SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (78733)8/1/2017 2:15:46 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 86355
 
Is Trump Right About Coal?

By Scott Belinksi - Jul 30, 2017, 10:00 AM CDT

In the six months since becoming president of the United States, Donald Trump has markedly shifted the global conversation on the long-term viability of fossil fuels. The recent announcement that the U.S. would use its seat on the board of the UN’s Green Climate Fund to promote the construction of clean coal power plants across the globe, [ Other countries are doing the same - China, Japan notably ] represents the administration’s stated intent to use its influence in a range of global energy and climate bodies to promote carbon capture technologies. Despite withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement less than two years after it was signed, the Trump administration has managed to stay on as a global energy player by changing the outlook on a resource that is crucial to the developing world: coal.

Never mind the uproar. Trump might actually be onto something – a surprising fact for an administration not known for its savvy policymaking. Among developing economies, including the rising giants of China and India, there is an existing, long-standing recognition of the need for fossil fuels, especially coal energy. While some have argued that natural gas is a better fitfor developing economies, the fact remains that coal is more abundant and has a competitive edge over natural gas in many markets - especially in Southeast Asiaand Sub-Saharan Africa, where coal reserves are plentiful.

For example, India’s rapidly expanding economy means the country’s appetite for gas, nuclear and coal energy grows by the year: 30 percent of all increase in the world’s energy demand from now to 2040 will come from India. In China, a similar pace of growth will see coal-fired generation activity increase by as much as 19 percent by 2020.

But massive growth in coal is not only limited to Asia, as Africa too is expected to become a major coal consumer. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates coal consumption in Africa to increase from 5 quadrillion Btu in 2012 to 7 quadrillion Btu in 2040 as a result of skyrocketing demand for electricity. Sub-Saharan Africa sits on vast coal reserves that are readily available and easily exploited, meaning that installing coal-powered electricity will remain a major economically viable source for the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately for developing countries, the global rhetoric is adamant that a straightforward path to fossil fuel phase-out is possible, despite the obvious economic ramifications for growing economies. Global institutions and international finance bodies have adopted a hardline stance on the issue by promoting renewables over more flexible approaches to energy consumption that could include an abundant resource such as coal. The World Bank’s decision in 2013 to heavily restrict funding for coal plants, or Deutsche Bank’s 2017 policy to pull the plug on all coal financing, are both examples of this global trend.


Especially in Africa, where countries rely on coal to cover their energy needs, these restrictions have been putting the breaks to their development. Unsurprisingly, African leaders such as Nigerian finance minister Kemi Adeosun have lamented that African countries are being deniedcoal power plants in the face of crippling energy shortages for the sake of CO2-reduction goals. With Africa’s CO2-emmissions being low in both absolute and per capita terms, Tanzania’s energy minister defiantly expressed in 2014 his country’s intention to intensify coal use in the future during a visit from then-President Obama.

As oil makes a quick recovery, two billionaires have joined forces to take advantage of the incredibly cheap deals in the market. This is a rare opportunity for regular investors to invest right alongside these two tycoons in a new venture.

However, there may be a light at the end of the tunnel. Trump’s policy to promote carbon capture and clean coal technology is now putting pressure on multilateral development banks (MDBs) like the World Bank, to rethink their stance. With the U.S. Treasury’s recent declarationthat it will use its vote to push MDBs to help countries access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently, it is clear that the Trump presidency has brought one major change: developing countries now have the U.S. on their side. Trump wants those restrictions lifted, since new coal plants abroad would undoubtedly create demand and jobs in the American coal industry. But exporting energy resources abroad is also a cornerstone of Trump's plans for US trade, with a view to creating “energy dominance” – an ambitious goal to say the least.

The policy is already bearing fruit. At the U.S.-sponsored Clean Energy Ministerial Meeting in June, U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry highlighted the role America plays in the transformation of the Indian energy market. In light of recent progress in India’s clean coal sector, the US and India are currently discussing plans to broaden joint research on clean coal and carbon capture.


Most tellingly, global competitors such as China are also keen to develop better coal power plants for their domestic agendas and are reaching out to the U.S. China’s National Energy Administration has recognized the need to prioritize clean coal technology as well, and signed an agreement with the US that will allow Beijing and Washington to share results and innovations as they refine technologies to capture gases produced from burning coal.

Overcoming the barriers presented by global institutions will be a critical step in Trump’s bid to revive coal. For the U.S., this is an opportunity to establish itself as a global clean coal power, while developing nations dependent on coal for energy may finally be able to tap into their resource wealth. The bottom line is that while the scandals engulfing the White House make any cool-headed appraisal of Trump’s policies increasingly difficult, the administration’s policy shift away from renewables is nevertheless creating global effects that analysts and pundits should not ignore.

By Scott Belinski for Oilprice.com

oilprice.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (78733)8/2/2017 8:59:59 AM
From: Eric  Respond to of 86355
 
Industry Perspective

The Death of ‘Alternative Energy’



The definition of what’s “alternative” has changed dramatically in the last decade, writes Andrew Beebe.

by Andrew Beebe
August 01, 2017

Fifteen years ago, when I joined the early ranks of clean energy entrepreneurs, we were nearly dead in the water on climate. Oil was $15 per barrel, Al Gore’s groundbreaking movie An Inconvenient Truth hadn’t come out, and a solar panel was something that powered a calculator.

In 2005, I went to my first "alternative energy conference” in Aspen, Colorado. I was asked to speak at the event, and hadn’t paid much attention to the agenda. Upon arrival I found the audience consisted of coal, oil and gas executives.

It turns out that “alternatives” in the energy space in 2005 actually meant new methods for extracting old fossil fuels: tar sands, “clean coal” and a new thing called fracking. This, according to all of the other speakers, was the future.

I didn’t walk away optimistic about our coming transition. Forecasters weren’t wearing their rose-colored glasses either.

What a difference a decade makes

In the first quarter of 2017, renewable energy accounted for 20 percent of all U.S. electricity, while fracking has gone mainstream. On the flip side, six publicly traded coal companies declared bankruptcy from April 2015 to 2016, while coal production had its steepest annual decline since 1958. And after much hype, the number of operational clean coal power plants in the U.S. remains firmly stuck at… zero.

A coal plant built today would not be competitive with a combination of wind and solar in virtually any location in the country. And nowhere would it be competitive with natural gas.

In the end, these fossil sources, particularly coal, look increasingly like the new “alternative energy sources,” since there’s simply no economic justification for them.

The speed of this transformation may surprise some readers. That’s understandable. For years, traditional energy analysts have completely mis-forecast the transformation.

Why were these analysts so wrong? What drove this profound shift with such speed? This did not happen because of Paris. This didn’t even happen because of Kyoto before it. It didn’t happen because of something Trump did or undid. It didn’t happen because of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.

The real change agents of the energy transformation

Three drivers of change set us on this course. It started first with the growing chorus of concerned citizens, scientists and activists coming together to seek out solutions? -- often at a local level. This was catalyzed by inflection points like An Inconvenient Truth, but the sources of inspiration were everywhere as the evidence of change mounted.

Second, local and state leaders in the U.S. started to listen. Across party lines, real leadership showed up to pass renewable portfolio standards, enhanced automotive standards, and air quality improvement plans.

Third, in reaction to the first two, businesses started playing an increasingly important role.

Broadly speaking, businesses have played two key roles in cementing our direction on climate. First, large companies have finally started to internalize the will of their customers. Five out of the top six most valuable public companies in the world are U.S.-based technology companies: Google (Alphabet), Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook. They are also the source of the greatest amount of electricity demand growth in world. All of them have now committed to 100 percent clean energy in the near future? -- ?Google is there today. The others behind them will follow suit.

Leading companies have committed to 100 percent clean energy to save money, show leadership and meet the growing cries from their customers and employees to be part of the solution. The magnitude of this commitment cannot be overstated. These companies have a combined market capitalization of nearly $2.3 trillion? -- ?exceeding the size of nearly every economy that signed the Paris accord.

The second way business has played a key role is innovation and entrepreneurship. The impact of buying power is the domain of the large multinationals. The impact of innovation is the domain of startups.

From SunPower and First Solar to Tesla and Nest, we have continually seen the unbounded creativity of startups and founders prove the impossible. And we’re just getting warmed up. Electric buses, large-scale energy storage, autonomous cars, electric planes, and the myriad software solutions to help make our energy more efficient and effective are launching daily.

Trump and Paris: Both irrelevant?

Last year, diplomats and world leaders gathered in France to sign the Paris climate accord. It was the culmination of over a decade’s worth of work, and it was heralded as an historic agreement.

The accord was historic. Virtually all climate scientists agree the commitments were in fact necessary first steps. Most would also agree they were not sufficient, but at least they showed an alignment and a willingness to stand together in this time of global crisis.

In June of this year, our new president began the work of removing the U.S. from the Paris commitments. But interestingly, it would appear the U.S. commitment, or lack thereof, has had no material impact on the movement to address climate change. Like so many of the solutions to our climate challenges, the movement is now distributed and highly effective.

An unstoppable force

As has been pointed out many times, all of the stakeholders addressing climate change were moving on their own before Paris, and virtually all of them already had plans in place which would result in exceeding the Paris goals. This is true of the U.S. as well. The real value of Paris was simply coming together to collectively acknowledge the challenge and show unity around a future engagement for the next steps after Paris.

Today, leadership is everywhere, distributed in its origins, rationale and actions. China is investing hundreds of billions into renewables over the next three years while slowing plans for coal-fired power plants. The same is happening across India. Germany is now sourcing as much as 85 percent of all its energy from renewables at any given time, with Chile and the Nordic countries pushing ahead as well.

The story of transformation here in the U.S. is, typically, much more diverse and creative than some of the top-down transformations listed above. The U.S. shift didn’t happen because of a global accord, or really with much support at the federal level at all. It happened because of local leadership, consumer demands and entrepreneurship.

The road ahead has no U-turns

The efforts of brave local political leaders, individual consumers and "prosumers" (those who are both using and selling back their solar or storage), and, most importantly, of businesses around the globe have coalesced into an irreversible movement. No one global leader nor one global accord is going to make or break this effort. This is a decentralized transformation, and no one in their right mind wants to go backward.

The road to safer, cleaner future has not been straight, but it is one-way.

No one in Delhi wants more soot in the air once they realize the connection to coal. No one in Guangzhou wants toxic rivers once they’ve seen clean water again. No one in Dallas or New York wants dirty streets and diesel buses once they’ve seen the improvement of all-electric.

President Trump’s attempted reversals on climate are pathetic. There is no clearer an example of political manipulation than his rhetoric on Paris. While he’s in office, he clearly weakens our global standing, and we must stand up to show he doesn’t represent the majority of Americans? -- ?he represents less than one-third, to be precise.

Thankfully, the president is decreasingly relevant. We’re doing this with or without him, and there’s nothing he can do to stop it. America’s leading corporations are exceeding the Paris targets. States representing the majority of the country are exceeding the goals of the accord. While Trump plays petty payback politics that embarrass us on the world stage, we’re getting the job done here at home.

greentechmedia.com

***

Andrew Beebe is the managing director of Obvious Ventures. This piece was originally posted on Medium and was republished with permission. Follow Andrew and Obvious Ventures on Medium.