Why is America divided?

America is divided on economics, and specifically on the efficacy of tariffs. Whereas successful businesses love Free Trade, struggling businesses want Tariffs.

East and West coasts vs the Middle

The software companies don’t need tariffs to survive. The US has managed to convince the world that US software giants have a natural right to exists and dominate the whole world. They don’t even need to pay all US taxes, having convinced places like Ireland to be a home for their international sales. This means that the giant companies can “legitimately” pay Irish taxes instead of US taxes.

US banks don’t need tariffs to survive. Yet when they sneeze the whole world catches cold. They are sitting pretty, with the US dollar the international reserve currency. This may change with the advances in BRICS.

US Banks and software companies bring lots of employment and profits to the east coast and the west coast of the US. They are doing well, and want the current situation to continue. The middle of the US is not doing so well, but Donald Trump offers a different way forward, even though there are aspects of Trump’s approach to politics and economics is challenging. Yet there is no indication that the Democrat Presidential candidate has anything to say that will bridge the underlying problem.

Here is what Politico has to say about Kamala Harris’ position on tariffs:

The vice president’s biggest challenge may be defining her policies. And many industrial workers, who will be key to her chances across the Midwest, have already expressed dismay with the economy — even if they’ve been beneficiaries of the Biden-Harris industrial policy push.

No cut-through tariffs policy under Kamala Harris.

History of Tariffs

Tariffs can be considered to have been previously introduced to offset an inherent competitive advantage in the exporting nation. This still continues to be the case. Yet now we realize that tariffs are not a one-way street to success. If they are set too high, this can embed business inefficiency, lead to noncompetitive wage rates, and unnecessarily result in paying higher prices for all goods and services.

Contrary to current economic thinking, tariffs are not a “curse word.” Indeed, the clear rationale for tariffs in the 21st century is to attempt to achieve a rational trade-off between lower prices and “full employment.”

A truly rational trade policy would set a moderate level of tariffs for those sectors of the economy that the government of the nation decides it wants to keep and is in danger of losing. Such a policy would not create a trade war, especially since no nation in the post-Trump world will be able to resist its compelling logic.

Modest Tariffs are needed

Imposing a moderate level of tariffs, even on ALL goods entering a country, should not result in a trade war. Yet even without such a policy we have already got a trade war. Why?

Trump is loved by some farmers. Democrats should be asking why this is the case and offering something similar. Are they? Not as far as I can tell from Australia.

The Democratic leadership just wants to prosecute Donald Trump and cast his supporters as lacking in intelligence. Yet as soon as the software giants and computer hardware suppliers are in economic trouble they want to impose very heavy punitive tariffs on China. Is this rational? It certainly doesn’t help geographically middle America.

In agriculture, it is easy for poverty to overwhelm ordinary producers. A modest tariff will hold back competition, at least sufficiently to allow these producers to survive.

Every country should be reasonably self-sufficient in agriculture, particularly in those countries where agriculture is the main source of employment. If rich countries can allow the farmers in such a countries to thrive, the whole country could be on a path to economic success. Tariffs are the means to achieve this.

A 20% tariff should be available to every industry sector that want this level of protection. The US should encourage every nation to do the same, not try to bully them to remove all tariffs, even ones as low as 20%.

Globalization needs tariffs

Every country needs a diverse economy, including in the Computer-space, to flourish in this very competitive world.

Tariffs can help start-up and establish companies to thrive. If the WTO continues to demonize tariffs and “protectionism” when it will give nations more economic freedom to act, then perhaps the best approach is to demonize the WTO and anyone else who prefers an ideological position to a well argued alternative position.

We will see!

Peace in Ukraine

Peace in Ukraine is now possible. The alternative is unthinkable. It could even mean a nuclear war, not started from the Russian side, but from the Ukrainian side who are urged on by the West to resist the Russian occupation.

Map of Ukraine

Current status of the war

Russia have been pushed to the south-east side of the Dneipir River and out of the cities of Kharkiv and Kherson. Russia does not yet enjoy undisputed control in the former capitals of the Donetsk Oblast and of the Lunhask Oblast. Russia has held Crimea since 2014 and continues to do so.

It is unlikely that peace can be established on the basis of these positions.

Since 2014, Ukraine has been in conflict. Who wants this to continue? Apparently some do!

What is the dispute?

Ukraine’s position has been to maintain the right to reclaim Crimea. It is unclear under what rule of natural justice this can be maintained. The idea of maintaining national borders unchanged has no natural justice attached to it. Nevertheless, this is the entirety of the claim that Russia should give back Crimea to the Ukraine. One has only to look at the unsatisfactory position of the Kurds in Turkiye, Syria, Iraq and Iran to conclude that this is unjust. Other nations have endured border adjustments that they have not liked, but the will of the populations involved should be taken into account, not just settled international borders.

In addition, it is the clear intention of the current Ukrainian leadership to bring about the death of Russian culture in the disputed territories. Apparently, a law “On education” retains the right of schooling in the languages other than Ukrainian only for the ethnic groups which have no national states of their own. This does not mean that Russian is not taught in Ukrainian schools, but it cannot be the language in which instruction is given.

A possible peace treaty

Possibly, a tolerable peace treat in Ukraine could be established by an internationally sanctioned series of referendums to be held in each reasonably manageable region in the disputed regions. However, these referendums are unlikely to see a clear-cut result. In each region, even those that are Russian-speaking, the outcome is likely to be 50-50. It will still leave those who want to retain their Russian heritage unable to have their children educated in Russian.

If the Ukrainian leadership want to hold onto the Donbas region, they must reverse its anti-Russian education policy. Properly handled, education in Russian will die out of its own accord. This is because the higher paid jobs will require fluency in Ukrainian, not in Russian. Even Russian-speaking parents will want their children educated in Ukrainian, since that will give them better prospects in the future. It is up to the Ukrainian leadership to manage this process in a friendly manner.

As far as Crimea is concerned, Ukrainian leadership and the West must give up their ambitions to humiliate Russia by taking back this land. Without that concession, there will no peace.

War reparations

To the victor goes the spoils -and the responsibility. The end of the second World War set the pattern for reparations. It is the responsibility of the victor to repair the damage of each war. Those who have encouraged the Ukrainians to fight with an enemy whose military might was superior to their own must carry the responsibility for the repair of Ukraine’s infrastructure. As an act of good faith, Russia could make a contribution to the repair of the Ukrainian infrastructure, provided Ukraine is prepared to accept such an offer in good faith.

Consequences of no peace

Neither side can afford to lose this war. It is likely to escalate beyond reasonable management. I would not want to be responsible for such an outcome. Would you?

Gun crimes and the 2nd Amendment

Gun crimes will continue as long as the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution stands.

I am guessing that the right to bear arms in the USA is designed to allow guns to be used to defend the nation against foreign enemies and insurrection. Yet when the southern states tried to leave the Union, a civil war followed. Was the war legal? There would be different views on this, but we do know that the consequences of that war that continue to be felt today and the issues meant to be sorted out continue to be unresolved.

War rarely solves anything, and civil wars are generally very brutal. It is generally better to let the disaffected group, or groups, to leave and to solve their own problems. When it comes to slavery, wouldn’t it have been better for the slave-states to decide for themselves to eliminate slavery? The UK managed it. Even the government of South Africa eventually ended its apartheid regime. While problems in that country continue to be experienced, they will eventually be solved, but as it currently stands, the problems in the USA will continue for generation after generation.

Gun crimes

Some Federal legislators and the President want laws to remove guns from the people, or at least army-style assault weapons. Will this solve the problem of gun crimes when a decision imposed from the outside will be resisted at the State Level?

It would be much better if states imposed their own laws to outlaw assault weapons. Texas would be a good place to start. Yes, these laws could be struck down by the Supreme Court. Yet such an action would promote something like a nuclear reaction, leading to the end of the 2nd Amendment. The horror of the latest massacre in Ulvalde would motivate voters throughout the nation to act.

Gun crimes are local, not national. Local (i.e. State based) laws should end them. The responsibility of the Federal government in this situation is to support the States by making the movement of guns that are illegal in one state to that state, even if they come from a state when they are still legal.

This action could start today, in Texas!

Making COP26 a success

COP26 can be a success if it changes the rules so that they drive the actions that need to be taken. A couple of the current rules are a hindrance to achieving the outcome that is required.

The real aim of this conference is to set in place a situation where global average temperatures since industrialisation are held to +1.5C. Yet there is a danger that this aim will be lost by mantra of reducing CO2e emissions to net zero by 2050. This mantra cannot be achieved except by burying vast amounts of CO2 underground. This will be a very expensive operation, being one that also adds an additional level of risk for future generations. It is also a diversion from the real action, which should be capping or reducing the atmospheric level of greenhouse gases.

The net zero objective is not built around the “real aim” of the conference, but seems to be designed to encourage nations to take actions that it is hoped will achieve that “real aim”. Yet there are other direct actions that will really work to achieve that aim. Why are these not being taken instead of the risky “bury CO2” strategy that is being proposed by the UK? Perhaps nations are being held back by two rules that hide the real impact of their actions and encourage them to take the wrong actions.

The consumption of coal for all purposes has been relatively stable, so why is it still being demonised, whereas nothing is said about the growing use of natural gas. For coal use analysis, check out this page! We will look at natural gas in the next section.

New Methane rule at COP26

The biggest hindrance to achieving a cap of +1.5C is the continuing growth in the atmospheric level of methane. This is almost entirely due to the continuing increasing growth of the consumption of natural gas, as can be seen here.

Part of the reason for this growth has been the demonising of coal, as well as an IPCC rule that serves to mask the immediate impact of the increasing use of this gas on global average temperature.

Natural gas has been cited as a “transition fuel”. This has been a false promise since the main outcome has been to delay the move to a new fuel economy for electricity generation. Worst still, for the first five years, even with old style coal-fired generation, it could have increased the global average temperature (with the normal amount of fugitive emissions associated with natural gas). It is even worse if coal-fired generators with the new HELE technology were used instead of natural gas.

The immediate problem with the IPCC rule for methane is that it estimates the lifetime impact of methane, but in doing so, it hides the immediate impact. This serves to make natural gas a better option than burning coal and hides the fact that it is significantly worse in early years.

The longer term problem with the IPCC rule for calculating CO2e emissions is that it fails to take into account the benefit from cutting methane emissions. The bizarre result is that methane emissions can never reach zero, even if the atmospheric level of methane is rapidly falling. This is nuts. It means that the current method of calculating CO2e for methane can and must be changed.

A more realistic approach would be to measure the immediate impact of methane emissions, taking into account the actual emissions in the current year to which can be added the climate impact of all previous emissions. This can easily be handled by adding up the emissions that have not yet decayed to the present emissions. This is not a hard task.

For each year the balance not yet decayed can be calculated by multiplying the estimated emissions for that year by a transition factor of 0.925 raised to the power of the sum of years before the current year + 0.5. Add these up for all years starting from 1990, when numbers were first established, until the present. Finally, deduct the total calculated so far with the total calculated for the previous year using the same methodology. The result can be positive or negative. Convert this value, as a value for methane, to CO2e, using the relative forcing for each gas and the relative percentage of each gas finding its way into the atmosphere, as determined by the IPCC. It is simple! It just needs a new rule.

Burning trees to make electricity

At present, under IPCC rules, it is allowed to burn trees to make electricity but to exclude the CO2 produced by this process on the assumption that these trees will be eventually replaced some decades later.

It is like “legal tax avoidance”. Burning trees does have an impact on the CO2 emissions in that year and thus it should not be excluded. If required, the regrowth can be deducted when it happens to the degree that it has happened. This can be allowed to the country that does the regrowing.

This is a rule that is crying out to be changed in the way described.

Setting targets at COP26 is not enough

Our long-term ambition should be that electricity generation in the future will consist of intermittent plus storage plus a backup generating source when these two cannot deliver.

We know that intermittent supply of electricity, via renewables, is better for the environment than using fossil fuels, but they endanger security of supply. Therefore, it should be an agenda item to discuss how 100% renewables can be used with confidence in regard to the security of supply. Yes we know that storage can manage normal fluctuations in supply, but we have no path forward for security of supply when wind and sun do not deliver as expected.

COP26 could call upon all nations to set out their plans for managing supply security when fossil fuels are removed from the equation. At present there are options available for providing some measure of security of supply using either coal or nuclear. We would all benefit from learning what other nations are planning to do.

Fully EVs are a leap too far for many nations

It will be possible to cut fossil fuel use for cars by as much as 60% by simply favouring the electric options: EV, PHEV and hybrid. Yet it would seem that battery costs are too high for everyone to have an EV, even in developed nations. Perhaps they will fall in price over time, but potential supply shortages of components for electric motors and batteries may bring that dream to an end.

Certainly, COP26 could suggest that nations take a more modest approach and include PHEVs and hybrids in their favoured options, rather than setting a too-high target and not finding the cuts in oil-based fuels that they desire due to a poor take-up of fully EVs.

HCFC-22

This gas is now a very serious greenhouse gas in its own right. If possible, it should be removed from all new refrigerators and industrial processes by 2023.

A report on the progress of the implementation of the Montreal Protocol for this gas can be expected at COP26, but one wonders whether significant progress has been made.

A successful outcome

If COP26 is nothing more than simply setting targets, as appears to be currently envisaged for COP26, we can expect that global average temperature will be +1.5C before 2030, with greater than +1.6C reached by 2040. The trend of data suggests that this is almost inevitable, given the past history of the linking of emissions and temperatures. Fluctuations due to ENSO and volcanos will see results around ± 0.1C, or more, occasionally appear,

However, if the extra actions proposed here are initiated at this conference, it should be possible to limit global average temperature growth to 1.5C out to 2050 (subject to the same yearly fluctuations of ± 0.1C ). After this date, temperatures will fall marginally.

A graph showing the historical, modelled, current COP26 trajectory and proposed COP26 trajectory if the extra actions suggested here are taken.
Suggested alternative outcomes

Time will tell whether these simple to implement rule changes and removing the impediments to more drastic action will bring about the improvements I am predicting, but who will be brave enough to urge the nations to continue on the higher trajectory?

Now is the time for the leaders of the governments of the world to step up to the plate and make the changes suggested here. They cannot hurt.

COP 26 and Climate Change Action

Will COP 26 be an echo chamber of plausible responses to the climate crisis or a forum that drives change? Will COP 26 be the moment that stops the increase in global temperature, or will it be drowned in politics?

Methane at COP 26

Since 1950 atmospheric methane (CH4) has grown from 1220 ppb to 1870 ppb. On its own, it has increased temperature during that period by 0.13C. Breaking up this increase by its components reveals the following:

  • 57% from fugitive emissions from natural gas.
  • 25% from ruminant animals (both farmed and wild).
  • 13% from waste.
  • 9% from fugitive emissions from coal.
  • 6% from rice cultivation.
  • 6% from biomass.

Most of attention in regard to methane emissions has been given to belching from ruminant animals. Yet cutting red meat (and rice) from our diet is not a matter for COP 26, IMO. Yet there are other matters to be considered at this conference. For example, what about fugitive emissions from natural gas?

Let us suppose that in the next 10 years we were able to cut methane emissions from everything except ruminant animals and rice cultivation by 50%. In this case the atmospheric methane would fall from 1870 ppb to 1730 ppb. This would be just the beginning, for it would continue to fall out to 2100. In other words, instead of contributing to the growth in global average temperature, it would mitigate the increases from other sources.

The move from coal to natural gas for electricity generation may have been a good idea at the time, but we should not now chose to use these gases for electricity production. If this is done and also we cut methane emissions from waste as well as changing from biomass to electrical cooking and heating, this would reduce atmospheric methane, without doing anything else. So a cut in methane emissions by 2030 should be on the COP 26 agenda.

Actual and projected increases in global average temperature since Industrialisation.
Effect of cutting methane emissions

F-Gases at COP 26

When the Montreal Protocol was established in 1990, it was realised that moving from ozone-depleting CHCs to other gases would increase atmospheric greenhouse gases. At the time it was agreed that certain gases mentioned in the Montreal Protocol gases would be fazed out from 2025. Yet there is no sense that this commitment is being taken seriously in the run-up to COP 26. It should be included in the final agreement.

Electricity Production: Low CO2

Presently, there are only two viable models for electricity production in a low CO2 environment: nuclear and intermittent sources. While nuclear is favoured in some places. It is not favoured in other places. In any event, it would appear that following this route is very expensive. On the other hand, intermittent sources, by their very nature, are unreliable.

It is true that cyclic fluctuations through the week can be managed through an appropriate level of storage, which could be via pumped-hydro, batteries and other more experimental means of storing electricity. Therefore, it is not cyclic and predictable fluctuation in demand that is preventing the take up of intermittent power supply. The problem is in the unpredictable nature of supply. The thing that is holding back more widespread use of intermittent supply of electricity is the lack of a plan to cover the shortfall in electricity supply when the wind or the sun fail to deliver the quantum of electricity that is required. This is the biggest problem in moving to a more complete dependence upon intermittent / renewable supply of electricity.

For nations that are already industrialised there is a simple solution at hand, even though it cuts across the ideological resistance to coal. Yes, the solution is to use coal-fired generators (and any existing redundant gas-fired generators) to provide back up generating capacity in the case of a failure in supply of electricity from renewable sources. In the short-term, the existing coal and gas-fired generators could be brought on line in the event of a failure of supply. Even with the current configuration, this should happen in less than 20% of the time once the intermittent supply system generally provides 100% of electricity power. This approach will ensure a 80% cut in the CO2 emissions from this source. On the other hand, it does mean that banning coal from the electricity-generation field will not be possible, or even practical (if one really wants to cut CO2 emissions).

In a system that does not use nuclear power, it would appear that a properly designed system will provide all power to consumers from renewables and from storage. Under this system, the storage would be replenished from time to time using coal-fired generators. This would only happen when the storage falls below a level in which the operators believe is too low for a measured guaranteed security of supply. Under this scenario, the coal-fired generators would run flat-out until the storage was replenished.

In a system that uses nuclear power, the power stations could run continuously, replenishing the storage in a balanced manner.

Oil-based fuel

We already know how to cut the usage of oil-based fuels for passenger vehicles and light trucks. The simple solution is for each country to mandate that new vehicles must be fully electric. However, this will bring many problems in its wake. These include a complete replacement of the refueling system and potential massive increases in the prices of raw materials. It would be more sensible to move more slowly.

The ideal solution, hopefully to be discussed at COP 26 is for each nation to move towards mandating hybrid, plug-in hybrids and fully electric vehicles for new vehicles well before 2030. The market can then manage the extra cost for each type of vehicle. Since a simple hybrid is not much more costly than a vehicle with a 100% internal combustion engine, this can be the starting default. Even this will cut the consumption of petrol by about 30-40%, which will lead to a significant reduction in CO2 emissions from this type of vehicle.

Solutions for heavier trucks and buses and ships can be considered at a later period. The end result should be that by 2030 we will have a solution prepared for all oil-based fuels.

Cement and Steel

Solutions are currently being considered for the CO2 generated in these two processes. Time is required to allow feasible and proven solutions to emerge.

Conclusion

Significantly cutting greenhouse gas emissions in this way by 2030, in the areas where we already know how to do it, will avert the climate change crisis, and put us on a path to prevent global warming since industrialisation of more than 1.5C. Early and radical action is required.

Such action should be legacy of COP 26. The question remains, will the representatives have the courage to take the actions that are required? Will the members present be willing to abandon those ambitions that will not lead to that outcome, but will hinder this desirable result.

Is electricity demand too high?

Electricity demand could be too high at present as China and India increase coal-fired generation and because of the push to cut CO2 emissions from passenger cars.

Expected Electricity demand in 2021 and 2022

The IEA expects that global electricity demand will grow faster than renewables can keep up in 2021. Even though generation from renewables like hydropower, wind and solar is due to grow 8% in 2021 and by more than 6% in 2022, it will only be able to meet about half the projected increase in global electricity demand. The rest will be met mostly by thermal plans that burn fossil fuels, especially coal.

Furthermore, IEA expects most of this extra demand will come from China and India.

China is pushing hard to increase electricity demand and supply

It is well known that China is increasing its coal-fired generation capacity. A generous explanation is that China could be using this as an opportunity to provide back-up generation power once its intermittent renewable capacity can provide most of its demand needs. Backup capacity is needed once any system goes to 100% renewables during ordinary operations. This is because all intermittent supplies can fail and these failures can spread over an extended period. Storage can meet many of these shortfalls in supply, but there is a point where storage will not be sufficient. It is at this point that it coal and gas-fired generation will be required. It is only prudent to provide for this capacity.

India is massively electricity poor.

No-one can seriously complain about India increasing its coal-fired generation. In 2016 it was running at about 2 tonnes per person CO2. China was running at about 7 tonnes per person and USA was running at 15.5 tonnes per person. However, once it has properly addressed this issue, it should eventually aim for 100% renewables during ordinary operations. Then it will need backup generation capacity which can be supplied by periodic running of its legacy installation of its fossil-fuel generators.

OECD nations need to cut fossil-fuel generated electricity

Without cutting greenhouse gas emissions the global average temperature will continue to increase. A cut in the level of emissions can be achieved, and this should result in global average temperature being held at 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. It will still bump above this, but will also fall below, as has happened in March 2021, which is 0.33C below March last year.

A path to a maximum 1.5C temperature increase.

It is a reasonable target for every nation that can do it (i.e. the OECD nations) to run electricity generation on 100% renewables during ordinary operations by 2030. It could keep its remaining coal and gas-fired generation to be only used to provide backup capacity. If this is done, it will assist in levelling this curve much earlier than 2030 and give the world more time to solve the intractable problems with steel, cement and building heating.

The way this could work is for coal and gas-fired generation to be removed from directly supplying the grid. This capacity then can be used to renew storage of electricity. It only needs to run when storage capacity is seriously depleted, but during that time it can be run at 100% of capacity 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This will minimise the CO2 emissions from this process and hold costs down as much as possible.

The push for fully electric vehicles could be counter-productive

It a nation does not have enough renewable electricity generation to fully supply the grid, it should consider very carefully whether fully-electric vehicles are as CO2 free as is often claimed. If additional fossil-fuel is used in generating electricity as a result of the widespread introduction of fully-electric vehicle, there may be no actual cut in the CO2 emissions for that country as a result of this policy.

It should be noted that non-plug in hybrids can cut fossil-fuel usage by almost 50%. Each country should to take this in account.

Net Zero and GHG Emissions

The aim of Net Zero GHG emissions is to stabilise global average temperatures, it is hoped that it can be achieved at 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. The calculation of CO2e for each of the GHG gases needs to take into account the impact of each of these gases upon global average temperatures. For CO2, it is quite simple: just take the quantum of the emissions themselves. 400 parts per million of CO2 equals 400 parts per million tonnes of CO2e. Since N2O has a half life of around 120 years, the normal calculation to convert to CO2e applies. In this case, 300 parts per billion of N2O equals 89 parts per million of CO2e. For the other gases a different calculation must apply. Since the other gases have a half life that significantly impacts their warming potential (methane has a half life of 9.5 years), we cannot just keep adding these warming potentials into our CO2e values. We have to take into account the progressive reduction in the atmospheric levels of these gases from previous emissions. For each year, we can (roughly) add the current emissions into CO2e, but we also have to deduct the losses into the atmosphere from previous years.

Net Zero from methane

For methane, we can simply deduct the losses attributable to the methane emissions in prior years.

  • Year -1: 4.75%
  • Year -2: 13.80%
  • Year -3: 21.99%
  • Year -4: 39.40%
  • Year -5: 36.11%
  • And so on into infinity.

If the world reduces the absolute value of methane emissions in each year, this gives us all a negative CO2e value that can be shared around amongst all nations. This will soften the required reductions in regard to continuing emissions of CO2 and N2O. This negative impact will continue out to 2100 if the reductions in these gases are sufficiently large. It can also go beyond this if the absolute reductions continue. For methane, the most significant element in total emissions consists of the fugitive emissions from coal extraction and natural gas extraction, transportation and use, so it is important to cut these as the first priority.

Emissions of methane are currently around 800 million tonnes. Of this total, about 26% can be attributed to coal and gas fugitive emissions (including the failure to manage leaks properly, especially around the year 1990; some mismanagement is still continuing). If coal use were entirely eliminated, natural gas cut down to only 20% of the current use (for non-energy industrial purposes only), “leaks” of natural gas cut to a “normal level”, and emissions from ruminants and rice production continued in line with population, the emissions of methane each year would be about 670 million tonnes. This reduction of 130 million tonnes of methane per year, would represent a negative CO2e, starting at zero for 2030 and growing to 3,250 million tonnes per year by 2050.

Negative CO2e from refrigerant gases

The warming potential from refrigerant gases is expected to decline from 2025, due to the further implementation of the Montreal Protocol. The atmospheric level of these gases should reduce from this date. These gases have about half the impact of methane, so let us say that it also represents a negative CO2e, starting a zero in 2025 and growing to negative 1,600 million tonnes per year year by 2050.

Positive CO2e from Nitrous Oxide

Based on the increase in atmospheric N2O, we can calculate that N2O emissions are running at about 320 million tonnes per year. It may be possible to cut emissions arising from agriculture so that the final number were 160 million tonnes per year. Based on radiative forcing at current levels of emissions, this would mean that the net CO2e from nitrous oxide would be about 1,200 million tonnes.

Positive CO2e from CO2

Based on the foregoing, for a Net Zero outcome, CO2 emissions from all sources would need to be capped at about 4,000 millions tonnes. This compares with the 35,000 million tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2018. This was made up as follows:

  • Coal 13,000 tonnes (including about 2,000 tonnes of metallurgical coal and coal used for residential heating).
  • Oil based fuels 9,000 tonnes.
  • Natural gas 6,000 tonnes.
  • Cement production 1,500 tonnes.
  • Other (undefined) 5,500 tonnes.

Preferably, all coal uses would have to go if Net Zero were to be achieved. All electricity production using natural gas would have to go. All oil-based fuels need to be replaced by chemical alternatives, like ethanol or ammonia, or by electric vehicles. Alternative ways of building heating will be required, using electric air conditioning and heat pumps with local geothermal resources.

Each of these things will be a challenge, but the biggest is the complete change in electricity generation. Under Net Zero, there is no place for natural gas after 2050. At present, renewables like wind and solar cannot supply anything like baseload power, even with all types of storage, so new baseload resources will be needed, such as geothermal and modular molten-salt nuclear reactors.

Electric cars are a bit of dream, at least for nations that are not rich or have large distances to cover. For the latter, something like the ethanol-driven approach of Brazil seems to be required.

There is considerable hope for “green steel” and “green cement”. We wait in anticipation.

Carbon capture, utilisation and storage

This is a major feature of a recent report by the IEA. The question for me is whether it really will be secure at the volumes being considered. They go far beyond current storage being undertaken in depleted oil and gas wells, with the risk of subsequent leakage currently not being seriously considered.

Net Zero in 2050 vs 2060

The foregoing is predicated on achieving Net Zero by 2050. Whether this is a viable strategy for all nations is debatable. A date like 2060 could be more achievable.

For comparison purposes, I have modelled global average temperatures out to 2070, using two targets. One is that Net Zero, according to my definition, will be achieved in 2050; the other is that Net Zero, on the same basis, is achieved in 2060.

Two scenarios for reaching Net Zero.
Two scenarios for reaching Net Zero

This graph shows that a result close to 1.6C can be achieved, even if (my) Net Zero is not achieved until 2060. Of course, it will be a safer outcome if OECD nations can arrive at that point by 2050.

Conclusion

Net Zero by 2050 may be a pipe dream, but the world could give itself a number more years before we reach a stable 1.5C if urgent action were taken. This is because reduced GHG emissions in the intervening years will reduce the growth in average annual global temperatures. This will involve action on the following issues:

  • Do not build any more coal-fired electricity generators where there are other options available.
  • Do not use gas-fired generators for anything except for the purpose of meeting peak demand.
  • Develop geothermal resources where available, and enter into fixed price contracts for the supply of electricity from such resources 24/7 (to ensure that such facilities are not bankrupted by operations that can only provide intermittent supplies.)
  • Governments to push ahead with funding trials for modular molten-salt nuclear-powered electricity generators.
  • Governments to immediately mandate fuel-flex vehicle electronics, so that ethanol can progressively take over as ethanol production increases and where electric vehicles are not suitable for the particular application, or are too expensive.
  • Governments to mandate that ships entering their ports use non-CO2 fuels.
  • Progressively implement reduced N2O agricultural practices as and when the research indicates that this is possible.
  • Governments to mandate that gas not to be used for building heating in new-builds. When electric air-conditioning is not effective in cold climates, governments to mandate that heat pumps using local geothermal methods be used instead.

AEMO Pricing is making the grid unstable

AEMO pricing, which is designed to achieve the lowest wholesale price for electricity gives no weight to maintaining baseload capacity and gives no consideration to reducing CO2 emissions. These things could be fixed to the addition of a baseload element to the pricing model.

In doing all of these things, the objective to be kept in mind is an end result of global average temperature stabilising at 1.5C over pre-industrial levels.

AEMO pricing model should give priority to baseload generation

Once the medium term baseload demand has been set, those generators that can provide supply that is not dependent on the wind or sun should not be put out of business just because there is a cheaper option. That is current situation. It has already happened with the Pt. Augusta generators where the Chinese-owned operator has demolished the plant so that it can never be used again, even in a crisis.

Unless a change is made in the AEMO pricing model the grid is in danger of all baseload operators being shut down solely to meet the short-term economics of the current model. In this case, the entire grid will be dependent upon the vagaries of the wind and the cloud cover. Even with storage, this will mean that, at times, there will be virtually no electricity supply at all. This should not be allowed to happen.

Wind and solar cannot provide true baseload capacity. This is because it is dependent upon the prevailing climatic conditions, even with storage. The underlying baseload capacity should not come from natural gas: that power source is better suited to meeting demand peaks and is priced accordingly. Hydro and pumped-hydro should also not count, since that depends upon climatic conditions. That is to say, a long drought can knock out hydro and an extended climate event can knock out pumped-hydro.

In a 1.5C world, true baseload capacity can only come from geothermal or nuclear electricity generation. In the current Australian configuration, it can only come from coal-fired generation. These generators can be phased out as “nearly zero” CO2 generators come on board; until that happens they are needed!

Choosing the level of Baseload Capacity

We can start with the smallest level of demand across the grid. Using South Australia experience (which I examined in an earlier piece), average baseload demand was 2/3rds of average daily demand and minimum baseload daily demand was 45% of peak demand.

On this basis, as a rule of thumb, we could say that baseload demand should be set at 45% of average demand, with renewables and natural gas to compete for supplying the rest of the demand. In the event of climate crisis knocking out renewables, storage can be partly replenished on a daily basis by running any natural gas peaking demand on a 24/7 basis. Added to this, government mandated demand management could be used to help the community to power through such an event.

To make all of this work, Australia needs a “baseload protection plan”. We cannot rely upon current AEMO modelling and pricing to deliver on this without some changes to the model.

Coal-fired Baseload electricity

At present, the only option for baseload electricity is coal-fired electricity, even though to meet the 1.5C objective, it must be progressively phased out. Based on published emission intensity data, in NSW, Liddell should not be included in any “baseload protection plan”; in QLD, Gladstone should not be included; and in Yallourn should not be included. These generators are not needed in a “baseload protection plan.” If these three power stations were taken out of operation, if the remaining operations were guaranteed a market share mandated at 60% of capacity, this would generate enough energy to meet baseload capacity requirements.

Under this plan, 60% of the total 24 hour capacity of the “favoured” generators would be sold into the electricity market at an AEMO calculated cost price plus a risk and profit margin, with a total price of around $A60 MWh. (The current AEMO pricing operation would not apply to this “guaranteed market”; AEMO pricing would apply to all other supply that is not included in the “baseload protection plan.”)

Under this plan, as alternative low-emissions supplies come on stream, these coal-fired generators will begin to lose their guaranteed status, one at a time, until none were included.

Geothermal as a Baseload resource

There have been several abortive attempts to get geothermal up in Australia, with the failure of these projects clearly attributed to economic viability, not on technological grounds. They could not survive under AEMO pricing, despite having the ability to provide electricity at a relatively low cost, assuming that were run 24/7.

European economists have calculated that the wholesale cost of enhanced geothermal electricity is likely to be €50 MWh. This is approximately $A80 MWh. With a small margin for risk and profit, an AEMO fixed price could be $A85 MWh. This compares with the current average price of coal-fired generation of around $A60 MWh. It is trivial for most consumers, being $0.025 per kWh on 45% of the supply, with discounts on various tariffs being as high as $0.23 per kWh. Go figure the angst!

Every MWh of electricity that can be produced on 24/7 by the designated baseload suppliers should have priority in supplying to the grid, with its output being sold at a fixed price before any other electricity generators are able to bid for the remaining electricity demand.

Geothermal should be the first option for Baseload supply and should provide Australia with the mechanism to wind-down the use of coal-fired generators. With Australia’s vast land-mass, it likely that they are many opportunities for geothermal electricity, as the following figure shows.

Hot prospects for geothermal-sourced electricity in Australia.
Hot prospects in Australia for geothermal energy

Nuclear as a Baseload resource

The kind of nuclear that may be acceptable in Australia (using a modular molten-salt reactor) is not yet commercially available. When this kind of reactor has been successfully installed elsewhere, it should be considered here, especially if geothermal does not prove to be a satisfactory solution.

Baseload and Storage

Setting up a “baseload protection plan” doesn’t of itself normally require storage, since this supply is planned to be always available, with the quantum being pitched at the lowest level of demand over a weekly cycle. However, there is a good possibility that, when coal-fired electricity has ended and geothermal and nuclear supply have taken over, there will be occasions when supply will be greater than demand at a particular moment in the cycle. To cover these occasions, rather than curtailing production, it would be preferable if the surplus electricity were stored in a large-scale facility, like Snowy 2.0 pumped-hydro. In this situation it could be sold to that facility at a very low price, such as $A5 MWh, thus providing a negative incentive to owners of the baseload power not to provide more baseload power than is required.

It is recognised that storage is needed to handle the daily and weekly cycles of demand. This disconnect between demand and supply is a natural functions of drawing much of the supply from intermittent renewables. Ironically, the 6 pm peak demand arrives at the very time that solar-generation is quite weak, even on a cloud-free day in Australia.

In addition, a case can be made for some level of natural gas peaking demand, for something like one hour a day. Such a facility could be run 24/7 during any climate event that stops renewables producing electricity, which would reduce the severity of such a crisis in terms of electricity production.

In the normal event, storage from liquid air and batteries can probably handle the week-day cycles, with Snowy 2.0 taking up the surplus supply over the weekend.

Conclusion

Our collective objective should be to manage our use of fossil fuels so that global average temperature stabilises at 1.5C over pre-industrial levels.

The changes suggested here can be undertaken almost immediately and will measurably contribute meeting expectations that Australia’s fossil fuel usage can be drastically cut. (Ethanol for oil is the other limb to this strategy.)

However, to successfully navigate a change of this size, it is necessary to change the AEMO pricing structure to protect coal-fired baseload capacity and to ensure that baseload power in the future is not undermined by aggressive pricing and lobbying on behalf of the operators and owners of wind and solar assets.

CO2e is not a robust measure of GHGs

CO2e calculations should not take into account total methane emissions, but only the changes from the levels of 14 years early.

CO2 equivalent (CO2e) attempts to provide a unified measure of Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHGs). Yet it is neither robust nor truthful, primarily because it fails to take into account the 9.5 years half-life of methane.

Calculating CO2e

To convert methane emissions to CO2e emissions, the estimated methane emissions are multiplied by 25.

Since a half-life for methane of 9.5 years converts to an average life of 13.5 years, it would be more robust if CO2e calculations compared the target year’s methane emissions with those 14 years early and then only the difference between those two years was multiplied by 25.

Modelling Global Warming

When attempting to model the impact of the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gas it is actually much better to use the actual levels of each greenhouse gas to calculate the forcing of each of these gases. These individual numbers can then be combined to arrive at a total forcing level.

Another advantage of this method is that it is based on actual observations, rather than estimated levels of emissions, and uses the published levels of forcings for each gas, most of which have been known since 1990 and earlier, modified slightly in 1996. These figures have not been challenged in the scientific literature since then, as far as I can determine.

Here is the results of this kind of modelling. It clearly supports the scientific argument that GHGs have caused the temperature to rise.

Modelling using atmospheric levels of GHGs, rather than CO2e

Problems arising from using CO2e

Since methane is the second most important GHG, it is essential that its impact is fully understood, even by the ordinary public, but especially by journalists and opinion leaders.

If the method of calculating CO2e had real merit for policy-makers, we should be able to use this method in calculating likely atmospheric methane levels. Following this approach, if we add the methane emissions from 1951 to 2020 to the atmospheric methane in 1950, we should get a result close to the actual atmospheric methane in 2020, namely 1870 ppb. Instead we get 24600 ppb, which just demonstrates the logical problem with CO2e. When we see IPCC graphs of CO2e, stretching out to 2100, we don’t have to take these numbers seriously – they are just “indicative,” but of what is not clear.

The frequently raised issue of the projected levels of meat consumption and its climate consequences is a symptom of the unscientific use of CO2e in climate change advocacy and the simple failure to understand or explain the underlying science to journalists and by journalists to the public.

A proper evaluation of the impact of methane on global warming would not see red meat as the first line of attack; instead, the matter that was first addressed would be fugitive emissions from coal and gas extraction, transport and use. Due to human errors and technical problems, these can easily and unexpectedly give rise to higher methane levels. These will take years to work through the system, whereas additional meat consumption will not lead to significant increases in global average temperatures. Cuts in red meat consumption will be difficult to implement and have a minor impact, in comparison with issues like fugitive emissions.

Conclusion

Unless scientists can find a better way to express CO2e, it would be better if journalists and advocates restrained themselves and only referred to CO2, N2O and the F-gases, each of which has its own story. Methane needs a more nuanced analysis than it currently receives.

Toyota Hybrid technology – a 21st century solution

“Toyota Hybrid” technology, with ethanol, is custom made for the 21st century’s move from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Also, it comes without the massive disruption that will be caused by transitioning to fully-electric vehicles.

Toyota Hybrid technology showing the basic components
Toyota Hybrid Synology Drive

Oil-based fuels can be almost completely eliminated via ethanol. Brazil has shown the way to get started by being able to use higher ethanol mixes. The aim should be to get to 100% Ethanol (E100).

Fully-electric vs Ethanol

Almost all the infrastructure is in place to move to ethanol as the primary fuel for all vehicles, whereas fully-electric vehicles will require a virtual doubling of the demand for electricity. In addition, fast electric charging stations would need to be built right across every nation, including nations with large open spaces like Australia, most of Africa, north and south America, and in Asia.

While fully-electric vehicles are increasingly popular in Western countries, it is difficult to see them as a global replacement for petrol and diesel fuelled vehicles:

  • The demand for electricity from this approach will require a much larger electricity-generating sector. This will be difficult for countries that are already electricity poor, especially in the absence of relatively cheap coal-fired generators.
  • The demand for finite resources in order to build fully-electric cars will create supply difficulties, with the world possibly coming close to exhausting such resources. The supply of cobalt is already under stress and alternatives are being developed. The future supply of copper and lithium could also be a limiting factor.
  • Fully-electric cars at present are much more expensive that vehicles running on Toyota Hybrid technology. While this cost differential should reduce over time as a result of manufacturing efficiencies, it also likely that supply problems could cause the opposite outcome.

On the other hand, vehicles running on 100% ethanol are technically viable and could be quickly introduced.

Supply of ethanol

Currently most nations using ethanol as a fuel source use it as a mix with gasoline as 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline. This level of supply should be relatively easily sustainable. However, there is concern that, with a higher level of ethanol in the mixture, supply will be an issue.

Producing ethanol from crops such as sugar cane and corn, while relatively competitive, demands too much land to be a complete solution. Less land-intensive approaches are required. A viable method of obtaining ethanol from bamboo has been explored: perhaps this will help. Ethanol from algae has been explored, but it is not yet viable. It is accepted that more research is required to develop a solution that will enable the transition to 100% ethanol.

Sure, there are problems in the land required for 100% ethanol, but alternative methods of production of ethanol are being explored. This problem should not be too hard in a world that has been able to produce three or more vaccines for COVID-19 within twelve months.

The role of Toyota Hybrid technology

The Toyota Hybrid system combines two power sources. When the engine is running, it charges the battery via the generator; when driving conditions allow it, such as in slow-moving traffic, the generator can cut out the petrol engine and let the electric motor take over for zero-emissions travelling. The sophisticated engine management system can sense when the car is stopped and will switch off the engine to conserve power and cut emissions, automatically starting up again when needed.

The primary advantage of this system when using ethanol as a fuel is the reduction in the amount of ethanol used. If a 40% cut in fuel usage was available then the current supply of ethanol of current vehicles were running on E15 could be immediately extended to E25.

In addition, Toyota Hybrid technology significantly reduces the demand for battery materials, since its batteries provide supplementary power, rather being the only power source.

Less resources used to make and power a vehicle is a win-win for the climate and for the earth. One wonders why the Toyota Hybrid technology is not adopted by all car manufacturers. It is a brilliant solution, which could be a real contributor to a difficult global problem: oil-based fossil fuels.