Hydrocarbon Use Will Continue Increasing For Now

No country will reduce their usage, most will increase it.

The leaders of every country are very aware of this graph

Energy is tightly linked to economic development. It is clear that higher levels of GDP are correlated with greater electricity use, access, reliability, and affordability (see Figure 1). While researchers struggle to understand the causal link between economic growth and energy, there is ultimately no route to development without greater energy consumption.

— Kelsey Jack, World Bank

When we tell the third world or developing world countries to cap their CO2 emissions, what they hear is “remain poor.” What’s more important than climate change?

1. Poverty Alleviation: Many developing countries are focused on lifting their populations out of poverty. Restricting energy use will hinder economic growth and cap progress in improving living standards 1.

2. Historical Inequity: Developed nations have already benefited from carbon-intensive growth. Developing countries argue it's unfair to ask them to limit their growth when they've contributed far less to cumulative global emissions 2.

3. Lack of Alternatives: Many developing nations lack the financial and technological resources to quickly transition to clean energy sources. Fossil fuels often remain the most accessible and affordable option for rapid development 3.

4. Energy Access: In many developing countries, a significant portion of the population still lacks access to reliable electricity. Expanding energy access is crucial for development but can lead to increased emissions in the short term 4.

While I believe that climate change is an existential problem that will likely bring back starvation and be incredibly damaging to the poor, I also understand why the countries that are not first world are not willing to wait. And regardless of what I, or any of you think, they’re not going to delay improving life for their citizens.

Let Them Eat Cake

Why won’t third world & developing countries use wind, and solar?

Economic Considerations

1. Lower upfront costs: Coal and natural gas power plants generally have lower initial investment costs compared to large-scale wind and solar installations.

2. Affordability: Coal is often cheaper than alternative energy sources, making it an attractive option for countries focused on economic growth and poverty alleviation.

3. Economic development: As societies transition from agricultural to industrial economies, their energy needs increase significantly. Coal and natural gas can provide the large-scale, reliable power needed to fuel this development.

Infrastructure and Technology

1. Established technology: Coal mining and power generation use well-established, relatively simple technologies that are easier to implement in developing countries.

2. Domestic availability: Many developing countries have domestic coal reserves, reducing dependence on foreign energy sources and enhancing energy security.

3. Baseload power: Coal and natural gas plants can provide consistent baseload power, while wind and solar are intermittent and require backup power sources or storage solutions.

Socioeconomic Factors

1. Employment: The coal industry is labor-intensive, providing jobs in regions with high unemployment and limited economic opportunities.

2. Historical dependence: Some countries have a long history of coal use, making it challenging to transition away from established industries and infrastructure.

3. Lack of alternatives: In many developing countries, a significant portion of the population still lacks access to reliable electricity. Expanding energy access quickly often leads to increased use of fossil fuels in the short term.

Challenges with Renewable Energy

1. Intermittency: Wind and solar power are variable, requiring significant investment in grid infrastructure and energy storage to ensure reliable power supply.

2. Higher initial costs: While renewable energy costs have decreased, the upfront investment for large-scale wind and solar projects can still be prohibitive for developing countries.

3. Technological and financial barriers: Many developing nations lack the financial resources and technical expertise to rapidly transition to renewable energy systems.

Policy and Market Factors

1. Subsidies and incentives: Fossil fuel subsidies in some countries make coal and natural gas artificially cheaper than renewable alternatives.

2. Market forces: In the absence of strong climate policies, market forces often favor cheaper fossil fuels over cleaner alternatives.

3. International financing: Some international institutions have historically supported fossil fuel projects in developing countries, although this is changing.

When a country is poor, it does not have time to fuck around with wishful thinking. Germany can afford to degrade their economy chasing fanciful ideas. India can’t. They need inexpensive proven reliable power sources. That’s coal, gas, & nuclear.

What can we do?

France has demonstrated (half the CO2 emissions per capita compared to Germany) and China (58GW in use, 118GW under construction or planned) and South Korea (24 reactors in use, 4 under construction) are showing the way to the future.

I don’t think the U.S. should take the lead on helping countries build reactors as we’re so bad at it. But we can take the lead in encouraging countries to build nuclear, in tandem with South Korea & France that can provide the expertise in building reactors quickly and at reasonable cost.

There’s good news on this front: India is building 6 reactors, and Turkey, Bangladesh, & Egypt are all building their first. And more are considering it. Anything we can do to help these be very successful is a powerful example.

Encourage countries to use gas instead of coal. Natural gas emits less than half the CO2 than a coal power plant. Cutting the upcoming additional CO2 emissions in half is significant. And in sync with nuclear plants, gas then becomes the transition fuel.

And as part of that, export gas. The United States has gigantic gas reserves. Providing that as a reliable inexpensive source is key to countries selecting gas over coal. We need to provide guarantees that our supply will not be shut off in the future as that will be a concern of any country choosing to depend on us.

From Now to 2050

Reducing CO2 emissions worldwide by 2050 is a pipe dream. China is 30% - 35%, U.S. is 13%, India is 7%, EU27 is 7%, Japan & South Korea is 3%, & RotW is 30% - 35%. The U.S., EU27, & Japan/South Korea can afford to degrade their economies to reduce CO2 some. The rest are going to do whatever is necessary to improve their economies. Anything.

Not to mention the U.S. is in a race with China for dominance in A.I. and manufacturing in numerous critical industries from chips to batteries. And guess what… all of that requires more power. Both Democrats and Republicans in Washington realize that we are in technology war with China and reducing CO2 will take a back seat to that.

The best we can do is encourage the world, including China, to use gas instead of coal today and build nuclear plants for tomorrow.