BWorld 173, Energy favoritism under TRAIN

* This is my column in BusinessWorld last December 19, 2017.

The recently approved tax reform for acceleration and inclusion (TRAIN) by the Congressional Bicameral Committee exhibits a number of favoritism for some energy products and players while penalizing others. In particular, among the three fossil fuels, only petroleum products and coal received tax hike while natural gas was not mentioned and hence, not taxed.

In the VAT base expansion, expensive, unstable and intermittent renewable energy (RE) like wind-solar is again exempted (see table).

Here are the possible implications:

1. Since petroleum products are a public good, many goods and services will experience price hikes. Not only fares for jeepneys, buses, taxi, boats, and airplanes but also for agricultural products because most farmers now no longer use carabaos in tilling their farms, they use tractors, big and small; more farmers now also do not use human labor for harvesting rice, they use harvest + threshing combiner machines. Fishermen hardly use manual paddle boats, they use motorboats. Traders no longer use animals in transporting cargo, they use trucks.

2. Since coal power contributes 48% of total electricity production nationwide (2016 data) despite having only 34% of total installed power capacity, electricity prices will further go up, slowly but surely. Most apologists of raising coal taxes cite the “minimal impact” on households consuming 200 kWh/month. This may be true but those households work in factories, malls and hotels, schools and universities, hospitals and residential condos, airports and seaports. These establishments consume hundreds or thousands of MWh per month, not kWh of electricity. The additional cost will be passed on to the consumers.

3. Natural gas is also fossil fuel but it was never slapped with excise taxes. The Malampaya gas royalty is a tax on exploitation of a natural resource, the same way that the price of our imported petroleum and coal already include royalties. There is favoritism in exempting natural gas from excise tax. And there are some connections between some legislators and a known economist who pushed for high coal tax but silent on natural gas tax, with a big energy company whose main product is natural gas power generation.

4. Exempting RE from VAT but retaining VAT for fossil fuels. These REs are enjoying favoritism three times. First, this exemption from a high 12% VAT. Second, they are given guaranteed high prices for 20 years via feed-in-tariff (FiT). Third, they are given priority or mandatory dispatch to the grid even if they are expensive. For instance, FiT for solar1 is P10+/kWh, FiT for wind1 is P9+/kWh, average coal price is P4/kWh, can go down to P1.50/kWh on off-demand hours like midnight.

Soon, REs will be given a fourth privilege via the renewable portfolio standards (RPS), or minimum percentage of REs that electric cooperatives (ECs) and private distribution utilities (DUs) must purchase and distribute to households. REs then can price their electricity output high because these ECs and DUs have no choice, they will be penalized if they will not buy those expensive and intermittent REs.

Meanwhile, the DoF is often quoted as saying that “two million richest Filipino families consume 50% of oil products in the country.” This is one of the reasons why they pushed for high tax hike for oil products.

I have been intrigued by that repeated statement since last year and I am wondering what papers or studies justify this?

There are about 25 million Filipino families now. The DoF refers to the richest 2 million families, so the other 23 million middle class and poorer class Filipinos consume the other 50% of oil products.

The DoF is saying then that anytime in EDSA, NLEx, SLEx, roads in Visayas and Mindanao, etc. on average, about 50% of the cars, buses and trucks there transport the two million rich families and their goods? And that about half of domestic flights and the inter-island boat rides transport the richest two million families? This is absurd.

I think the DoF displayed dishonesty and deception in making that claim to further justify the high oil tax hikes. If such DoF claim has indeed objective basis, I am willing to apologize for this remark. For now, that statement is not backed up by solid numbers and hence, deceptive and opportunist.

--------------

See also:
BWorld 166, US energy trading and implications for Asia and Philippines, November 26, 2017 

BWorld 170, The Habito carbon tax distortion, December 28, 2017 

BWorld 171, Global vs national tax reforms, December 29, 2017 

BWorld 172, Mining and natural disasters, December 30, 2017

BWorld 152, Cronyism in Renewable energy, gas sectors?

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last September 7, 2017.

Last week, the National Transmission Corp. (TransCo), the administrator of feed in tariff (FiT) — which guarantees high prices for 20 years for variable renewable energy (solar, wind, biomass, run of river hydro) filed a petition at the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC). It sought for an increase in FiT-Allowance to be paid by all electricity consumers nationwide.

FiT-All is one of roughly 12 different charges and taxes in our monthly electricity bill and the one with the fastest increases in recent years: four centavos/kWh in 2015, 12.40 centavos in 2016, 18 centavos this 2017, and 29.32 centavos next year. It is a clear example of renewables’ cronyism that penalizes electricity consumers and rewards renewable energy (RE) developers supposedly to help “save the planet.”

Also last week, I attended the Energy Policy Development Program (EPDP) lecture at UP School of Economics, entitled: “Natural gas: Addressing the energy trilemma and powering our energy needs.” The lecture was delivered by Mr. Giles Puno, President and COO of FirstGen, a big Lopez-owned power company. Mr. Puno covered many topics but I will only focus on the lecture’s three aspects.

One, the lecture mentioned that the cost of wind-solar keeps decreasing so efforts to decarbonize the economy is improving, away from coal power which cannot remain cheap in the long-term.

During the open forum, I said that this is not exactly correct because while it is true that the technology cost of wind-solar is declining, the FiT rates given to wind-solar keeps rising actually. FiT rates for wind batch 1 (2015 entrants) were P8.53/kWh in 2015, this went up to P8.90 in 2016, and P9.19 in 2017. Wind batch 2 (2016 entrants) were P7.40/kWh in 2016 and P7.71 in 2017.

Solar batch 1 (2015 entrants) FiT rates were P9.68/kWh in 2015, P9.91 in 2016, and P10.26 in 2017. Solar batch 2 (2016 entrants) FiT rates were P8.69/kWh in 2016 and P8.89 in 2017.

FiT revenues collected by all RE firms given FiT privilege were P10.22B in 2015, a figure that rose to P18.54B in 2016, and P24.44B in 2017.

Two, to address the energy trilemma (energy security, energy equity/affordability, environmental stability), the lecture questioned the 3,500 MW worth of coal supply in the Meralco power supply agreements (PSA). These PSAs were anathema to environmental stability and energy equity since power rate hikes will be expected since coal prices are expected to rise over the long-term. That government should instead prioritize natural gas development.

I mentioned in the open forum that I saw the World Energy Council (WEC) World Energy Trilemma Index 2016 and out of the 125 countries covered, the Philippines was #1 in environmental sustainability, thanks to our big geothermal and hydro, plus recently added variable REs. But Philippines was #92 in energy equity because of our expensive electricity, 3rd highest in Asia next to Japan and Hong Kong.

So it is wrong to demonize coal (nearly 35% of installed capacity but 48% of actual electricity production in 2016) that contributed to declining prices in generation charge in recent years. For instance, the load-weighted average price (LWAP) at the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM) was declining from about P5.40/kWh in 2012 to only P2.80 in 2016.

Consider also the fact that Philippines’ coal use is small compared to what our neighbors in the region consume. Vietnam consumes twice the amount of what we use, Taiwan three times, Indonesia five times, South Korea and Japan six times — for 2016 alone (see graph).

Power companies like FirstGen should focus on ensuring that electricity consumers have cheap and stable electricity available 24/7 without any brownouts, even for a minute. Instead of demonizing and suggesting the stopping of more coal power to come on stream.

Third, Mr. Puno and FirsGen want “government support crucial for LNG development and (1) Holistic and defined energy mix to direct planning and investments, (2) Incentivize LNG through fiscal and non-fiscal policies, (3) Secure LNG Off-take, similar to how Malampaya was underpinned.”

The first two items I consider as cronyist or seeking a crony status from the government. Setting the energy mix should be done by the consumers, not government. The previous Petilla/Monsada plan of 30-30-30-10 energy mix for coal-natural gas-renewable energy-oil respectively is wrong and has no sensible basis. It is good that new DoE Secretary Cusi has dumped it in favor of 70-30-10 energy mix for baseload-mid merit-peaking plants, respectively.

Government taxes should apply to all technology — coal, natgas, hydro, geothermal, etc. — no special privileges of tax breaks and other non-fiscal sweeteners. To ask for tax and non-tax privileges for LNG is asking for crony privileges.

We need less government regulations in setting the energy mix, less government favoritism for expensive wind-solar resulting in more expensive electricity. Government should focus on having energy laws and taxes that apply to all technology and players without any entity enjoying special privileges.

-----------------

See also:

BWorld 148, Energy Trilemma Index 2016, September 16, 2017 

BWorld 149, Free tuition and irresponsibility, September 17, 2017 

BWorld 150, Rising state-inspired murders and budget 2018, September 18, 2017 

BWorld 151, Mining taxes per hectare of land, September 22, 2017

BWorld 143, Coal power and economic development

* This is my article in BusinessWorld on July 12, 2017.

Cheaper and stable energy means cheaper production costs for the industrial, agricultural, and services sectors of the economy. Cheaper energy also results in increased convenience for consumers too as many activities now are impossible without stable electricity supply.

In the modern history of Asian economies’ rapid growth, the use of coal power is an important contributor for their economic expansion.

These numbers show three important things:

(1) Countries that have high and fast coal consumption are also those that experienced faster economic expansion (at least three times expansion of GDP size). Most especially China, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Philippines.

(2) Countries with declining coal use are also those with slow economic expansion (below three times expansion of GDP size). Most notable are the US, Russia, Germany, and UK.

(3) Philippines’ coal use is actually small compared to its neighbors; its 2016 use is just nearly 1/2 of Malaysia and Vietnam’s consumption, just 1/3 of Taiwan’s and almost 1/5 of Indonesia’s. South Korea, Japan, India, and China’s consumption are many times bigger than the Philippines’.

Recently, groups have suddenly scored seven coal power plants that entered into power supply agreements (PSA) with Meralco last year. These coal projects are (1) Atimonan One Energy (A1E) 1,200 MW, (2) Global Luzon (GLEDC) 600 MW, (3) Central Luzon Premiere (CLPPC) 528 MW, (4) Mariveles Power (MPGC) 528 MW, (5) St. Raphael Power (SRPGC) 400 MW, (6) Redondo Peninsula (RPE) 225 MW, and (7) Panay Energy (PEDC) 70 MW.

This covers a total of 3,550 MW of stable and affordable energy that can lead to cheaper and reliable electricity supply for more than 20 million people in Metro Manila, Bulacan, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, and parts of Batangas and Quezon provinces.

These groups -- Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED), Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ), Sanlakas, Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), Koalisyong Pabahay ng Pilipinas (KPP), Power for People (P4P) member organizations, others -- argue that coal plants are detrimental for the people’s health and livelihood as well as bad for the environment.

They are wrong.

What is bad for the people’s health and livelihood are more candles and noisy gensets running on diesel when there are frequent brownouts coming from intermittent, unreliable renewables like solar and wind. Candles are among the major causes of fires in houses and communities.

What is bad for people’s health and security are dark streets at night that contribute to more road accidents, more street robberies, abduction and rapes, murders and other crimes. Many LGUs reduce costs of street lighting when electricity prices are high (ever-rising feed-in-tariff or FiT for renewables, more expensive oil peaking plants are used during peak hours, etc.). Expensive and unstable electricity can kill people today, not 100 years from now.

Seeking to disenfranchise some 3,550 MW of stable and cheaper energy supply from seven coal plants is suspicious. There are no big hydro, geothermal, and biomass plants coming in. Wind and solar are limited by their intermittent nature, have low capacity factors, high capital expenditures, and often are located far away from the main grid. The only beneficiaries of disenfranchising big capacity coal plants then would be the owners of new natural gas plants.

Are natural gas cheaper than coal power? From the recent experience of Mindanao where many big coal plants were commissioned almost simultaneously, the answer seems to be No. The generation price in Mindanao has gone down to below P3/kWh, on certain days even below P2.50/kWh. Which means coal power has big leeway for lower price if competition becomes tighter. This cannot be said of natural gas plants here.

Consumer groups and NGOs should bat for cheaper, stable electricity. If they fight for something else like intermittent and expensive renewables, or more expensive gas plants, then they abdicate their role as representatives of consumer interests. Pathetic.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET, both are members of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

----------------

See also:
BWorld 128, The quest for more stable and cheaper electricity in the ASEAN, May 08, 2017 
BWorld 140, Mineral rent and taxation, June 23, 2017 
BWorld 141, Reducing system loss, Part 2, June 30, 2017 
BWorld 142, PPP vs ODA, Part 3, August 08, 2017

Energy 84, CCC's anti-coal, anti-fossil fuel lobbying

The Climate Change Commission (CCC) was created mainly to echo the UN FCCC agreements and lobbying. They may deny this of course but from its activities and advocacies, they point to this fact. Look at its target -- "Survive 1.5 C" -- referring to the UN target of targeted allowable global warming by 2100 compared to pre-industrial levels.

Some of more ridiculous documents by the UN FCCC project up to 7.5 C global warming by 2100. Wow. The modern warm period (from mid-1800s to 2000s) after the little ice age (LIA) produced a warming of only 1.0 F or 0.7 C in the planet. Plateau in overall global temperature, we are moving to a global cooling phase, actually.

Anyway, the CCC organized a “Forum on National Policy Review and Framework Development on Energy” last week November 22 at Sofitel Philippine Plaza, CCP Complex, Pasay City. A friend told me about this and CCC invited some energy players in the country.

The CCC launched the "National Policy Review (NPR) and Framework Development on Energy" last June 16, 2016. The November 22 Forum was part of a series of multi-stakeholder consultations to review the country’s energy policy and develop a policy framework on energy related to CCC Resolution No. 2016-001.

Get that, CCC plans to somehow duplicate if not overrule the DOE in setting the country's energy policy. The CCC is firm on anti-coal, anti-fossil fuel ideology while the DOE wants to increase the country's energy capacity from as many power sources as possible, coal + oil plants + nat gas included.

The next day, November 23, there was a big business conference also at Sofitel on how to "low carbon economy".

The CCC, along with the UN, Al Gore, WWF, etc. of course refer to CO2 in their "low carbon" scenario. The gas that we humans exhale, the gas that our pets and farm animals exhale, the gas that our crops, flowers and trees use to produce their own food via photosynthesis, has been declared as a pollutant gas, an "evil" gas by these groups and hence, must be controlled, restricted via more government regulations, prohibitions and taxation.

So reduce fossil fuel use in transportation, energy and industry. Really? The campaigners do not love their cars, frequent jet-setting to other countries that use fossil fuel 100%? They go to their offices and meetings on bicycles or skateboards or by walking, or hitching a ride with flying carpets or brooms? Enjoying the convenience of fossil fuel then lambasting it and still get lots of taxpayers money, cool.
-----------

Last October 21, Ateneo School of Government (ASoG) Reform Energy Project (REP) that also engages in implicit anti-coal campaign held a forum implicitly supporting natural gas.

REP's Project Director is Tony la Vina, who was also the former Dean of ASoG and a perennial PH climate negotiator for the past two decades, since Kyoto Protocol negotiations, I think.

Look at the other speakers aside from government (CCC, DOE, ERC), from Energy Development Corp. (EDC) and Shell, both pushing for more nat gas.

I support more nat gas plants in the country. I also support more coal plants, more diesel power as peak-load plants, more hydro, more geothermal. Even more variable or intermittent renewables like wind-solar.

What I do not and cannot support are subsidies like FIT or guaranteed price for 20 years for intermittent renewables, priority dispatch in the grid, RPS, other forms of favoritism and cronyism at the expense of energy consumers like you and me.

I also do not support the government setting the "right" mandatory energy mix. Like 30-30-30-10 for coal-nat gas-renewables-oil, respectively. The ones who should set the appropriate and dynamic energy mix should be the consumers, not the government or greeny lobbyists. 

Why? Because consumers would prefer cheaper, stable, available 24/7 (no blackout even for 1 minute) energy sources. If a firm goes bankrupt because of expensive monthly electricity bill, or its production is halted or damaged by on-off power supply and frequent blackouts, only they suffer the losses, not the government or the feel-good greeny lobbyists. 

If people really believe that there is grid price parity of renewables now, then there is little or zero need for (a) subsidies ala FIT, RPS, priority dispatch to the grid, and (b) state-mandated and coerced energy mix nationwide.

----------- 

See also:
Energy 81, Trump's climate and energy policies, November 12, 2016 
Energy 82, Jarius Bondoc on FIT for renewables, November 14, 2016 
Energy 83, The PEMC-NGCP Electricity Summit 2016, low ESSPs last October and high FIT-All next year, November 22, 2016

Energy 50, Cheap oil, natural gas and coal prices

Last Saturday, a $35 a barrel oil at West Texas Intermediate (WTI) was breached. Airlines and shipping lines' fares should go down, more tourism. More farm mechanization, more cows and carabaos will be spared of heavy farm work. 

t 

http://oil-price.net/

Some oil products other than WTI and Brent are actually cheaper than these. Like Western Canada, Iraq heavy, etc.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-14/never-mind-35-the-world-s-cheapest-oil-is-already-close-to-20

The anti-fossil fuel planet saviours

Many of the tens of thousands of planet saviours and climate hangers who went to the UNFCCC COP 21 meeting in Paris who hate fossil fuel may be shivering with this development. They want the world to cut petroleum use while they do their frequent jet-setting global meetings and junkets on airplanes that fly and cars that run on petroleum.

They will dislike that there will be more trucks, more buses, more cars, more planes, more ships that move more people and goods across cities, islands, countries and continents, as oil prices keep falling.

The animal rights activists should welcome this development too. Millions of cows, carabaos, horses, other big animals will be spared of heavy and punishing farm work as it is cheaper and faster to use more tractors and machines than those animals.

OPEC now a price taker, not price dictator

The old, tested greed by OPEC member-governments have been shattered by heavy competition from shale gas/oil drillers and producers in the US, Canada, etc. Before, whenever oil prices fall down, OPEC would quickly cut their output from 30 M barrels per day (bpd) to around 29 M bpd. Now they cannot and will not do that. They are forced to keep producing at 30-31 M bpd, accept low prices and lower revenues, just to keep their market share.

The rest of us, oil consumers around the world, benefit from this global competition among oil and gas producers. In the Philippines, the minor Peso/$ depreciation contributed to small price rollback. Besides, the $35 per barrel is for 1 or 2 months delivery, meaning by January or February 2016, not December 2015.

Peak Oil theory is discredited

Peak oil, along with peak food and Malthusian hypothesis, climate alarmism, discredited. The short- and medium-term scenario is that world oil prices will hover between $40-$60, still low compared to 2012-2013 levels of nearly $100. And lower than the past decade's prices.

We are in a period of cheaper energy, cheaper food, longer lifespan, healthier people. The problem of many economies now is more fat/obese people than thin and undernourished people. When people die at 50 or 60 yrs old, some would say, "he/she died young". In 1900, when a person dies at 40 or 50 yrs old, that's "long" already because life expectancy was only around 33 years.

So few decades from now, if a person dies at 70-80 yrs old, other people will say, "he/she died young." Why, because average life expectancy then will be at around 100, 110 yrs old.

Regulated fares and the LTFRB

But why despite oil and fuel prices going down, public vehicles in the Philippines do not automatically bring down their fares?  When fuel prices go up, PUV operators and drivers ask for a fare hike again.

The Land Transport Franchising Regulatory Board (LTFRB) of the DOTC is a jerk government agency. MARINA (regulator for shipping companies and operators) and CAB (regulator for airlines) allow fare deregulation. So airlines' fares can go up or down depending on the travel season. The LTFRB officials, past and present, are among the hard-core central planning bureaucrats. No fares can go up or down unless they give permits, unless they affix their signatures.

Not only world oil prices, natural gas prices are also falling, chart over the last 7 1/2 years. More energy at cheaper price, more prosperity.

http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/natural-gas/all/

And world coal prices too. Since the Paris climate agreement is non-binding, no penalties for countries that do not obey their promised emission cuts, then more developing countries like India, China, Indonesia, Philippines, Brazil, etc. will be using this energy source to further empower their economy. Rich countries too like Japan and the US. Prices chart over the last 14 years.

http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/coal/all/

Global capitalist competition will spring us more surprises, for the better. There are lots of shale gas/oil rigs that have been temporarily closed because of low prices. But there are lots more shale oil and gas deposits around. More global prosperity is the game.

Deflation

Yes, cheap energy prices can contribute to deflation or declining overall prices of commodities and services. But it will be a good type of deflation. More output per unit of input. In this case, more oil, more natural gas, per rig.

There is a distinction between good and bad deflation. The good is productivity-driven (cheap oil, cheaper mobile phones and flat tv, cheaper food and shoes, etc.). The bad deflation is due to poor economic outlook in the future (people seldom spend even if they have the money).

There is little role for governments in this type of deflation, and they should not intervene more, like imposing higher petroleum taxes. The WB and IMF have been lobbying for this tax hike for sometime now. They believe that petroleum being a "public bad" should be taxed more. Nehh? Those WB, IMF, UN, other multilaterals' officials and bureaucrats love to jet-set and travel a lot, on petroleum-powered planes and SUVs, meaning it is useful for them, then declare petroleum as a "public bad"?
------------

See also:

Energy 41, On low global oil prices, September 05, 2015

Energy 46, Dominance of coal power worldwide, October 31, 2015 

Energy 47, Low capacity factor of wind, solar and biomass plants, November 04, 2015 

Energy 48, US energy subsidies and global energy consumption, November 06, 2015 

Energy 49, Malaysia's and Singapore's bright nights and nat gas power, November 21, 2015

Energy 49, Malaysia's and Singapore's bright nights and nat gas power

I was in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, last Sunday-Tuesday, for the IPRI 2015 launching + other visits arranged by IDEAS and SEANET. It was my second visit in KL this year, I was there last April for another SEANET event.

My 5+pm return MAS flight to Manila (arrival should have been 9:20pm) on Tuesday was cancelled, should be due to additional APEC security measures in Manila. I needed to go back home, so IDEAS got a new ticket for me, KL-SG-Mla via SG Air. Left KL Tuesday at 9:45pm, left SG at 12:20am, Manila by 4:30am.

So, I was able to see KL and suburbs at night from the air as I took the window seat. Again, like what I saw in Thailand last month when I arrived Bangkok at midnight (see Thailand's bright nights and nat gas power), Malaysia has a wide, huge area of well-lighted roads, houses and buildings.

This photo I got from the web, not from my camera. It shows KL center and suburbs. The dark areas are the many urban forest in KL.

The bright and well-lighted areas go beyond KL and suburbs. Stretched to other urban centers further down, to Johor and other cities bordering with Singapore.

Below, Singapore at night; again, this photo I got from the web, not from my camera. It simply captures the well-lighted city-state, from the shorelines to other sides.

I am glad that like Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore do not believe in mandatory switch to unreliable, intermittent wind and solar power made "cheaper" only because of various subsidies. They rely on the old, dependable coal and  natural gas, for their electricity needs.

In 2012, these countries and economies were dependent on the following energy sources:

Thailand: 20% coal + 70.3% nat gas + 1.5% oil = 91.8% fossil fuel.
Malaysia: 41.5% coal + 46.6% nat gas + 4.5% oil = 92.6% fossil fuel.
Singapore: 84.3% nat gas + 13% oil = 95.3% fossil fuel.

Indonesia: 48.7% coal + 23.2% nat gas + 16.7% oil = 88.6% fossil fuel.
Vietnam: 17.9% coal + 35.8% nat gas + 2.7% oil = 56.4% fossil fuel.
Philippines: 38.8% coal + 26.9% nat gas + 5.8% oil = 71.5% fossil fuel.

Hong Kong: 70.3% coal + 27.3% nat gas + 2.1% oil = 99.7% fossil fuel.
S. Korea: 44.8% coal + 20.9% nat gas + 4.0% oil = 69.7% fossil fuel.
China: 75.8% coal + 1.8% nat gas and oil = 77.6% fossil fuel.

Source: ADB, Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2015, Table 6.1

So when people say they dislike or hate fossil fuels yet also dislike or hate frequent brownouts and expensive electricity, they proudly and openly exhibit their hypocrisy and double talk.

In one fb thread of a friend, he commented that during the APEC meetings, US President Obama posed climate change (CC) as a challenge that government and business leaders must take action.

I commented that the main reason why we have electricity in M.Manila for the APEC and similar events, the reason why many people can do fb and attack "man-made" CC, is because of those power plants that run on fossil fuels.  Frequent brownouts and candles are NOT nice to "save the planet." Watch more fires because of more candles. Watch more crimes and road accidents because of dark streets.

There are many people who advocate or support the "anti-fossil fuel movement." We can assume that they have no car or motorcycle, that they do not take a jeepney or taxi or bus, does not ride an airplane -- ALL of these run on fossil fuel.

The anti-fossil fuel movement is notorious for hypocrisy and double talk. The Paris meeting in less than two weeks will have thousands of petroleum-bashing planet saviours who reach Paris via fossil fuel-fed planes and cars.

CC is natural, it is nature-made, not man-made. It is cyclical, warming-cooling-warming-cooling, endless cycle, not "unprecedented". CC is true, it happened in the past even if humans did not even ride a bicycle or invented shoes. It is happening now, and it will happen in the future.

As I told my friend in the past, climate alarmis, ss("it is man-made, period!") will never be interested in dialogues or even debates. The big ones and leaders are interested only in climate money, something like $100B a year, or $500B a year, or $5 trillion a year, take your pick. The non-big ones are interested only in spreading alarmism.

The Pope, ahh, when he came to Manila, his plane was using water, or it was being towed by hundreds of witches on flying brooms or carpets.

-------------

See also:

Energy 45, Thailand's bright nights and nat gas power, October 19, 2015 

Energy 46, Dominance of coal power worldwide, October 31, 2015 

Energy 47, Low capacity factor of wind, solar and biomass plants, November 04, 2015 

Energy 48, US energy subsidies and global energy consumption, November 06, 2015

Energy 45, Thailand's bright nights and nat gas power

When I went to Bangkok last week, my plane landed at midnight. I saw the huge, wide, extensive well-lighted areas of Thailand, even hundreds of kms. away from Bangkok proper. Very very few dark areas. They must have cheap and stable power sources.

This photo I got from the web, that's in Bangkok already. Even outside Bangkok, there are just too many lights, they do not economize on energy as electricity prices I think are cheap and affordable.

When electricity prices are high, like in the PH, aside from bad economic repercussions, there are two major social problems when many streets and roads are dark: More crimes and more road accidents. Criminals love darkness, they can see their victims well while potential victims can hardly recognize the criminals. There are many road accidents too.

Thailand heavily relies on natural gas, 68% of their total energy needs as of 2011. Other ASEAN countries that are heavily dependent on natural gas, a fossil fuel (WWF, Greenpeace, Al Gore, the UN, CCC, etc. hate fossil fuels) are: Singapore 78%, Malaysia 45%, Vietnam 44%. PH only 30% dependent on nat gas.

Source: ADB, Key Indicators of Asia and the Pacific 2014.

Is this "because of the oligarchs"? Well, almost all countries have their own oligarchs, some even have monarchies on top of the business oligarchs. So, the answer is No. The volume of power generation capacity matters a lot. See the above table, in 2011, TH electricity output was 156 B kWh, vs PH's 69 B kWh, or more than 2x ours.

They are also less affected by the climate alarmism of the WWF, Greenpeace, UN, Al Gore, etc. as they rely more on fossil fuel energy like natural gas. 

Darkness means more poverty and less business activities. 

Darkness means more candles and more fires. 

Darkness means more noisy and expensive generator sets running on fossil fuel diesel. 

Darkness means more crimes and more road accidents at night. 

The planet saviours and their hypocrisy think these are not crimes to humanity.

Geothermal is still there, contributes about 10% or so in total PH power supply.

Below are some reports how climate alarmism wants to kill any new fossil fuel power plant, they would rather have intermittent and unstable power, more expensive electricity, than have coal plant.

A friend commented that "bright nights are not always signs of better development and progress."

True, and if people want early darkness, no problem. They just turn off all lights in their house or office by 7pm and sleep early. Now some buildings, offices and houses need to have lights until 12 midnight, or 24 hours -- why should other people be penalized with frequent darkness, or expensive electricity?

Government should get out picking winners and losers via favoritism and energy cronyism.

---------

See also:

BWorld 15, The PH electricity market, August 15, 2015  

BWorld 17, More on the Philippine electricity market, August 30, 2015

Energy 41, On low global oil prices, September 05, 2015

Energy 42, DENR's anti-coal alarmism and PH power demand realities, September 21, 2015 

Energy 43, My paper on climate change and cheaper electricity at EPDP Conf. 2016, October 07, 2015 

Energy 44, Position paper on DOE circular re mandatory CSP by DUs of their PSAs, October 13, 2015