|
Post by huon on Mar 18, 2020 13:52:45 GMT 9.5
Want to Drive Clean Energy Innovation? Start With a Carbon Tax Nader Sobhani 21 Feb 2020 Niskanen Center www.niskanencenter.org/want-to-drive-clean-energy-innovation-start-with-a-carbon-tax/"Instead of reducing climate risks by pushing existing federal regulatory authority to its limits, ambitious and carefully designed carbon taxes will reduce climate risks and drive clean-energy innovation, without imposing unfair costs on American consumers." Nuclear power will, of course, be one of the chief beneficiaries of a carbon tax.
|
|
|
Post by engineerpoet on Mar 18, 2020 15:48:10 GMT 9.5
Nuclear power will, of course, be one of the chief beneficiaries of a carbon tax. Exactly. That is why carbon taxes have been resolutely opposed by "Greens", who have demanded things like pseudo-carbon taxes on nuclear too. Subsidizing "renewables" does not actually disadvantage fossil fuels as they provide the bulk of generation where the unreliables are promoted. Germany imposed a stiff tax on fissile uranium in reactor fuel to avoid giving nuclear power any economic advantage in the emissions-trading system. It's blatant.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Mar 23, 2020 8:47:18 GMT 9.5
Deep Decarbonization of the U.S Electricity Sector: Is There a Role for Nuclear Power? Karen D. Tapia-Ahumada, John Reilly, et al. 22 Sep 2019 MIT globalchange.mit.edu/publication/17323According to the study, moderately priced nuclear power could slash the carbon tax needed for deep decarbonization.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Mar 24, 2020 7:09:42 GMT 9.5
From the summary of the MIT study: "Moreover, modest advances in lowering the cost of nuclear by about 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour [to 5 cents/kWh] create a substantial role for nuclear, and reduce the needed carbon price by two-thirds." But can nuclear get down to 5 cents? Probably so. Study Finds Advanced Reactors Will Have Competitive Costs Dan Yurman 31 Jul 2017 The Energy Collective www.theenergycollective.com/dan-yurman/2409802/study-finds-advanced-reactors-will-competitive-costsNote that in Figure 3 three of the reactors have projected electricity costs of $50/MWh (5 cents/kWh) or less.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Mar 25, 2020 7:24:55 GMT 9.5
EP-- I have started a thread in the Energy section about the MIT study. To keep this Carbon Tax thread fairly simple, could I have your permission to move your last comment to the new thread, and then respond to you there? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by engineerpoet on Mar 25, 2020 8:50:33 GMT 9.5
Go right ahead.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Mar 30, 2020 9:04:21 GMT 9.5
A moderate carbon tax would actually be a no-regrets policy, one worth adopting even apart from the climate benefits. Monetizing the Health Co-Benefits of a Carbon Tax Nader Sobhani 22 Aug 2018 Niskanen Center www.niskanencenter.org/monetizing-the-health-co-benefits-of-a-carbon-tax/"Stringent climate change mitigation policy is often criticized for placing burdensome costs on society for uncertain climate benefits in the future. However, a true cost-benefit analysis of climate related policies should consider the other benefits that come from actions aimed at reducing greenhouses gas emissions." Added quotation, lightly corrected (Apr 17): "There are two separate co-benefits that the authors monetize: energy security, which relates to the avoided dependence on imported oil, and local pollution benefits that reflects the avoided health costs connected with the reduction of local air pollutants. The overall value of the co-benefits from reductions in NOx, PM2.5, and SO2 are $700 billion, $3,300 billion, and $4,400 [billion] respectively. These monetary benefits of air quality improvements alone significantly outweigh the welfare costs of the tax."
|
|
|
Carbon Tax
Apr 12, 2020 4:14:09 GMT 9.5
via mobile
Post by David B. Benson on Apr 12, 2020 4:14:09 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Apr 12, 2020 10:35:29 GMT 9.5
"Why carbon pricing is not enough to mitigate climate change" Carbon pricing is only meaningful while fossil carbon continues to be emitted. Now that we know the lethal consequences of emissions, continuing to emit in full knowledge of the consequences is criminal. Allowing the emissions to continue when we could replace it with alternatives, is complicity in the act. By accepting money from carbon criminals we cripple our capacity to condemn, criminalise and eradicate. The author of the linked article treats the word "decarbonisation" as if it can be qualified, as if partial reduction of emissions should suffice. The equivocation should make us suspect that the author represents interests that want to buy off the requirement for total eradication of fossil carbon.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Apr 16, 2020 15:27:16 GMT 9.5
From the third-to-last paragraph of the article: "To accelerate decline, policy also has a role to play in implementing phaseouts. Otherwise, problematic technologies can persist for decades. Phase-out policies have, for instance, targeted incandescent light bulbs, coal-fired power, and nuclear power." Carbon taxes create a level playing field, where nuclear power can flourish. No wonder some groups want to deemphasize these taxes.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Apr 21, 2020 7:21:48 GMT 9.5
Carbon Tax and Revenue Recycling: Revenue, Economic, and Distributional Implications Kyle Pomerleau, Elke Asen 06 Nov 2019 Tax Foundation taxfoundation.org/carbon-tax/ " A carbon tax paired with a cut in the employee-side payroll tax increases progressivity, output, and employment." Key finding #5 So let's use most of the carbon tax revenue to lower the payroll tax, with minor portions going towards targeted dividends and clean-energy R&D. Such a use of the revenue would be economically benign--and perhaps politically attractive.
|
|
|
Post by huon on May 12, 2020 13:46:09 GMT 9.5
The Counterintuitive Wisdom of a Carbon Price in the Midst of a Pandemic Joseph Majkut 14 Apr 2020 Niskanen Center www.niskanencenter.org/the-counterintuitive-wisdom-of-a-carbon-price-in-the-midst-of-a-pandemic/"Establishing a carbon price in the midst of an economic shock is counterintuitive, but committing to one would be wise. One option would be for Congress to pass legislation to levy a small and rising carbon tax that would take hold as the recovery proceeded. On the lee side of this crisis, a carbon tax which started low and increased over time would add pennies to the price of a gallon of gas and be no real impediment to economic growth. Even before it was collected, the expectation of the tax would affect how investors and firms went about financing the economic recovery." Many investors and firms, seeing the writing on the wall, would take a long, hard look at advanced nuclear.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Jun 13, 2020 14:37:08 GMT 9.5
How to Set a Price on Carbon Pollution Gilbert Metcalf June 2020 Scientific American www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-set-a-price-on-carbon-pollution/"A U.S. carbon tax of $40 per ton that increases 5 percent each year would put the country well on track to becoming carbon-free by midcentury.".* A good overview of pricing carbon, especially from an economic perspective. *This highlighted sentence, though inserted in the "Social Cost of Carbon" section, summarizes the third paragraph of the final section.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Jul 8, 2020 16:34:04 GMT 9.5
A few thoughts on the effect of a carbon tax on combined-cycle LCOE: The US EIA estimates the levelized cost of electricity for a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant coming online in 2025 as $36.61 per MWh, or about 3.66 cents per kWh [1]. Engineer-Poet relates that a combined cycle plant running at peak efficiency emits about 330g CO2 per kilowatt-hour. Call it a third of a kg CO2 per kWh. (For comparison, coal emits around one kg CO2 per kWh). A carbon tax of $10 per metric ton (1000 kg) of CO2 equals one cent per kg. Combined cycle's third of a kg, then, would cost .33 cents. So with a $10 CO2 tax the cost of electricity per kWh from a combined-cycle plant would be 3.66 cents + .33 cents = 3.99 cents, or about 4 cents. Addition, July 9: Similarly, if the carbon price were $25 the cost of electricity would be around 4.5 cents per kWh, and with a $40 tax the cost would be about 5 cents. [1] Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020[/] U. S. Energy Information Administration Feb. 2020 (Page 6, Table 1a) www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jul 8, 2020 17:09:14 GMT 9.5
Scale-Up of Solar and Wind Puts Existing Coal, Gas at Risk Veronika Henze 2020 Apr 28 BloombergNEF about.bnef.com/blog/scale-up-of-solar-and-wind-puts-existing-coal-gas-at-risk/huon's 4 cents per kWh is $40/MWh, certainly higher than solar when the sun shines or wind when it blows. So even a most modest so-called carbon tax ought to be enough to avoid running the CCGTs except when there is no choice.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Jul 15, 2020 9:50:19 GMT 9.5
Carbon pricing works: the largest-ever study puts it beyond doubt Paul Burke, et al. 13 Jul 2020 The Conversation theconversation.com/carbon-pricing-works-the-largest-ever-study-puts-it-beyond-doubt-142034"The message to governments is that carbon pricing almost certainly works, and typically to great effect. "While a well-designed approach to reducing emissions would include other complementary policies such as regulations in some sectors and support for low-carbon research and development, carbon pricing should ideally be the centerpiece of the effort." Addition Aug 14: Another sentence from the article: "On average an extra euro per tonne of carbon dioxide price is associated with a lowering in the annual emissions growth in the sectors it covers of about 0.3 percentage points." Accordingly, each (US) dollar increase in the CO2 price could cut emissions growth by about 0.25 percentage points, and each $4 could shave off about 1 percentage point. Now if the baseline of average global emissions growth over the past three years* is about 1.5% per year, a $6 price could cut growth to near zero. A further $8 could produce negative emissions growth (reductions) of some 2% per year, and another $16 ($30 total) could get the rate down to around -6%/yr--a very respectable number. These are, of course, back-of-the-envelope calculations, but they may be useful as a first approximation. *See www.wri.org/blog/2019/12/co2-emissions-climb-all-time-high-again-2019-6-takeaways-latest-climate-data
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Aug 18, 2020 2:05:37 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Aug 20, 2020 7:12:50 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Sept 17, 2020 10:00:35 GMT 9.5
Why the newest Nobel laureate is optimistic about beating climate change Akshat Rathi Oct 08, 2018 Quartz qz.com/1417222/why-new-nobel-laureate-paul-romer-is-optimistic-about-beating-climate-change/"One solution [for climate change], Romer writes, is to impose a 'very low' tax on emissions that will rise gradually over time. Then he suggests: "'Innovators will start investing now in ways for people to get what they want without paying the tax. They will stop investing in ways to extract more fossil fuels that will be subject to the tax. "'After all the fear and hand-wringing, once we commit to this kind of tax, progress will continue but in a slightly different and much better direction. It will still seem to be free.'" A moderate carbon tax will be much more powerful than people realize.
|
|
|
Carbon Tax
Sept 22, 2020 8:13:37 GMT 9.5
via mobile
Post by David B. Benson on Sept 22, 2020 8:13:37 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Sept 29, 2020 7:41:38 GMT 9.5
According to this study, a CO2 price reaching about $50 per ton in 2025, and continuing to increase, would put the US on track to achieving zero net emissions by 2050. So, I take it, a CO2 price of $10 per ton would be an acceptable minimum target for 2021.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Oct 1, 2020 16:00:26 GMT 9.5
So, I take it, a CO2 price of $10 per ton would be an acceptable minimum target for 2021. On the other hand, researchers from MIT report. "[...] modest advances in lowering the cost of nuclear by about 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour [to 5 cents/kWh] create a substantial role for nuclear, and reduce the needed carbon price by two-thirds." (See posts on March 22 and 23 above.) globalchange.mit.edu/publication/17323And Paul Romer, recent winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, asks us to consider adopting, "a 'very low' tax on emissions that will rise gradually over time." (Sept. 18, above) qz.com/1417222/why-new-nobel-laureate-paul-romer-is-optimistic-about-beating-climate-change/Perhaps, then, we would be justified in dialing back the $10 carbon tax a little to, say, $8 the first year, with $8 annual increases until 2025. After that, the rate of increase could probably fall further.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Oct 8, 2020 16:07:15 GMT 9.5
I commented on this post by James Hansen nine months ago on the Hansen thread of the BNC Blog board. Because it seems as relevant today as it did back then, I am reproducing much of it here. For a quick summary, see pages 1, 45, and 46. Fire on Planet Earth James Hansen 11 Dec 2019 Columbia University www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2019/20191211_Fire.pdfAn excerpt from page 46: "Political compromise is still possible, as shown by the new NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). Why not suggest what economists and conservatives agree is the fastest way to phase down emissions, carbon fee and dividend? Such a policy is no cure-all, but it can make the price of fossil fuels honest and spur innovations needed to move us to a clean energy future. [...] "Large amounts of dispatchable (baseload) energy are needed, especially in countries such as China and India where energy use is still growing, but also in the West, where we want to electrify a larger fraction of our energy use. Renewables and energy storage will help, but we cannot phase out fossil fuels and 'fracking' without the help of modern nuclear power."
|
|
|
Post by huon on Oct 28, 2020 14:25:07 GMT 9.5
One of the leading proposals in the US for setting a carbon price is "Fee and Dividend", promoted by the group Citizens Climate Lobby. The fee would start at $15 per ton of CO2 and increase annually by $10 per ton. All revenue from the tax would be refunded to the public in equal shares. In the following opinion piece, James Hansen and his co-author lend their support: A socially and environmentally just way to fight climate change James E. Hansen and Daniel H. Miller 09 Aug 2020 The Hill (reproduced on Dr. Hansen's website) www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2020/20200910_SocialJustice.pdf
|
|
|
Post by huon on Oct 30, 2020 7:48:30 GMT 9.5
Another prominent carbon tax plan comes from the Climate Leadership Council, which is backed by Republicans from former administrations. This plan would start at $43 per ton of CO2 and rise 5% annually, with all revenue returned to the public. Its merits, both environmental and economic, are explored in the following op-ed: How America wins from a pro-climate trade policy Curt Morgan and Craig Bertelsen 01 Oct 2020 The Hill thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/519110-how-america-wins-from-a-pro-climate-trade-policy
|
|
|
Post by huon on Dec 22, 2020 11:05:20 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Dec 23, 2020 17:19:14 GMT 9.5
Can Joe Biden make good on his revolutionary climate agenda? Jeff Tollefson 25 November 2020 Nature www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03250-zFrom the section "Relying on Congress": "But the single biggest opportunity for Biden to advance his climate goals through Congress could be bipartisan legislation that creates a carbon tax to reduce US greenhouse-gas emissions--an idea that has backing among many conservatives and business leaders who are concerned about the climate." Bob Inglis (see previous comment) is quoted at the end of this section, and at the end of the article.
|
|
|
Carbon Tax
Dec 30, 2020 16:35:06 GMT 9.5
via mobile
Post by David B. Benson on Dec 30, 2020 16:35:06 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Jan 21, 2021 15:14:00 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Carbon Tax
Feb 3, 2021 10:23:19 GMT 9.5
via mobile
Post by David B. Benson on Feb 3, 2021 10:23:19 GMT 9.5
|
|