east.

Been a long time and many discoveries since I was researching this, but back in the stone age, I think Canada had more than all of us combined, locked in oil shale.

The first part is correct, there is a huge amount of oil, but in Canada we call it the Tar Sands, in Alberta .. and extraction does have problems with the impact/affect on the local environment.... though there has been a lot of technological improvements, it used to take almost 1 barrel of oil to produce the same from the tar sands, now it is approaching 1 barrel to produce 5.... however the big issue I see is the amount of water used in the process. It currently is about 2 - 4 barrels to make 1 barrel of synthesized crude oil from the bitumen, a final product that is piped to the offshore tankers...you don't want a bitumen spill !!! it does not float...

bill von novak · July 2017

Solray said:

There is also a tremendous amount of proof that climate change precedes mankind's tiny input by millions of years. So, what cars caused the end of the last ice age and period of global warming? What about the one before that? and the one before that one?

A great many things. Meteor impacts. Massive vulcanism. Changes in insolation caused by the Earth's orbital parameters (google Milankovitch cycles.) The fact that the climate changes after big changes in the Earth is nothing new; the only thing new this time is that humans are driving it.

bill von novak · July 2017

Solray said:

bill von novak said:

Solray said:

Trump is not against clean energy Trump is only against clean energy that forces the US to pay extremely high costs thereby depleting our resources faster.

So higher costs increase consumption? That sounds a bit backwards. In standard economic theory, high costs reduce consumption and drive developments of alternatives.

Our nations capital (with an 'a') is also a national resource a lot of folks forget about, as it the M1 money supply.

Yes, there are resources within the federal government. But despite centuries of trying, they have not been able to change the fundamental laws of economics (i.e. cost drives usage.) In the case of solar, they spent decades subsidizing installations, hoping that economies of scale drove prices down. But while prices were high, solar made minimal inroads into our energy supply; it was a rounding error at best.

Then, about five years ago, prices finally dropped into the range of affordability. And commercial/residential installations started to pick up. That drove further reductions in cost as quantities increased. Today we have solar that is cheaper than coal and nuclear, and even without subsidies people are installing solar throughout the world because it's so cheap.

This is a good thing; every four gigawatts of solar we install is 10 million gallons of LNG a year - coming from our own dwindling reserves - that we don't have to burn.

bill von novak · July 2017

cow_rancher said:

OpenEI, sponsored jointly by the US DOE and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), has compiled a historical cost-of-generation database[61] covering a wide variety of generation sources. Because the data is open source it may be subject to frequent revision.
LCOE from OpenEI DB as of June, 2015
Plant Type (USD/MWh) Min Median Max Data Source Year
Distributed Generation 10 70 130 2014
Hydropower Conventional 30 70 100 2011
Small Hydropower
140
2011
Wind Onshore (land based) 40
80 2014
Offshore 100
200 2014
Natural Gas Combined Cycle 50
80 2014
Combustion Turbine 140
200 2014
Coal Pulverized, scrubbed 60
150 2014
Pulverized, unscrubbed
40
2008
IGCC, gasified 100
170 2014
Solar Photovoltaic 60 110 250 2014
CSP 100
220 2014
Geothermal Hydrothermal 50
100 2011
Blind
100
2011
Enhanced 80
130 2014
Biopower 90
110 2014
Fuel Cell 100
160 2014
Nuclear 90
130 2014
Ocean 230 240 250 2011

Those look about right. Solar three years ago was a bit more expensive than coal was nine years ago. Today, after three years of economies-of-scale, it has gotten cheaper than coal.

westbranch · July 2017

Next we need a substantial drop in the cost of Energy Storage systems..... I'm waiting for the onslaught of LiFe chem storage to hit the streets... more competiton and larger sales

Lumisol · July 2017

As long as it's done for the benefit of the US and it's economy I am fine with anything that improves life for us whether it's following the guidelines or ignoring them. I just don't want to be doing what other countries say we should do to help them. We've done enough global charity for a while. Let other countries do the work for themselves for a change.

garynappi · July 2017

IMO, none of this international squabbling has anything to do with a sitting president. If energy from one source is cheaper to produce than another it will happen. Business is after profit, and to a lesser degree image, if profit is to be made alternative sources of energy will happen too.

US will meet Paris accord commitments even if Donald Trump withdraws

Comments

Categories