2096. IMF an avoidance of energy conversion costs.

Provocation 230.  Why do institutions deal with marker costs of energy but not of end costs of its use?
I keep being perplexed.  So many institutions treat the energy problem driving climate heating as solved if alternative non carbon costs match or fall below  fossil fuel costs.  This is especially important for the costs and impact of heating buildings. My view, as I have written, is that the discussion  looks at the cost per kw and hoping solar and wind can deliver kw below the cost of coal and gas. this is pure market theory.

But these discussions  do not include the cost of conversion of gas furnaces to electric, which are significant.  Even  if such costs are made part of the discussion, the capacity of manufacturing to deliver so many units seems not to be recognized.
a new report by  the IMF , attached, is typical I think of institutional perspectives.
It starts with a strong view of the dire problems of co2. Followed by
A better future is possible. The technological and
policy means are available to switch from coal and other
polluting fossil fuels to cleaner energy while maintaining
robust economic growth and creating jobs. For the
needed transformation to take place, a key challenge is
to distribute its costs and benefits in a manner that can
muster enough political support—both domestically and
internationally.

and

This Fiscal Monitor argues that, of the various mitigation
strategies to reduce fossil fuel CO2 emissions,
carbon taxes—levied on the supply of fossil fuels (for
example, from oil refineries, coal mines, processing
plants) in proportion to their carbon content—are the
most powerful and efficient, because they allow firms
and households to find the lowest-cost ways of reducing
energy use and shifting toward cleaner alternatives.

Then

burden of the tax in proportion to household consumption
is moderately larger for lower-income households
Solution?
This chapter analyzes the carbon prices countries
must impose to implement their mitigation strategies
and the tradeoffs with other mitigation instruments.
Limiting global warming to 2°C or less requires policy
measures on an ambitious scale, such as an immediate
global carbon tax that will rise rapidly to $75 a ton of
CO2 in 2030. Under such a scenario, over 10 years
electricity prices would rise, on average, by 45 percent
cumulatively and gasoline prices by 15 percent, for
households, compared with the baseline (no policy
action). The revenue from such a tax (1.5 percent of
GDP in 2030, on average, for the Group of Twenty
[G20] countries) could be redistributed, for example,
to assist low-income households, support disproportionately
affected workers or communities
So cash goes to lower income people who have ti pay a higher price. Won’t they just use the supplement to pay the increased cost while maintaining, or only slightly lower, current costs? Remember for the gas heated home, the cost of shifting to electric is much more in the cost of replacing equipment to use the electricity than it is in the cost of the electricity itself.

The kind of seductive language , sort of implying we are conscious, is

This Fiscal Monitor compares such uses
of the revenues in terms of economic efficiency and
impact on income distribution.
A question would be, what is the going on in th mind of the writer? Lying, at one extreme, and, at the other extreme of motive,  comfortable using grad school logic because never taught what might be wrong with this market model applied to  the market model to appliance conversion. Those conversion costs by the way, are proportionally higher for large buildings. There is also the problem of time to manufacture all the new electricity based heating units.
Meeting temperature stabilization goals does not
mean that overall global energy investment must
increase much further, but it does imply an urgent need
to shift energy supply investment toward low-carbon
sources.
This perspective seems aimed at maintaining supply in some form without consdiering its use at the and. Why?
Yes. Why are we stuck in this logic applied to only half the problem?
Here is a more detailed part of the report
These opportunities include
reducing the emission intensity of power generation
(for example, switching from high-carbon-intensive
coal to intermediate-carbon-intensive natural gas or
coal with carbon capture and storage, and from these
fuels to carbon-free renewables or, with appropriate
safeguards, nuclear); curbing electricity demand (for
example, through adoption of energy-efficient appliances,
air conditioners, and machinery and less use
of products using electricity);
Energy efficient.. but no cost analysis
One source of the problem seems to be a failure of those with an economic perspective to recognize the realities of the texture or real lives . What is it like to live in a home that we want to keep heated? We will do all we can to keep using energy and to avoid the cost of conversion – actually most homes cannot afford this conversion.
Now what?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s