03/ 27 Closing Prices / revised 03/28 2024 06:59 GMT 03/27    OPEC Basket    $84.98 -0.94     | 03/27    Mexico Basket (MME)   $76.29    -0.21 | 02/12    Venezuela Basket (Merey)  $67.27  +0.77  | 03/27    NYMEX WTI Texas Intermediate May CLK24   $81.35  -0.27 | 03/27   ICE Brent May  BRNK24      $86.09   -0.16     | 03/27    NYMEX Gasoline April RBJ24   $2.68   -0.5%  |  03/27    NYMEX  Heating Oil April  HOJ24   $2.60  -0.9%   | 02/27    Natural Gas May NGK24    $1.72   -3.9% | 03/22    Active U.S. Rig Count (Oil & Gas)    624   -5  | 03/28     USD/MXN Mexican Peso  16.5606  (data live) | 03/28     EUR/USD    1.0817  (data live)  | 04/01    US/Bs. (Bolivar)   $36.28960000 ( data BCV)  

Energy’s Future Is Both Cleaner and Dirtier -Tyler Cowen

France is getting it right. The same forces that are driving innovation in green energy
are making the production of fossil fuels more efficient.(Nathan Laine/Bloomberg)

By Tyler Cowen

The green energy revolution is making greater progress than expected. Solar and wind power have seen exponential cost declines, and electric vehicles seem to be a market winner.

That’s all good news, but improving green energy is not the same as addressing climate change. There is good chance that even optimistic projections for green energy will come true — and carbon emissions will continue to increase.

That’s in part because of innovation not only in green energy but also in the fossil-fuel industry. The fracking revolution in the U.S. has been a positive development, if only because gas is usually cleaner than coal. Nonetheless burning gas (and the fracking process itself) creates environmental problems, including carbon emissions. It is easy to imagine the U.S. fracking revolution spreading to more countries, thereby boosting the use of natural gas. In the short run gas will substitute for the much dirtier coal, but over the longer term fracking is competing with greener forms of energy production.

The bottom line: If you are bullish on green innovation, perhaps you should be bullish on innovation in fossil fuels as well.

One notable feature of energy is that it is easy to use more of it. If energy were truly cheap, people would take more plane trips, build more robots, desalinate more water and terraform more of the earth’s surface. These are wonderful ambitions, but they might lead the world to use both more green energy and more carbon-intensive energy.

Russia’s attack on Ukraine has made me less optimistic about people’s willingness to incur economic pain to bring about better energy outcomes. The prices of oil and gas have risen dramatically because of the war — yet not many countries seem to be looking to resume the use of nuclear power, which is a form of green energy. Germany is not overturning its previous decision to shut down its nuclear power plants, for example. And while France may extend its use of nuclear power, it is hard to see a major pro-nuclear trend. 

A more common response to the war and its associated energy price hikes has been to insulate consumers from the effects of higher gas prices. Governor Gavin Newsom of California has proposed $11 billion in gasoline vouchers for drivers in the state, which is hardly a stronghold of climate denialism.

Overall, few politicians or voters (outside of oil- and gas-producing regions) seem delighted by higher prices for fossil fuels, though such price hikes might be required to diminish carbon emissions. Even Germany seems willing to continue as a major financier of Russia’s aggressive war in Ukraine, with its atrocities against civilians. If this is true in a country still horrified by its fascist past, where the ideology of “never again” remains strong, then it is unlikely that arguments about the need for green energy will hold much sway.

Norway’s sovereign wealth fund typifies the world we live in. The country has decided that the fund should divest from fossil-fuel assets. Yet most of the fund’s assets come from selling Norwegian fossil fuels to the rest of the world.

Again, it seems increasingly easy to imagine a world with wonderful green energy innovations and lots of carbon emissions — and people will praise the former to feel less bad about the latter.

Most likely, the world’s countries will develop their energy supplies in a sequential, rolling fashion. Japan developed economically before China, which in turn became industrial before Vietnam, and currently Vietnam is leading most of Africa. It could be that the world always has some growing countries that will want to use lots of fossil fuels, and a universal transition to solar power and good batteries could be distant.

Price pressures along the way could reinforce this basic logic. As green energy becomes more common, batteries may become more expensive, as they are based on a variety of scarce physical inputs. At the same time, the initial slack in demand for oil and gas, during a true green-energy transition, will make those resources very cheap. Is it such a sure bet that an industrializing Uganda will immediately and directly go the green energy route?

So there is reason to temper all the optimism about the green energy revolution. It’s all good news, but even if it’s all true, it doesn’t necessarily mean a better energy future is imminent.

__________________________________________

Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of economics at George Mason University and writes for the blog Marginal Revolution. His books include “The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream.” @tylercowen Energiesnet.com does not necessarily share these views.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published by Bloomberg on April 27, 2022.  EnergiesNet.com reproduces this article in the interest of our readers. All comments posted and published on EnergiesNet.com, do not reflect either for or against the opinion expressed in the comment as an endorsement of EnergiesNet.com or Petroleumworld.

Original article

Use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental and humanitarian significance. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

EnergiesNet.com 27 04 2022

Share this news

Support EnergiesNet.com

By Elio Ohep · Launched in 1999 under Petroleumworld.com

Information & News on Latin America’s Energy, Oil, Gas, Renewables, Climate, Technology, Politics and Social issues

Contact : editor@petroleuworld.com


CopyRight©1999-2021, EnergiesNet.com™  / Elio Ohep – All rights reserved
 

This site is a public free site and it contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of business, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have chosen to view the included information for research, information, and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission fromPetroleumworld or the copyright owner of the material.

 
 
Scroll to Top