climate change

Regulation of Electric Power in Texas

Jim Crump — Mon, 08 Mar 2021 12:12:40 -0500

Politicians, pundits, and the public at large have voiced deep concern that electricity was tragically unavailable to many Texans during the recent period of extreme cold. Claims that lax ERCOT planning caused the problem are exaggerated. “Grid independence” from federal regulation is manageable. The problem lies in the supervisory structure that regulates the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) - Texas’ Public Utility Commission (PUC), a three-member panel appointed by the state legislature, and our elected officials, ultimate guardians of the public interest.

To start, claims that ERCOT’s planning process is undisciplined are misleading. Published documents (December 2020, January 2021) evidence well-structured scenario planning of capacity, demand, and reserve margin, including grid requirements and fuel types. True, evolving events brought conditions not premised in these studies but laxness is an unwarranted criticism.

The next layer of electric power management: Oversight of ERCOT by the PUC. Here, critical commentary by knowledgeable observers is valid. To begin with, independent management of Texas’ power grid – that is, independent of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) – rests on reasonable logic, not merely the fabled secessionist tendencies of Texans.

Read the rest of this piece at Houston Strategies.

Jim Crump is an energy and chemical industry leader with a depth of industry experience gained with Shell, Accenture Consulting, DuPont, and ExxonMobil, who focuses on energy transition and sustainability.

Affordably Improving Texas Power Grid Resilience

Tory Gattis — Mon, 22 Feb 2021 13:03:57 -0500

Hope you emerged from this crazy winter storm + power/water outage week relatively unscathed. I certainly learned the value of stockpiling water and draining water pipes (esp. with a power outage), and ERCOT learned that it's a bad idea to cut off power to natural gas pumps across the state during a winter storm. I hope they spend a bit of time doing analysis before jumping to expensive solutions like full winterization of all facilities. It's possible that if they had simply mapped natural gas pumps and compressors across the state and treated them as critical non-blackout facilities like hospitals, we might have gotten away with short-duration rolling blackouts that would have been far more manageable (like 2011).

From the Wall Street Journal:

"Solutions will have to be nuanced and incremental. Winterizing all power plants would be unnecessarily expensive, and so would a complete overhaul of Texas' market design, which is partly responsible for consistently low power prices compared with the rest of the country."

And an excellent idea: "One option could be rewarding liquefied natural-gas processing facilities in Texas to both curtail electricity usage and to redirect the feedstock natural gas for electricity rather than for exports."

And from Forbes - This Blizzard Exposes The Perils Of Attempting To ‘Electrify Everything’. Gas = resilience:

"to equal the 80 Bcf/d of gas delivered during cold snaps, the U.S. would need an electric grid as large as all existing generation in the country, which is currently about 1.2 terawatts."

Unpopular observation: gas-powered cars, trucks, and SUVs were a critical source of resilience during this never-ending mass power-outage disaster by providing heat and recharging. If we all had electric vehicles, this disaster would have been epically worse. A hard truth.

This piece first appeared on Houston Strategies.

Tory Gattis is a Founding Senior Fellow with the Center for Opportunity Urbanism and co-authored the original study with noted urbanist Joel Kotkin and others, creating a city philosophy around upward social mobility for all citizens as an alternative to the popular smart growth, new urbanism, and creative class movements. He is also an editor of the Houston Strategies blog.

Feudal Future Podcast — Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All with Mike Shellenberger

Charlie Stephens — Wed, 05 Aug 2020 18:52:55 -0400

In this episode of the Feudal Future podcast, hosts Joel Kotkin and Marshall Toplansky interview Mike Shellenberger, author of Apocalypse Never. Many of Mike’s views overlap with those of Joel and Marshall, and his role as an influential writer of social critique make him an insightful contributor to this conversation about issues in California, the media, and beyond.

The first topic of the conversation is Mike’s work, which will soon include a book dealing with the homeless crisis in San Francisco. This segues into broader conversation about problems in the social and political fabric of California, and Mike comments on the need to understand values and a vision for California, ways in which such things as environmentalism and housing are mishandled, the objectionable morality of how mental illness and drug addiction are managed in the state, and his vision of the sort of governor and political revolution necessary to effect the change California requires.

Next, the group turns to the subject of the mainstream media, which attempts to control popular thought and at times operates dishonestly. Mike explains his experiences with censorship, which testify to regulation of speech and information in ways that uphold political agendas at the expense of truth. Being censored is a trying experience, but Mike has noticed that his persistence in truth-telling has actually bolstered his following. Mike and his hosts consider dealing with bullies, the project of “de-civilization,” and Maoist ideology in the US.

The ideology behind the ruling social and political trends in the US is pushed by the oligarchs of the day. The group considers the rationale behind this phenomenon, the reality of an “apocalyptic mindset,” the need for love to combat hate, and the value of an ad absurdum suggestion to force people to face reality. Finally, Joel and Marshall ask Mike about what he imagines the beginning of a Biden presidential administration to look like. His answer, put simply? Chaos. But a chaos presenting hope and opportunity.

Listen on Apple Podcast

Listen on Stitcher

Listen on Spotify

More podcast episodes & show notes at JoelKotkin.com

Watch Episode on Youtube

Learn about Mike Shellenberger and his book, Apocalypse Never.

Join the 'Beyond Feudalism' Facebook group

Learn more about the Feudal Future podcast.

Learn more about Marshall Toplansky.

Learn more about Joel Kotkin.

It's Not About The Climate: How the Left Lost Sight of Social Justice

Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:01:24 -0400

Over the last few decades, humans achieved one of the most remarkable victories for social justice in the history of the species. The percentage of people who live in extreme poverty — under $1.25 per day — was halved between 1990 and 2010. Average life expectancy globally rose from 56 to 68 years since 1970. And hundreds of millions of desperately poor people went from burning dung and wood for fuel (whose smoke takes two million souls a year) to using electricity, allowing them to enjoy refrigerators, washing machines, and smoke-free stoves.

Of course, all of this new development puts big pressures on the environment. While the transition from wood to coal is overwhelmingly positive for forests, coal-burning is now a major contributor to global warming. The challenge for the 21st Century is thus to triple global energy demand, so that the world's poorest can enjoy modern living standards, while reducing our carbon emissions from energy production to zero.

For the last 20 years, most everyone who cared about global warming hoped for a binding international treaty abroad, and some combination of carbon pricing, pollution regulations, and renewable energy mandates at home. That approach is now in ruins. In 2010, UN negotiations failed to create a successor to the failed Kyoto treaty. A few months later cap and trade died in the Senate. And two weeks ago, the slow motion collapse of the European Emissions Trading Scheme reached its nadir, with carbon prices, already at historic lows, collapsing after EU leaders refused to tighten the cap on emissions.

What rushed into the vacuum was "climate justice," a movement headed by more left-leaning groups like 350.org, the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace. These groups invoke the vulnerability of the poor to climate change but elide the reality that more energy makes them more resilient. "Huge swaths of the world have been developing over the last three decades at an unprecedented pace and scale," writes political scientist Christopher Foreman in "On Justice Movements," a new article (below) for The Breakthrough Journal. "Contemporary demands for climate justice have been, at best, indifferent to these rather remarkable developments and, at worst, openly hostile."

For the climate justice movement, global warming is not to be dealt with by switching to cleaner forms of energy but rather by returning to a pastoral, renewable-powered, and low-energy society. "Real climate solutions," writes Klein, "are ones that steer these interventions to systematically disperse and devolve power and control to the community level, whether through community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture or transit systems genuinely accountable to their users…"

Climate change can only be solved by "fixing everything," says McKibben, from how we eat, travel, produce, reproduce, consume, and live."It's not an engineering problem," McKibben argued recently in Rolling Stone, "it's a greed problem." Fixing it will require a "new civilizational paradigm," says Klein, "grounded not in dominance over nature but in respect for natural cycles of renewal."

Climate skeptics are right, Klein cheerily concludes: the Left is using climate change to advance policies they have long wanted. "In short," says Klein, "climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative."

As such, global warming is our most wicked problem. The end of our world is heralded by ideologues with specific solutions already in mind: degrowth, rural living, low-energy consumption, and renewable energies that will supposedly harmonize us with Nature. The response from the Right was all-too predictable. If climate change "supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand," conservatives long ago decided, then climate change is either not happening, or is not much to worry about.

Wicked problems can only be solved if the ideological discourses that give rise to them are disrupted, and that's what political scientist Foreman does brilliantly in "On Justice Movements." If climate justice activists truly cared about poverty and climate change, Foreman notes, they would advocate things like better cook stoves and helping poor nations accelerate the transition from dirtier to cleaner fuels. Instead they make demands that range from the preposterous (e.g., de-growth) to the picayune (e.g., organic farming).

Once upon a time, social justice was synonymous with equal access to modern amenities — with electric lighting so poor children could read at night, with refrigerators so milk could be kept on hand, and with washing machines to save the hands and backs of women. Malthus was rightly denounced by generations of socialists as a cruel aristocrat who cloaked his elitism in pseudo-science, in the claim that Nature couldn't possibly feed any more hungry months.

Now, at the very moment modern energy arrives for global poor — something a prior generation of socialists would have celebrated and, indeed, demanded — today's leading left-wing leaders advocate a return to energy penury. The loudest advocates of cheap energy for the poor are on the libertarian Right, while The Nation dresses up neo-Malthusianism as revolutionary socialism.

Left-wing politics was once about destabilizing power relations between the West and the Rest. Now, under the sign of climate justice, it's about sustaining them.

This piece originally appeared at The Breakthrough.

British Taxpayers Pick Up the Tab for the "Worst. Climate. Campaign. Ever."

Jonathan Lanctot — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:46:10 -0400

Climate change threatens popcorn prices, air planes, and outdoor hockey. And, in the latest tax-payer funded advertising from the UK, climate change will tell you bedtime stories of a drowning dog and the coming apocalypse:

From the Register, Britons spent £6 million in public funds for an ad campaign which Nature simply calls the Worst. Climate. Campaign. Ever. The advertisement depicts a father and daughter sharing in a bedtime story describing "a land where the weather was very, very strange." It continues with a sophomoric overview of the causes of climate change, and describes the consequences in a cartoonish overture. The Times reports that "the advertisement attempts to make adults feel guilty about their legacy to their children."

With all their various predictions of the Earth's demise – 100 months? 96 months? Four months? – and tons of carbon spent hauling scientists and politicians to climate change conferences all around the world – climate change campaigners still have the time to make us feel guilty for trying to make a modest living – all at the expense of the already deeply in debt UK taxpayers.