The highest prices for carbon credits in a decade have also lifted natural gas, discouraging power stations from making the switch away from coal. As a result, demand remains strong for the dirtiest fossil fuel in the continent that’s doing the most to clean up its economy. Coal prices as a result reached their highest in five years on Tuesday.
You might think the ETS impost on coal’s CO2 emissions, about twice those from natural gas, would give gas an edge, but you’d be wrong—rising prices for carbon credits have pushed up the gas prices too. The graph at right shows an eye-watering surge in the carbon price of about 400% over the last 11 months (although I guess 400% of nothing is still pretty small; so it could get worse). This financial punishment for the poor is a clear consequence of market interference by the climate justice do-gooders—nobody else has done this. The sooner they lose office the better, in the EU and everywhere.
The ETS mechanism raising the price of energy has collided with the tremendous demand for coal in China and India for the cheapest power available. They have been drawing in cargoes that were heading for power plants in Europe. That pushed up coal prices, which meant gas-fired generators and other users in China and Europe competed more strongly in a poorly-supplied gas market, pushing up gas prices as well. Coal prices have lifted because of the carbon surge but there hasn’t been enough spare gas to let generators get out of coal.
The only reason for the ETS is to stop CO2 emissions. Calling coal the “dirtiest” fossil fuel conflates its real pollution (though not when burned in clean, modern plants) with clean, non-polluting CO2—it is propaganda.- Power prices in most of the EU have continuously increased this century (check out the graph at right; the source is an interesting, interactive website with lots of options).
- The UN-driven, virtue-signalling ETS will cause the poor and the elderly to suffer this winter, just as they did last year.
Will prices keep rising as the Northern Hemisphere heads into another cold winter? Will it be as ferocious as it was last year (beware the staggering length of this list of cold records from around the world in 2017!)? Can the near-miraculous US fracking industry respond with increased stocks and ease prices? Can it react in time to avoid more deaths from freezing? Will the winter squeeze tighten the Gazprom hand on Europe’s throat?
Views: 460
Over 80% of the world’s electricity is derived from coal and gas. Each of those fuels plays a key role in containing the price level of the other. Gas commands a small price premium over coal but that premium is well-known and very inelastic. Thus, a 10% rise in the price of coal means a (approximate) 10% rise in the equilibrium price of gas and a 10% rise in the ex-generator price of electricity.
Back in the 1990s, oil and gas companies like Shell & BP were quick to see the opportunities offered by any government policy that artificially raises fuel prices based on carbon content. Coal would be hit twice as hard as gas. If a tax or ETS raised the price of coal by 10%, the value of their gas reserves would immediately jump by 10%. Although the same policy also took away 5% of their gas revenue, they could simply pass that on to their customers (with a margin), while pocketing the other 5%.
The electricity generators/retailers didn’t complain because most are profit-regulated based on costs, and a higher costs base means higher net returns.
Both green activists and gas producers tell politicians that a carbon tax will cause fuel-switching from dirty coal to cleaner gas. Politicians pretend to believe this because they get new revenue, while posing as being virtuous.
The average voter sees through it all, but can do little because all the political parties in most democracies have formed a cartel to exclude “deniers”. Then, eventually, we get to what happened in USA and Australia.
@Barry,
Honestly, you come up with the most diabolical ideas! Presumably, what you say is inspired by observation. Do you have sources we might examine?
I thought I was just pulling together a few well-known facts. Which of my above points do you see as being controversial or counter-intuitive? I’ll be happy to expand.
Heh, heh. No, it’s nothing like that. Your explanation is indeed a compendium of well-known facts, but which I did not really know. I didn’t have your grasp of the big picture, so I tried to be cute, just because I liked its simple clarity and as a kind of self-mockery. I asked for references but with no great expectations. Sorry for the lack of sense; thanks for the masterful overview.