Global warming has been a
major topic of discussion in recent decades, and it has entered the political
debate in a big way, both at the national and international levels. The 2017 decision by the US to withdraw from
the Paris Agreement on Climate Change[1] was
perhaps the most visible development.
But France has experienced
vigorous debates on climate change: in 2011, candidate Hollande promised that,
if elected, his government would reduce the share of nuclear in
electricity generation from 75% to 50%, and his successor, Emmanuel Macron, is
wrestling with the same goal. It is
worth noting that, given its massive nuclear footprint, France already has perhaps
the cleanest electricity generation sector, both in terms of CO2 and other
emissions.
As part of the public debate
on French energy strategy, the ACSPV, a non-profit organization for the
promotion of scientific culture, uniting communes from the Alpine region and members
from the prestigious CNRS[2]
made a very interesting presentation which I summarize below.
It recalls that France started
to articulate a program for CO2 emission control in 2003, mainly by providing
energy price subsidies in favor of renewables[3]
and securing a share of electricity demand for them. From 2003 to 2017, these subsidies totaled €28
billion, €5.2 billion for 2017 alone (+10% over 2016). Given that these agreements have a 15 to 20
year maturity, such a policy is very costly.
Presently, wind and solar, in the aggregate, cost €143 more per MWh than
the average.
ACPSV contrasts the French cost
of switching to renewables with the cost of CO2 emission. The latter is as low as €11/ton in the
European market and as high as €100/ton in Sweden which set a CO2 tax in that amount. Yet according to the RTE (government operated
electricity grid) the cost of decreasing CO2 emission in France in recent years
has been €250/ton! Furthermore, as
fossil-fueled power plants disappear, the CO2 gain from switching to wind and
solar diminishes, disappearing totally in 5 year time at the current pace.
ACPSV further criticizes the
inefficiency of the “switch to renewable” policy by pointing that, with the
same €28 billion spent on subsidies over the 2003-2017 period, France could
have subsidized the purchase of 4.5
million electric cars (€6,000 per car) reducing CO2 emission at a lower cost of
€190/ton[4]. Or the money could have gone to upgrade the
thermal insulation of 3 million homes; this could have saved 1 MWh from fossil energy
origin per home, lowering CO2 emissions by 7.5 million tons/year at a cost of
only $100/t[5].
While such alternative
policies would be more beneficial than mere subsidies and forced renewable
energy purchases, the long term nature of contracts makes it very difficult to
change tack: current commitments in favor of wind farms extend until 2036 and
total €100 billion.
The criticism of current
policies by ACSPV extends to the industrial and economic spheres: The government effort didn’t result in the
creation of viable French manufacturers of wind turbines or photovoltaic panels
as these are imported[6].
As for the sharing of the
subsidies which are financed by a tax on all electricity consumers[7],
ACSPV notes that it is socially and economically unfair: only the better offs
can afford the initial investment needed for solar panels (and they are later reimbursed
via the CSPE, but that CSPE is paid by all customers); with regard to wind, ACSPV regrets that the
sector is dominated by the industry union (SER) which carries a lot of weight
and influence, yet spends very little on research and development, happy
instead to live off guaranteed revenues.
In conclusion, ACSPV
recommends to acknowledge the failure of current policies and to abandon
subsidies and their unintended adverse consequences. Instead, it recommends redirecting efforts
towards the transportation sector and better home thermal insulation.
France is a special case, in
that it already has a very clean electric energy sector, yet the French Green movement
has been determined to push for a massive shift towards renewables which, in my
opinion and that of ACSPV, makes little sense.
Unfortunately, their votes were needed in the previous socialist
government and their advocacy for clean energy as appealing as it sounds, is
ineffective and potentially ruinous[8].
Clearly the situation in the
US is different, but the basic policy issues are similar. Unfortunately, the public debate is reduced
to a simplistic litmus test:”Do you
believe in global warming? If you do,
then money is no object as far as remedies are concerned and wind and solar are
the only way out.”
Hopefully, this French debate
may spread beyond its national borders.
[1] Such withdrawal would take effect in 2020.
[2] Center for National Scientific Research.
[3] In this article, renewable will refer to wind
and solar.
[4] Assuming non-electric engine emissions of 150
g/km of CO2 and total car life of 200,000 km (124,000 miles).
[5] Assuming a 20 year depreciation period.
[6] Leading French manufacturers having either
being rescued by EDF, the dominant electric utility, or a financial buyer.
[7] CSPE.
[8] Shifting from 75% to 50% nuclear and having renewables making up the difference means
quadrupling the contribution of renewable, doubling the average French utility
bill. The CSPE would rise to €15 to €20
billion per year, and long term commitments would rise to €400 billion, all that for ever diminishing
gains as fossil fuelled power plants would soon no longer exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment