If U.S. Copies Europe, “It Will End In Tears”

Dr. Benny Peiser

by Steve Haner

First published this morning by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.

A major European voice for climate and energy rationality told a small Charlottesville audience March 30 that his home, the United Kingdom, and the rest of Europe face an immediate energy crisis that was brewing long before the war in Ukraine.

Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation said prices in Britain jump as of today, April 1. Householders are seeing the rising electricity and natural gas costs suddenly double, from about 1,000 pounds to 2,000 pounds annually. By the end of the year another jump to 3,000 pounds annually (almost $4,000) is predicted. The parallel impact on business and transportation will push up food and other commodity prices.

Peiser noted the irony that only continued supplies of energy from Russia are keeping the lights on. Knowing how Russia needs the cash, nobody expects that to change until Europe finds other sources. The United States has saved Europe before and is likely to be one savior now, at least in the short term.

The idea that Europe will save itself by building more wind, solar and related battery facilities is utopian, but that is the prescription being offered by many in a political environment where even most of Europe’s conservative parties are afraid to advocate fossil fuels.

“Don’t follow our path. Don’t copy the Europeans. It will end in tears,” Peiser said. “Pragmatism and realism have to come back.”

Global Warming Policy Foundation, founded in England in 2009, and the related communications outlet Net Zero Watch, publish several writers and researchers who challenge the climate catastrophe narrative. It has a U.S. branch headed by Francis Menton, also known as the nom de plume Manhattan Contrarian, and he was also at the gathering that evening.

Peiser and Menton have been on a speaking tour of the U.S. and Canada, not producing much news coverage that will turn up in a search. They spoke at the Jefferson Room of a Charlottesville country club, the Blue Ridge bathed in sunset outside the window. Had they taken the message to Jefferson’s Rotunda on the University of Virginia grounds a few miles to the east, the reception would probably have been quite different.

One University of Virginia faculty member who has published similar views was present, and the meeting was hosted by a local attorney, Chris Horner, who files litigation on energy and climate matters through a public interest law firm called Government Accountability and Oversight.

“We have more to fear from climate policy than we have to fear from climate change,” attorney Horner said. “Man did not take a safe climate and make it dangerous with fossil fuels, we took a dangerous climate and made it safe.”

“You are blessed in the U.S. with enormous resources of oil and gas and coal, and some states are using them while some states are not,” Peiser said. Because of that, and because the electricity generated by fossil fuels flows between states, “You don’t feel the same hit that Europeans now face.” California can extol its environmental virtue while buying power across state lines when needed.

In Europe, relying on your neighbor to take up any slack has largely meant Russia, which pre-crisis provided 40% of Europe’s natural gas, 50% of its coal and 30% of its oil.

For 30 years Europeans have pursued the dream of an economy run mainly on solar and wind production, and they have become dependent on them. They prided themselves on declining fossil fuel emissions, ignoring how they achieved much of the change:  by sending manufacturing overseas to countries still burning oil, coal and gas. The U.S. has done the same.

There is growing realization that the vision of a modern economy run entirely, or almost entirely, on wind and solar simply will not work without incredible (as in not reasonable) levels of storage. That was Fenton’s topic for the evening. “How many turbines does it take at midnight with no wind? It doesn’t matter how many you build because a million times zero is still zero.”

Fenton said the cost of the storage is roughly the same as a country’s entire gross domestic product, especially if all vehicles and home energy use go electric. A recent analysis of the Virginia Clean Economy Act’s impact, if implemented as-is, reached the same conclusion.

Many countries relied on nuclear power as a clean backup for wind and solar, but before this war were closing down that form of generation under pressure from the Green parties. Some have changed their minds now and will retain the nuclear plants and consider more.  Even after this shock of the Ukrainian war, however, Germany still plans to shutter its final plants next year. Its own Green Party would prefer to use coal, mainly because Germany has plenty of it.

The British Isles, also once known for coal, have a deep supply of the related asset shale gas, same as the U.S. But like most Europeans they have prohibited the newer extraction techniques, derided by critics as “fracking.” The current British government is talking about expanding oil and gas production in the North Sea, but only because “there are no voters living in the North Sea,” Peiser said.

Changing the rules and allowing extraction of the shale, “the resource under our feet,” still seems politically untenable. If the dire predictions of energy prices tripling in one year, with all the other inflation that creates, come to pass there could be popular uprisings in Europe similar to the recent Yellow Vest movement in France.

“Most people in the U.S. and in Europe have never experienced hardship.” They think the wealth and comfort of the past 30 to 40 years is normal, and the financial means to help those now struggling are infinite. More and more of their leaders see the challenge and are seeking alternatives.

Peiser is not optimistic that attitudes will change quickly but is encouraged that about 60 British members of Parliament have started to work together to turn things. “It’s not about solving the problem. It’s actually about acknowledging there is a problem.”


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

23 responses to “If U.S. Copies Europe, “It Will End In Tears””

  1. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Did a bit of digging after writing this up, and it is easy to find confirmation that the UK folks are getting creamed. Many are on a tariff that is capped, but the cap rises or falls every six months and today it rose. Peiser said double (but not for those on the cap, for them it rose 54% as of today.) Confirmed that 2,000 pounds yearly is the new cap, and confirmed it gets revised again in October. Predicting another rise then is safe. And that cap is based on average consumption — it slides up and down with usage.

    But that’s not our future, oh no, here wind and solar work better!

  2. Ah, so hydrogen is the magic wand that will solve all of our energy storage problems. I’m sure it will some day. Advocates assume that technology advances will drive the cost down. I am confident that will happen. But by how much, and how long will it take?

    You can’t build a fail-safe electric grid on hopes and dreams and forecasts. You need proven technologies. When the kinks of hydrogen storage systems have been worked out, and the technology has been demonstrated to be reliable, we can have a serious discussion about a 100% renewable energy grid. Not until then.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “Currently, the Cummins electrolyzer system installed at the Air Liquide hydrogen production facility in Bécancour, Quebec, can produce nearly 3,000 tons of hydrogen annually using clean hydropower. It is the largest PEM electrolyzer in operation at 20 MW; however, the industry is rapidly rising to projects of 100 MW, 200 MW and beyond.”

      https://www.cummins.com/news/2021/05/24/large-scale-electrolysis-role-global-decarbonization

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Right — but what do you gain using the hydro power to produce hydrogen versus just plugging the hydro power directly into the grid? What is the real value add of the extra steps? Sure, hydro is clean as it gets…You can run in a lot of circles but not produce much value add.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Right — but what do you gain using the hydro power to produce hydrogen versus just plugging the hydro power directly into the grid? What is the real value add of the extra steps? Sure, hydro is clean as it gets…You can run in a lot of circles but not produce much value add. That’s my issue with hydrogen in a nutshell. How much goes in for what you get out.

        1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
          energyNOW_Fan

          The implication is that we have to use the hydrogen eg for vehicle fuel. Then it becomes like pumped water storage where we have a place to put all the spare energy (eg; from nuclear) generated at Night.

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          If you generate excess power (via hydro which runs in times of peak power and low power demand alike or via wind and solar) then hydrogen is a renewable energy storage vehicle that can be used to generate electricity when renewables are off line. Also as eNF noted hydrogen can be used directly in IC engines or fuel cells…

        3. Paul Sweet Avatar
          Paul Sweet

          We’re breaching more dams to please the environmentalists than building new dams. I don’t think that new utility scale hydro is very likely.

  3. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Did a bit of digging after writing this up, and it is easy to find confirmation that the UK folks are getting creamed. Many are on a tariff that is capped, but the cap rises or falls every six months and today it rose. Peiser said double (but not for those on the cap, for them it rose 54% as of today.) Confirmed that 2,000 pounds yearly is the new cap, and confirmed it gets revised again in October. Predicting another rise then is safe. And that cap is based on average consumption — it slides up and down with usage.

    But that’s not our future, oh no, here wind and solar work better!

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Forget climate change. That which doesn’t kill you, and all… But even by CAPT Sherlock’s reckonings there is less than 100 years of natural gas left in the US. Then what?

    Better we expend looking for solutions now than sit in the dark in 2122. You’re clearly one who has never been 2 days from the closest ABC while pouring your last dram of rum and thinking, “Would it have really killed you to spend $15 on an emergency bottle BEFORE leaving the dock?”

    1. VaNavVet Avatar
      VaNavVet

      Correct all sources of energy need to be explored including hydrogen, fission and fusion.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Hydrogen just wastes natural gas, and still produces CO2, unless it’s done at higher energry cost busting water. Maybe a combination of solar and wind to produce it from water… then it’s as clean as you can get.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Carbon capture is also part of the equation. Major energy companies are now investing in pipelines across the country specifically to transport captured CO2. The methane feedstock is only really problematic from a leakage perspective…. but that is a big problem nonetheless.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            So, consider large solar fields that provide energy for immediate distribution and for excess to hydrogen cracking to use as energy store for deficit and night ops. Sounds feasible. Let’s do it! What’s Dominion’s number?

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            It is already in Dominion’s decarbonization plan. That is exactly what they plan to do ultimately… along with battery storage.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Well then, we’re done. If they planned it, and I came up with it independently, then it’s bound to work.

          4. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
            energyNOW_Fan

            Occidental Petroleum (Warren Buffet’s darling) is building the first big direct CO2 extraction from air project. Expensive, but cost will be defrayed by carbon credits and Biden’s infrastructure monies. The CO2 will be used for oil recovery. But the forward plan is hundreds of these plants over USA, which again carbon neutrality credits will pay for.. . I would like to hear more about where Oxy thinks we are going to put all of the CO2 in this region. But of course CO2 can be easily recovered from, for example, H2 manufacture. The enviro complaint is nat gas is massively and quickly destroying planet because they say corporations are under-estimating leak rates by orders of magnitude.

      2. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        Fusion has been 20 years off for the last 60 years. It shows exciting signs of continuing that path for the next 60.

        But yes, developing a variety of sources and assembling a reliable mix, including load controls, seems a good trick.

  5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “How many turbines does it take at midnight with no wind? It doesn’t matter how many you build because a million times zero is still zero.”

    A rather simplistic approach to the matter. If you only need 500K turbines to provide peak load when the wind is blowing, the other 500K can be generating green hydrogen… so it does indeed matter how many you build…

    But a couple other details…

    Nobody is suggesting we cold turkey stop oil and gas production and everybody understands we can’t stop fossil fuel usage until the storage issue is resolved… and nobody thinks that will be solved exclusively through batteries… (see details of study you cited). Nuclear is part of the solution… at least for now… (Aside: do you not think it would be preferable to develop renewable resources and grid reliability ultimately without nuclear… do you really wish to ignore safety and waste issues forever with that approach…?)

    The technology is evolving rapidly. The renewable resources are coming on line rapidly. The private sector (small and large) is behind it as much a the government is and is investing heavily. Generation and storage prices are falling and will continue to do so. I agree (as do most) that we shouldn’t get out too far over our skis but we certainly need to continue this race.

    Climate change issues aside, shifting our energy from one reliant on and hostage to a global fossil fuel market to one based on home grown renewables is a good thing. Have a little faith in our country.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      “Nobody is suggesting we cold turkey stop oil and gas production and everybody understands we can’t stop fossil fuel usage until the storage issue is resolved…” Uh, nobody except everybody in the Biden Administration down top to bottom. A tiny blip in the messaging since the Ukraine War, but they still are preaching to the Greens constantly.

      We need never be hostage to a global fossil fuel market, that’s the point. As we transition to new nukes, perhaps hydrogen (still not convinced that’s a net win) and a reasonable amount of renewable, we will need gas. My single biggest argument is with the purists who think they can go 100% electric, 0% fossil. It is the drive to that level of perfection that will wreck us, way past the point of diminishing returns. (And of course I lose no sleep over CO2 anyway, and there we differ.)

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Show me one utility or energy company decarbonization plan that says we will abandon fossil fuel energy generation without first solving the storage issue… psst.. the word they use is “grid reliability”…

        I have yet to hear Biden say we must abandon fossil fuel cold turkey regardless of where we are in the storage issue.

        You keep returning to these scare tactics when there is nothing there to support your doomsday scenario.

        And, yes, even though we have plenty of oil and gas reserves, we are still hostage to world oil markets. Oil companies shut in wells because of world gluts (i.e. their own greed and over production) then world demand picks up (or a source somewhere in the world goes off line) and world prices increase because the wells are still shut in. Global oil corporations produce (or not) and import and export “our” (it is not ours anymore but theirs) resource depending on world prices. Furthermore, utilities (like most large scale industrial fossil fuel consumers) have long term supply contracts for their fuels. These are not going away and even if it wanted to, there is nothing the government could go to stop the flow. It will only be when the utilities themselves choose to shift off fossil fuels (again, see “grid reliability” in the decarbonization plans) that fossil fuels will be abandoned and that will not happen unless/until the storage issue is solved (or more nuclear comes on board… hint: it won’t as they can’t produce the very specialized equipment at the pace needed).

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Don’t harsh his mellow.

  6. oromae Avatar

    ‘Knowing how Russia needs the cash, nobody expects that to change until Europe finds other sources.”

    And yet it has changed. Gazprom has cut off Germany and has britian in it’s sights.

Leave a Reply