212 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, October 11, 2019”

    1. Interesting video Ron, thanks. I’d never heard of that guy before. Sounds like he off’d himself after being exposed as an malicious alt-right type in pics and vids. I don’t imagine it was a good career move.

      1. “It is not particularly difficult to set out what an efficient energy system might look like which meets the twin objectives of the climate change targets and security of supply. There would, however, remain a binding constraint: the willingness and ability to pay for it. There have to be sufficient resources available, and there has in a democracy to be a majority who are both willing to pay and willing to force the population as a whole to pay. This constraint featured prominently in the last three general elections, and it has not gone away.”

        And there it is. Renewable electricity is cheap. A stable, renewable grid is EXPENSIVE. The people who are actually out trying to build these systems know this, and talk about it as one speaks of a matter of fact. The only two kinds of people under the delusion that renewables are cost competitive with fossil fuels are

        a. Renewable cheerleaders who have never actually run the numbers or done the work trying to figure this stuff out

        and

        b. Those who are including the perceived societal cost of global warming in the “cost” of fossil fuels.

        The first mindset is easily solved: sit down and do some critical math. You quickly discover just how hard it is to run the grid on renewables. The second mindset I don’t wholly disagree with: there is a large current and future cost to carbon emissions. But people do not see that on their electricity bill, or in the light by which they read, and so they will happily ignore that cost, and become angry if renewable penetration on the grid hurts their wallet, or causes blackouts.

        1. Errrr, the latest numbers for new installations of renewables INCLUDING storage are coming in under the price of coal generation.

          NAOM

          1. Absolute BS. Give me a link to where I can read the costs and capacities, and I will prove you wrong.

          2. Errrr, the latest numbers for new installations of renewables INCLUDING storage are coming in under the price of coal generation.

            I don’t believe it. Including storage? What kind of storage?

            Notanoilman, when you post such bullshit, and it is bullshit, you should post a link to prove your bullshit.

            1. >> Under Xcel’s Colorado Clean Energy Plan (CEP), the Comanche coal units will be replaced with a $2.5 billion investment in renewables and battery storage — including of 1,131 megawatts of wind, 707 megawatts of solar PV, and 275 megawatts of battery storage across the state, including in Pueblo. Xcel estimates the transition will save ratepayers between $213 million and $374 million. <<

              https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/xcel-retire-coal-renewable-energy-storage#gs.ayv8mr

            2. Thanks, John. I read the entire article. It’s all in the planning stage. Nothing has happened yet. Plans to power the grid with batteries, when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine are just that, plans.

              I will believe it when it happens. I don’t think it will happen. But if it does I will be the first to admit I was wrong. But don’t hold your breath.

            3. Wow this was a lot easier than I expected. I at least expected some digging to find the hidden reality. This reality is in plain sight!

              First of all, watts are not a measurement of storage, so the term “275 megawatts of storage” is completely nonsensical. Hilariously, the link to the Colorado plan is actually a link to the author’s local file system. Since MW are used repeatedly to reference storage, I’m going to just guess they mean megawatt-hours. They are also only planning to attach storage to the solar component. If someone can find me the actual MWh figure, and it’s different, I’ll gladly repeat the calculation.

              So, 275 megawatt-hours of storage and 707 megawatts of generation capacity. Doing the division, we find that if they produce at full capacity, they are a planning to store 23 minutes worth of power, from less than half their planned capacity.

              23 minutes folks. You would need to scale their planned storage up by at least a factor of 31, assuming perfect generation during all daylight hours, requiring only 12 hours of storage ever. For both solar and wind the factor would be 80 TIMES.

              So, 275*31 = 8525 megawatt-hours on the extremely optimistic side.

              For reference, the worlds biggest lithium ion battery, built by Tesla, stored 129MWh at a cost of 50 million. Now, there are cheaper technologies than Li-I. However, they aren’t THAT much cheaper. How much does your “cheap” system cost now?

            4. Thanks, Niko. You said it much better than I was able to do. Of course, a watt is a unit of power delivery. A watt is defined as a derived unit of 1 joule per second. Of course, you cannot store watts, you can only store kilowatt-hours or megawatt-hours.

              That makes John’s link totally nonsensual. But as I said, they have big plans but I doubt they will deliver a damn thing. Especially after all the cost overruns and investor lawsuits are figured in.

            5. I looked around a bit, and couldn’t find the planned battery sizes, but 4 hours of storage is close to an industry standard.

              So, a solar project of 500MW and 250MW of storage typically means 1,o00MW-hour of storage.

              Why four hours? Because the storage is meant to cover the evening peak in consumption.

              Why not do 12 hours or more, to cover the night and morning? Because 1) it’s not needed, so it would be a waste of money, and 2) nobody’s planning to power the grid with only solar power – that would make no sense. The grid needs a healthy mix of generation, including some that naturally operate at night, like wind, geothermal and possibly nuclear.

            6. Niko’s comment is just handwaving nonsense. The Xcel project described meets the utilities needs at lower cost than current practice. The details are available. It is not designed to meet the entire needs of the utility.

              Wind, solar and batteries will continue to decline in cost. Eventually they may well be able to power on their own. They will all increasingly be powering the grid regardless. We know this because combinations of them are already below the running costs of the stuff we are currently using.

              They do not not have to power the grid on their own however. Here is one version of what future grids might look like: https://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/aemo-nsw-2040.jpg

              The key feature? There are many technologies involved. It isn’t just wind, solar, and battery storage with gas peakers as the only backup. Doing “stupid math” with essentially binary choices is just an exercise of nonsense.

            7. Australia says it saved 40 million the first year of using that 50 million dollar battery. Looks like a pretty quick payout.

          3. “Australia’s leading scientific research group and the country’s energy market operator have released a benchmark study that shows the cost of new wind and solar – even with hours of storage – is “unequivocally” lower than the cost of new coal generation.”

            https://reneweconomy.com.au/csiro-aemo-study-says-wind-solar-and-storage-clearly-cheaper-than-coal-45724

            Granted that this is about planning, not an evaluation of existing plants. However, it is significant since CSRIO is Australia’s national science research agency.

            They note: “The study follows similar conclusions from the likes of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, and the observations of big utilities such as AGL, Origin, and the government’s own Snowy Hydro. But it has added significance because of the importance and reputation of the two institutions involved.”

        2. Niko,
          yes all renewable is challenging currently.
          But a combo of solar, wind, nat gas is certainly viable
          for the intermediate term.
          Longer term- downsize, downsize, downsize.

          1. But a combo of solar, wind, nat gas is certainly viable

            This is true, but the benefit here is that it conserves fossil fuels, not that it is as cheap as the current system. Something that will not persuade voters to deal with increased costs.

            Since you can experience significant timespans of very little production from wind and solar combined, you end up having to maintain nearly 100% of your renewable generating capacity as natural gas generating capacity. In effect you have to pay for a “double grid”. So yes, this can save a LOT of natural gas over time, but it’s going to cost a LOT more. It’s far cheaper than batteries still, but it’s a lot more expensive (for now) than just going with 100% nat gas.

            The other problem with this kind of system is that it won’t exist unless it is state-run. There is no market incentive for companies to maintain nat gas plants that they will optimistically be able to run 50% of the time.

            1. Niko,

              There are lots of places where with a good solar resource or wind resource the cost of wind and solar without storage is cheaper than coal power. PPAs for best locations are 3 to 4 cents per kWhour.

              The natural gas generating capacity exists already, as wind and solar ramp up the higher costs plants will be shut down. At some point natural gas output peaks, natural gas becomes expensive and batteries, fuel cells or hydrogen produced during periods of high wind and solar output could be used to replace natural gas.

            2. Hi Niko,
              “The other problem with this kind of system is that it won’t exist unless it is state-run. There is no market incentive for companies to maintain nat gas plants that they will optimistically be able to run 50% of the time.”
              Thats not how it works, atleast in the USA. If you have electricity for sale at a time of day when there is demand exceeding supply, you get paid a big premium for that electricity, whether it is from wind, coal, nuclear, battery or gas. We have companies operating ‘peaker’ nat gas plants at a profit even when they run infrequently here in california. whether or not it makes economic sense to build new peaker plants is a more complex issue. This all changes when nat gas gets more expensive. It was much more expensive (3-4x’s) here in the states before fracking.

            3. Right now, peakers supply a small amount of much needed power, and it is expensive power precisely because the plants have to recoup costs even though they run less frequently.

              The situation when an entire grids worth of plants are backup capacity will not be as tenable.

            4. Niko, have you read much about utility/grid operations. It sounds like you are just guessing what would seem logical to you.
              The big utilities are making real world economic decisions, and if you look at all the projects deployed and decommissioned over the past decade,
              you will see what is viable and what makes economic sense.
              These companies aren’t frivolous with their decisions.
              You can learn a lot by studying these kind of sites to see what is happening-

              https://gridwatch.co.uk/

              http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx

            5. These operations make sense in the context of continued fossil fuel backup. My point is that they do not work on their own.

              Renewables are fossil fuel extenders and I agree that they can perform that job well. But they are not a fossil replacement.

            7. Niko- “Renewables are fossil fuel extenders and I agree that they can perform that job well. But they are not a fossil replacement.”

              Well, perhaps they are far from ideal as replacements, but I don’t see too many choices stacked up.

            8. Another form of energy storage that is gaining traction/interest is independent of fancy chemistry.
              Pumped hydro.
              I saw an example of plant in Europe. The manager said that for every three units of energy output, it took for 4 units of energy to pump the water up. Yet they were profitable because they filled it up when the power price was at the lowest point in the day (late night), and generated electricity during peak demand times (same pricing scenario applies to any form of storage). This is much cheaper than building more fuel based generating capacity.

              Good example of project under development-
              https://gordonbuttepumpedstorage.com/

              https://www.ge.com/reports/how-the-swiss-turned-an-alpine-peak-into-a-battery-the-size-of-a-nuclear-plant/

              Largest in the world-
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station

              The biggest projects-
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations

            9. Interestingly, the wild swings in output of renewables will probably hasten the demise of the fossil fuel industry. For example, wind is pushing prices into the negative in the Middle West:

              https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-18/power-is-trading-below-zero-in-middle-america-amid-strong-winds

              What comes next is an open question. But the status quo is threatened by most the supposed weakness of renewables — the lack of storage.

              And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

              In a free market economy, short term considerations rule. We have pretended for decades that long term, total system issues were more important. But that is because fossil fuel electric generation towards natural monopolies, and the total system stories fit the marketing story of the monopolists.

              The same thing happened to telephones. Telephone monopolies used to go on about the sacred dial tone, and how important it was to always have it. Now I use mobile devices and VoIP, and the service is terrible — in fact getting a connection is part of the ritual of business meetings these days. But nobody misses the telephone monopoly.

    1. Bullshit! We went into the Middle East because Saddam Hussain invaded Kuwait and took it over. Then we went into Afghanistan because they directly attacked the USA. Trump says going into the Middle East was the worst decision we ever made. So we should have just let both these events slide without any consequences whatsoever.

      No, no, no, Trump is dead wrong here.

        1. Oh good God Nick, are you serious? Do you actually think Saddam should just invade and take over any country he chooses to with the massive army he had in those days? No match for the US Army for sure, but far greater than Saudi Arabia’s army. So from Kuwait he could just march into Saudi Arabia. Then to Qatar, then to the UAE, then to Oman, then to????

          I need your opinion here Nick.

          1. No, I was leading up to the point I made in a comment just below: we invaded because we were defending KSA from Iraq. In turn, we were defending KSA because we didn’t trust Saddam to have his hand on the world’s oil supply.

            So…Gulf wars I and II were all about oil. Which means that the roughly $6 trillion the US spent on ME wars were about oil. That makes ME oil mighty expensive.

            If we priced the military cost of protecting ME oil into the price we pay at the pump, we’d shift to EVs a lot faster…

            1. Hey, I agree. How about that we agree on something.

              But I must point out, it was not about oil for us. It was all about keeping the oil market stable, not allowing a rogue country to disrupt the world economy.

              Can we agree on that?

            2. Yes, I agree: the US was protecting the world’s oil supply. Interestingly, the rest of the world paid the US for it – in the first quarter after the end of GW I, the US had a balance of payments surplus because of those payments (for the first time in decades!). So, this was partly a cost for the world, as well as for the US.

              I’d quibble about calling Iraq a rogue country. The dispute between Iraq and Kuwait (about directional drilling under Iraq by Kuwait) was real; the boundaries between Iraq and Kuwait were arbitrary colonial inventions; Iraq was a trusted ally during the Iraq-Iran war; and Saddam asked the US permission before invading. The fact that the US gave Iraq a green light can likely be explained by pure incompetence on the part of the US, but still…Saddam actually checked with the US ambassador before starting his invasion.

              I’d agree that the US was concerned that Saddam would slip the reins later on, and pursue his vision of a Greater Arabia.

            3. The fact that the US gave Iraq a green light can likely be explained by pure incompetence on the part of the US, but still…Saddam actually checked with the US ambassador before starting his invasion.

              Yes, I can agree with that as well. Saddam checked with our very stupid politically appointed ambassador to Iraq before invading. She had no idea what the fuck he was talking about. She just thought it was wise to agree with everything he said. And because of her stupidity, thousands of innocent soldiers died.

              Saddam thought she knew what she was talking about. He had no idea how ambassadors are appointed. He probably thought they were chosen because of their knowledge and competence, not because of their loyalty and contributions to the party of the President.

              Ambassadorship is a serious business. It should be removed from partisan political bullshit. I hope that happens but I am not holding my breath.

        2. Nick

          We need to separate the two gulf wars.

          In the First Iraq invaded a sovereign country and killed many people, it probably would have invaded Saudi Arabia if we did nothing about Kuwait.

          The war was just and is reflected by how many nations took part. The Iraq army was smashed, over 3,000 tanks, 2000 APCs destroyed, the air force disintegrated.

          After the war there were no fly zones and regular checks on facilities headed by Blix. They searched many sites pinpointed by intelligence and never found and chemical or nuclear weapons.

          The invasion was an illegal act of war by the United States based on a lie. Parliament at Westminster was lied to in worst way.

          and 200 thousand Iraqi civilians died.

          any moral high ground that the United States government had was lost there. This is the kind of thing we expect of Russia.

          1. Hugo,

            There have been a lot of invasions of sovereign nations in the last 100 years, many of them by the US. I can’t think of any others that got a response that was anything like Gulf War I.

            If there were no oil in the ME, would GWI have happened? I think the answer is very clear: it’s no.

        3. Bush I’s war was about keeping the world safe for feudalism. The Kuwaitis had good relations with foreign oil companies. Iraq, not so much.

          The idea that protecting Kuwait somehow protected world oil exports is based on the weird assumption that Saddam would have stopped exporting Kuwaiti oil after the annexation. There is no evidence that that is true. In fact, the obvious reason to conquer the country is to get the oil, which only valuable as an export.

          1. Well, there was the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, which was a weapon of war. And, WWII showed the importance of oil in war.

            What’s bizarre is the primary reliance of the US on the military as a long-term solution. Carter, to his credit, put in place long-term investments in energy R&D and infrastructure, but Republican administrations ever since have done everything they could to block the US from developing alternatives to fossil fuels.

            Sadly, oil companies have learned that buying politicians has a very, very high Return on Investment.

            1. There was no embargo in 1973. Well, not anything that lasted more than a few weeks. What happened was that Texas oil peaked and people panicked. The Saudis then increased production and everyone was happy again.

            2. “There was no embargo in 1973.”
              Sorry to disagree, but there sure as hell was a saudi oil embargo.
              Lets not try to erase an inconvenient history.
              If they kept it up longer, they would have lost their country (it would have been taken from them).

            3. I remember those days—-
              I was a rep in LA and drove sometimes a 100 miles a day.

            4. In fact Saudi exports in 1973 were about four times as high as they had been in 1965. It was an unprecedented boom year for Saudi oil exports. Look at their export charts, there was barely a blip during the few months of the so called embargo.

              And the Saudis more than covered for the collapse in Texas production. By 1980 the were up to five time their production in 1965.

            5. That comment is completely unsupported by the facts and by the experiences of those of us who lived and witnessed the reality over many months. (I was working in an ESSO gas station evening and weekends while in college. I recall the lines, the anger and confusion, and the tanks running dry.)

              Try Googling “embargo in 1973.” Of the many hits Wikipedia reports:

              “The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries proclaimed an oil embargo. The embargo was targeted at nations perceived as supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The initial nations targeted were Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States with the embargo also later extended to Portugal, Rhodesia and South Africa. By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen nearly 400%, from US$3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally; US prices were significantly higher. The embargo caused an oil crisis, or “shock”, with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and the global economy. It was later called the “first oil shock”, followed by the 1979 oil crisis, termed the “second oil shock”. ”

              ———-
              As an aside. At the time my dad worked for American Bank Note Company (he designed high-speed printing presses). The US government was declaring it had no intention of rationing gasoline beyond the odd/even license plate refueling they had in place. But American Bank Note was printing ration booklets at its NYC facilities. Security was tight, of course, but my dad did handle rationing booklets (i.e., they had to check “registration” of the color plates, and adjust folding, cutting, and stapling machines). He saw rooms filled with the stacked and wrapped booklets. They were never used.

            6. Ration books were issued in the UK but I don’t recall if they were used.

              NAOM

            8. Incidentally this observation about the non-embargo comes from “Twilight in the Desert”, an interesting look at Saudi oil production past and future. Highly recommended.

    2. The world is currently dependent on Middle East oil. If ME oil were interrupted, it would create enormous problems, at least in the short run.

      The US could easily reduce it’s oil consumption, just by increasing CAFE efficiency standards. This would reduce the dependency of both the world and the US on the ME, thus reducing any pressure for military intervention.

      But…Trump is trying to reduce CAFE standards dramatically.

      This makes no sense.

      1. “This makes no sense”

        Poor Nick, the world must be such a mystery.

            1. Well, we can take shots at each other.

              Or…we can actually talk about what we think is realistic or unrealistic. We can talk about the basic ideas and premises. We can do the math. We can look at details and evidence that supports the ideas.

              We might learn something from each other…

            2. You seem stuck on transmit Nick. I don’t detect you absorbing much info that doesn’t support your cornucopian view of the future.
              Like most, you’ll likely figure it out after you’ve missed a few meals. You’re attempts to refute Dr. Chris M’s energy replacement thesis, the one from a few days ago, were, to put it mildly, not very good. My conclusion is that you’re a shill and have no interest in good faith arguments and exchange of ideas.

            3. absorbing much info

              If I read something new, or if I agree, I don’t say anything.
              I try to make arguments where I have something to add. I try to stick to things I know pretty well, which makes mistakes less common.

              attempts to refute Dr. Chris M’s energy replacement thesis

              How, specifically? You made a couple of comments, but nothing specific. Why do you think Martenson’s arguments were valid? What didn’t make sense about my arguments, specifically?

              Martenson argues that it will cost too much to build a renewable energy system. My argument: at their current costs and prices, the current fossil energy systems are affordable. Renewable power is cheaper than fossils, so they’ll be affordable as well. It’s pretty straightforward.

              One other note: I noticed later that Martenson made a basic mistake: renewables produce electricity, which is about 3x as useful as primary energy, which is what BP’s report is about (read the footnotes, where they explain the 38% conversion factor they use, so a kWh of solar electricity is worth about 2.6 kWhs of primary energy from coal, say).

              The average US vehicles uses about 1.5kWh of oil energy, while an EV uses about .25kWh. That’s a 6:1 ratio.

              So, Martenson’s discussion is off by a factor of around 3 or more.

            4. Does anybody here besides you, Nick, think Chris M doesn’t have a valid argument? Anybody? Please speak up.

              Validity and Soundness
              https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

              I’ve read your comments with interest for quite some time Nick. I’ve followed the whole Tesla gang and read everything it’s had to say. Fred once called me a Russian Fossil Fuel Troll for casting doubt upon the random verbal dispersions of Elon Musk. Honestly Nick, I’m rather certain, nobody wants 6 more yards of gish gallop from you on the wonderful magical future that awaits.

            5. Well, I’ve never argued that we have a magical future. We have all sorts of problems that are unrelated to fossil fuels.

              I just hate it when people like Martenson repeat fossil fuel industry talking points, and argue that fossil fuels are necessary to our survival and well…drill, baby drill!

              We don’t need fossil fuels. We should kick the FF habit ASAP.

            6. Synopsis:

              Dr. Chris Martenson: “…we’d have to build and commission 3 new nuclear plants every 2 days. Or 1,500 very large wind towers installed across 300 square miles every day….”

              Nick: (I’m paraphrasing) ‘That’s an invalid argument, he’s off by a factor of 3; it’s actually closer 2 nuclear power plants every week and a half, or 500 very large wind turbines across 100 square miles, every day for the next 30 years, so cut it out with pushing the fossil fuel talking points, good shits going exponential any second now.’

              Survivalist: the whole matter is becoming increasingly moot.

              PS- Thanks for bringing the vision of hope to our eyes Nick. You really owned him there.

            7. Those figures did not originate with Chris Martenson. They were those of Professor Roger Pielke of Colorado University.

              Net-Zero Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 Requires A New Nuclear Power Plant Every Day

              So the math here is simple: to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the world would need to deploy 3 Turkey Point nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy every two days, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. At the same time, a Turkey Point nuclear plant worth of fossil fuels would need to be decommissioned every day, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.

              I cannot find a problem with Pielke’s math.

            8. Yes, quite right Ron. I had copied and pasted that statement of figures from the audio show notes and attributed it to Chris, but Chris had referenced the figures from Roger P.
              My mistake for not clarifying. Apologies to all concerned.

            9. Ron,

              You did well to check Roger Pielke’s math. He blotted his copybook years ago as a denier of climate change and he was very deceptive in selecting data. They loved him at WattsUpWithThat.

            10. Nick’s argument is: “at their current costs and prices, the current fossil energy systems are affordable. Renewable power is cheaper than fossils, so they’ll be affordable as well.”

              Is this wrong?

              Our overall predicament appears to be hopeless, but in my view it isn’t because it’s impossible to replace fossil fuels for basic passenger transportation.

              The required solar PV area to provide average daily passenger vehicle miles to an EV is about the size of a carport to cover the car, and costs less than $10k (more like $5k), and the price continues to decline. Those panels are warrantied for 25 to 30 years typically.

              300,000 miles for $5,000. in fuel costs ain’t bad. Contrast with $20,000 for gasoline at $3/gl @ 45mpg.

              And that’s a car. For dense urban areas where cars make no sense, electric motor scooters (mopeds) are on their way to a metropolis near you.

              As the number of cars decline in urban areas, it will become safer for people on bikes, on scooters, on foot. As those ‘alternative’ transportation methods become safer, rates of usage will increase, and cities will become much more pleasant places to live.

              Until there is no food I guess.

            11. Nick-
              “Well, I’ve never argued that we have a magical future.”

              “We don’t need fossil fuels.”

              What you don’t seem to understand is that most people see these two statements as completely at odds with other. You always seem to be arguing for a ‘magical future’. That is what makes people think you are completely nuts about it. Most are looking for real world, practical, ideas or analysis. Rather than a fairyland vision.
              Perhaps that is a failure on the part of the readers here, or it is a failure of the message. That is for you to ponder.

            12. most people see these two statements as completely at odds with other

              I don’t think that’s true, in the community of people who are experts on this stuff, like those planning for Germany’s energy transition, or California’s, or Hawaii’s. I’m not sure it’s true even on POB, which is self-selected towards those who are very concerned about PO.

              But, I agree: better communication is always good.

              So, let’s work together: what do you think is people’s primary concern about the elimination of FF? Scalability of alternatives? Cost? Intermittency? Inequality of resources for adaptation, between people, and between countries/regions? Or simply the difficulty in transitioning quickly enough to make a meaningful difference in reducing climate change?

            13. Hi Nick.
              I speak for myself on this (more accurate than speaking for others I hope).
              The biggest challenge is-
              The difficulty in transitioning quickly enough, and at scale, to achieve meaningful replacement of energy (not just electricity) consumption/demand, without experiencing an unprecedented global depression.

              Your statements about not needing fossil fuel does not apply to the current state of the world. Perhaps later in the century when there are 2-3 billion people. Thats a time beyond my expiration date.

            14. Hmmm.

              So you’re thinking not so much about climate change, and more about the economic threat of Peak Oil, and peak coal, gas etc?

              Are you worried that alternatives to fossil fuels simply can’t be scaled up to the current volume of energy now provided by FF, or just that it can’t be done quickly enough to cope with an imminent onset of PO?

            15. Martenson is completely full of shit because everything he says is based on this stupid statement:

              >As we constantly repeat here at Peak Prosperity: Energy is everything.

              He’s dead wrong.

            16. NO! He is absolutely correct. Energy is everything!

              The world rocked along at just a few million people for thousands of years, increasing at far less than 1% per year. Then we discovered that coal could be used to power industry. The population began to dramatically increase. Then we discovered that liquid petroleum could power the world. One farmer could now feed hundreds where before one farmer could barely feed his family.

              Coal, oil, and natural gas freed men and women from drudgery. They could now manufacture the luxury items we use today. The population exploded. The population exploded because of fossil fuel.

              And unfortunately, when fossil energy starts to decline, so will the population, and our way of life.

              Energy is everything!

              Peak People: The Interrelationship between Population Growth and Energy Resources

              This paper investigates the link between population growth, energy resources and carrying capacity at a global level, to determine if there might be dependencies and if so, how they could be modelled. Different qualities of energy resources may interact differently with population growth. Finally the implications of a peak in energy resource availability on population growth are examined.

              Just read this paper. It is quite long but you will get an education that you obviously lack concerning the relation between energy and human population growth and human well being.

            17. LMFAO!
              Now here comes the Techno-Cornucopian Tesla Gang to tell us we don’t need energy.
              The Elon Musk Fan Bois are becoming increasingly desperate by the day.
              What will they think of next; “we don’t need food”?!

            18. “Energy is everything” is bullshit.

              It takes a village for humanity to survive. Fossil fuels are a convenience. Addiction are it’s consequences. Waste is it’s aftermath.

              Knowledge is everything

            19. Fossil fuels are a convenience. Addiction are it’s consequences.

              You forgot the most important consequence of fossil fuels, the population explosion. The population, before fossil fuels brought about the industrial revolution, was under one billion people.

              Seven billion more people are alive today because of fossil fuels.

            20. HB, I’m surprised to hear you, a guy who drives 2 miles to the gym to get some exercise, downplay the importance of energy.

            21. the population explosion
              Its obvious for all to see—-
              Population increase and energy are intertwined.

            22. Ron,

              “The Enlightenment emerged out of a European intellectual and scholarly movement known as Renaissance humanism. Some consider the publication of Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica (1687) as the first major enlightenment work. French historians traditionally date the Enlightenment from 1715 to 1789, from the beginning of the reign of Louis XV until the French Revolution.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

              Oil is useless if you don’t know what to do with it.

              Survivalist,

              http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-october-6-2019/#comment-689759

            23. Oh good gravy. It was the enlightenment that brought about the population explosion, not energy from coal and later oil! It was Newton’s Principia Mathematica that fed the millions of people of the population explosion, not food from all that energy.

              Now I have heard everything. Some people will believe anything to avoid abandoning their pet theory.

            24. Lolz
              The dude drives 2 miles to spin class and wears it like a badge of honour. Excuse me if I don’t catch a ride on the Fan Boi Cornucopian Express.
              I’m gonna start calling HB ‘pillow hands’. He sounds like a bit of a princess.

            25. No, Ron energy is not everything. Energy services are important, of course.

              For example, in cold climates it is important to keep warm. That is an energy service. There are two ways of staying warm, insulation or hating. Modern houses don’t actually need hating, even in extremely cold climates, because insulation tech is so good. But vast amounts of energy is wasted on heating anyway.

              It is worth noting that activities like cooking and washing produce more than enough heat to heat a well insulated home in a cold climate, but the heat is usually vented.

              Another alternative is heat pumps, which can vastly reduce fuel consumption. The IEA figures 90% of heating could be done with heat pumps, with huge savings in energy consumption.

              https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/environment/heat-pumps-could-shrink-the-carbon-footprint-of-buildings

              And so on.

            26. No, Ron energy is not everything.

              Good gravy, this is hilarious. You say energy is not everything yet your entire post is about energy and absolutely nothing else. Even your link was entirely about energy:

              Global heat-pump sales jumped 10 percent between 2017 and 2018. Energy policies in China, Japan, and Europe have created large, fast-growing markets.

              Seven billion more people are alive after the industrial revolution than before. The industrial revolution was brought about, first by coal, then by liquid petroleum.

              It is hilarious that you think energy is not everything in today’s society. But you cannot help yourself. Even when you try to show that energy is not everything, all you can talk about is energy.

              Energy is everythintg!

            27. Ron,

              What does it mean to say that energy is everything, are you simply referring to the equivalence of energy and mass?

              I think some would say, if that is your argument, you would be technically correct, but they would also say there is plenty of mass we could convert to energy in that case.

              In the more classical sense (Physics before Einstein’s important insights) we could distinguish between matter and energy, and logically energy is not everything in that case.

              If your claim is simply that energy is important, many would agree and suggest we should waste less of it.

              As energy becomes more scarce, its price will increase and less of it is likely to be wasted, in addition alternative sources of energy will become relatively less expensive than fossil fuels and their use will gradually increase.

            28. Dennis, World population before the industrial revolution was less than 700 million. The industrial revolution was entirely driven by fossil energy. The green revolution was driven by fossil energy. Even the medical revolution would have been impossible without the aid of fossil energy.

              The world population is not over ten times what it was before the industrial revolution. If fossil energy were to suddenly disappear, the world population would drop to a few million in less than 2 decades. I mean the world runs on energy. And the world as we know it cannot possibly run without energy. That is blatantly obvious, as obvious as the nose on your face.

              So that, Dennis, is what I mean when I say energy is everything.

            29. Hi Ron,

              I agree that energy is important.

              Energy will not disappear overnight, and fossil fuels are not the only source.

              I would disagree with the statement that energy is everything,way too simplistic an analysis from my point of view.

            30. Oh shit, you know it’s a rhetorical statement. It’s just everything as far as survival of the human race is concerned.

              Well, it is everything as far as the survival of perhaps 95% of the human race is concerned.

            31. It’s true that Fossil Fuels (FF) powered the Industrial Revolution (IR). The IR started without FF, and FF wasn’t essential to that process continuing, but FF greatly accelerated the IR, and there’s no question that FF was the primary source of extrasomatic energy for most of the period of the IR.

              Coal accelerated the IR not because it was cheap, but because it was scalable – wood had become limited and scarce in England hundreds of years before. Coal wasn’t cheap, and it wasn’t safe: it required quite a lot of work and lost lives to dig up, transport and turn into something useful: early mines required a lot of work and occupational risk; coal trains were an enormous pain, and required a lot of labor; and early coal powered engines were inefficient and blew up often (rail passenger was very dangerous, more than contemporary car travel).

              Contemporary wind, solar and even nuclear, even in the worst settings, are far cheaper than pre-WWII coal powered transportation.

              Hydro power, nuclear, wind and solar all took longer to become affordable than digging up coal. So coal powered the Industrial Revolution.

              But…contemporary hydro, nuclear, solar and wind are all cheaper than coal in most places, both pre-WWII coal and contemporary coal (even in if don’t include the cost of basic pollution controls for sulfur, mercury, etc – coal becomes much more expensive if you recognize these costs, even excluding CO2). They’re all perfectly affordable.

              So, to say that “cheap” fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution is incorrect. They were affordable. They were cheaper than horse power, and more scalable than biomass. But, by contemporary standards, they were very far from cheap. And, now, they’re more expensive than renewables.

            32. Ron,

              We seem to agree that energy is important, fossil fuel will peak and decline and will become expensive.

              Then it will be used more efficiently and replaced with other sources of energy. Human population will also peak and decline, what is now occurring in Japan with population reaching its peak will eventually occur worldwide.

            33. Human population will also peak and decline, what is now occurring in Japan with population reaching its peak will eventually occur worldwide.

              Dennis, I think we have a basic disagreement here. Oh, we both agree that the population will peak then decline. But we disagree on why.

              The population of the world will decline because the world’s human carrying capacity will decline. The world’s wild animal carrying capacity is already declining and has been for many decades now.

              The wild animals are dying off like there is no tomorrow. And there is no tomorrow for most of them. It will be only a matter of a few decades before there are no wild megafauna left on earth. They are dying off for many reasons but the main reason is we Homo sapiens are takin over their habitat. That is we are confiscating their territory and their food resources.

              But we are swiftly destroying that, now our, habitat. But I have thrashed that straw for years now, on this very blog. I am so tired of doing that. So I will not go over it again.

            34. Hi Ron,
              I sure hope you are wrong- that human population will decline because we have exceeded environmental carrying capacity. That would be the most horrific mechanism (for humans and others). No doubt it would happen if we don’t scale back soon.

              I suspect we will enter a decline phase earlier due to other factors- like you originally said “energy is everything”. The carrying capacity is already grossly exaggerated by the input of fossil energy (to name one of many examples- pumping of water to irrigate large tracts of land).
              The ramifications of a human society with less energy will result in huge incentives for scaling back. Some easy, like to expensive to raise kids, some very painful, like war over energy.

            35. Hickory, we are already well past the long term carrying capacity of humans. That is why all the disastrous things are happening to the environment. It will only get worse.

              When the food shortage really starts to hit, hungry people will do anything to stay alive. The destruction to the wild animal kingdom will be catastrophic. We will eat the songbirds out of the trees.

            36. One idea would be to stop wasting energy instead of trying to “replace” it.

              These arguments about replacing coal and oil are like someone in the 1890s claiming air war will never be possible, because where are you going to get all the hot air for the hot air balloons? We’d have to cut down all the forests in North America for the firewood!

              When you run into trouble because you are doing something stupid, the solution usually isn’t to try to find a better way to keep doing stupid things. The solution is to stop doing stupid things.

              One major reason people waste energy is that companies profit from waste. Utilities, for example, bribe politicians so they can make money building power plants. Vast resources that could have been spent on waste reduction have gone up in smoke over the past few generations.

              A lovely example of this is the Summer nuclear fiasco in South Carolina. South Carolina relatively small and poor is the least energy efficient state in the union. Solution? Build a giant nuke!! That’ll show those greenies. It ended up costing $10bn (not including $9bn in losses by the contractor) and produced a big hole in the ground, money that could have been spent on conservation.

              In fact, most of America’s electricity capacity is just as pointless, like most of the shopping malls and most of the road network. None of this crap will ever pay for itself, any more than those big heads on Easter Island did. They are just relics of a society that went off the rails.

              But renewables are inherently less profitable than fossil fuel. This means there will be less political pressure to generate and waste energy.

              The real question for 2050 is how we will power all the data centers, not how we will keep doing stuff we did in the 20th century. On current trends, computing will big the biggest energy expenditure by far. Nobody talks about that much.

      2. Right, taxing oil would shift spending from consumption to savings and investment, and America suffers from chronic overspending. It would cut the import bill for oil as well, which is another way of saying the same thing. America’s foreign debt is mostly the result of consuming more oil than the country can produce.

        In addition, taxes would lessen the shock of oil price swings. In general, commodity price swings are a source of economic disruption, so taxing commodity use leads to more economic stability.

        1. “America’s foreign debt is mostly the result of consuming more oil than the country can produce. ”

          You have any source to substantiate that?
          2018- United States: $163.1 billion oil import bill

          Maybe it was higher, and more significant in the past.
          6.3% of US debt is held by oil exporting countries (and that includes non-oil products from Canada)
          By far the countries that the USA owes the most money to is China and Japan, and they supply zero energy to the US.
          https://howmuch.net/articles/foreign-holders-of-usa-debt

          1. USA, Russia and many more countries
            are country-parasites.
            In terms of the level of consumption in countries does not correspond to the level of production.
            In the United States, this is because the circumstances of the world economic development, financial system, the world’s use of the dollar and loans from the United States, and much more, have happened.
            In Russia, this is because the country decided to sell oil and buy everything that is needed. Money from oil serves as a multiplier of the economy, creates demand, makes it possible to produce the little that is still produced.
            I don’t remember the exact numbers, but the United States consumes about 40% more than it produces.
            And also GDP is a curve indicator that does not reflect the real state. A cup of coffee sold in Egypt brings a completely different income than in the USA. And the content of the cup may be the same. The structure of the US GDP consists of approximately 70% of services. I think this is not true. I need a new indicator reflecting the production and consumption of specific tangible goods (for AI TI, you also need to come up with something).
            After the peak of oil and hydrocarbon production has passed, the consumption of all goods per person living on the earth will begin to decrease, everyone will feel it, and this will decrease very unevenly. I believe that the UN will need a serious force mechanism to solve the problems that arise.

          2. Energy imports have driven trade deficits in America since the seventies.

            https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=17191

            Drilling more oil isn’t really the solution, though it helps. Cutting waste is the solution. If Americans weren’t so profligate, the fracking boom would have led to a huge export surplus.

            That’s why the government should tax the crap out of fuel at the pump, and use the money to pay off government debt. It would simultaneously pay off net American debt to the rest of the world, which is huge.

      3. Increasing the price of fuel substantially would decrease consumption and encourage more efficient use. A much higher gas tax would reduce volatility at the pumps albeit at a higher price.

        More efficient vehicles would encourage more driving.

  3. I read somewhere (forgot where, sorry) that after the last Ice Age there was a war between humans and squirrels in Southeastern Europe and Asia Minor over the oak trees.

    Humans were just inventing milling, which they first used for nuts (especially pistachios and acorns) and later for sesame and grains. The squirrels prefer bitter acorns, because they survive longer in their hiding places. Humans had better storage, so they prefered sweeter nuts.

    The squirrels won, which is one reason we eat wheat bread. Grasses grow where it is too dry for forests. Wheat is an import for the relatively arid Middle East. Milling technology moved from the forests to the plains. Then Europeans chopped down their oak forests to plant wheat fields.

    William Faulkner writes about how bemused American Indians were to see White men chopping down forests and doing field work, despite the abundance of game. “They love to sweat” was one theory.

    Nowadays we live in air conditioned rooms, but we still see The English lawn in the Western Desert, because it is our cultural heritage. Either we irrigate it at great expense, or we just spray the lawn with green food coloring, or use astroturf. We do this although our squirrel foes have long since receded. It has become a primal urge.

    Cultural heritage is a good thing, but it can be pretty bizarre when the context changes. I mention this because we are living in an era of unprecedented change, and we are still talking about how things used to be.

    1. Why the West Rules… for Now, by Ian Morris has a blurb on fast squirrels beating slow humans at the acorn game.

      1. Thanks. That helped me recall I read it in Archaeology & Language by Colin Renfrew. Why the West Rules sounds interesting as well.

  5. WHY THE GASOLINE CAR TO THE EV IS LIKE THE HORSE TO THE CAR

    “It is too early to freak out about the impact electric cars will have on car dealerships and car repair and service businesses. The U.S. sells about 17 million cars a year, and there are about 180 million cars on the road today. If EV sales accounted for half (8.5 million units) starting today and continued at that rate for the next 10 years, at the end of that period the total EVs on the road would still be only half of all vehicles. Reality check: In 2018, only a few hundred thousand EV cars were sold. In the short run, EVs will have little impact on ICE servicing businesses; in the long run, those businesses will decline dramatically into a sunset.”

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-10-10/why-gasoline-car-ev-horse-car

    1. Right, the real freakout is in the manufacturing sector. They need to plan years in advance and make multi-billion dollar investments in new models, engines and platforms, but they are caught up in massively disruptive technical change. Downstream there is a large buffer of existing vehicles on the road.

      1. Very true, and if they don’t run hard right now on this change of course, they will disappear by the end of this coming decade.

    2. On another note, the zerohedge comments section is hilariously dumb. Electrification of the car industry is happening.

        1. The skeptical tune on EV/PHEV is going to change from an elevator jingle to a full on orchestra concert after peak oil. There will be a long line to get in the door.
          Lets talk again in 2027.

          1. Hickory

            By then it will be too late. There will be 1.4 billion cars and 400 million trucks which will need diesel and petrol. If people cannot get fuel many cannot get to work. If the plumber, electrician, builder cannot get fuel they cannot repair customers homes.
            Instead of oil consumption increasing by a million barrels per day each year it will be declining by about that much. That is the equivalent of removing 100 million vehicles from the roads each year.
            However to make way for expanding airtravel which will buy what it needs and expanding marine freight to feed an extra 700,000,000 people. The world will somehow have to remove 200 million vehicles each year. That requires some thinking about.

            Better off people will take their holidays using fuel and poorer people will struggle to get to work

            https://www.travelweek.ca/news/exactly-many-planes-world-today/

            1. You and I agree that oil will come up short of the rising demand.
              Take note that this shortfall will provide a huge incentive for electrification of vehicles. Plugin hybrids first, then full EV’s.

              Will the transition happen fast enough to avoid an economic crises? I doubt it.
              Some places will fare worse than others.
              The least losers- those with an industrial infrastructure that can produce a huge number of batteries, and build E ready vehicles.
              Those who don’t rely so much on imported oil.
              Those who have a robust electrical production infrastructure and transmission.
              And of course, those places with plenty of money to throw at the problem.

              Unless your territory has plenty of oil that is not exported, then it would be wise to rapidly ramp up domestic electrical production capacity to help fill the shortfall gap from depleting oil. It is frustrating to see how slowly the world is working on this.

            2. A model for an EV/plugin transition has the sales growth from chart below.

              Demand for oil is less than supply from 2035 to 2070. From peak in 2025 to 2035 demand matches supply. The sales goeth for plugin vehicles are worldwide, it is assumed commercial vehicles follow the personal vehicle sales growth trend with a lag of 9 years.

        2. Electrification is happening INSIDE the ICE vehicle. Servo power steering, fan belts, turbines driven by exhaust fumes, passive suspension systems, carburetors, hydraulic brakes and other systems are being replaced by software and electric actuators. 12 Volt systems will soon be replaced by 48 volt batteries to make this possible and reduce the weight of cables.

          For example the new Ford Puma SUV crossover is a 48V mild hybrid with a one liter three cylinder engine. Mild hybrid means the starter motor is strong enough to move the vehicle while the engine is starting or accelerating, so the engine can be smaller.

          Cars, trucks and planes waste a lot of energy keeping an engine big enough to accelerate spinning while the vehicle is coasting and needs much less power. Acceleration also burns a lot of fuel in ICEs.

          The starter in a mild hybrid reduces the size of the ICE while improving performance by providing power assist during acceleration, and allows the engine to be shut off entirely when the car is coasting. The battery is charged with regenerative braking.

          The industry is moving quickly to electric, software controlled drive-by-wire systems. One big reason for this is autonomy. Cars are turning into computers on wheels with a centralized control system that knows about all aspects of the vehicle. Getting rid of the ICE entirely is just the icing on the cake.

  6. HOW DO CO2 EMISSIONS FROM FOREST FIRES COMPARE TO THOSE FROM FOSSIL FUELS?

    “In 2017 about 1.2 million hectares of forest burned in British Columbia, and 1.3 million hectares this year [2018]. Compared to the average annual area burned in the province between 1990 and 2015, each of the last two years burned 15 times more than the average area. Fires like these release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, such as methane into the atmosphere. The initial – albeit unofficial – estimate is that the direct fire emissions in 2017 were about 150 (plus/minus 30) million tons of carbon dioxide. THIS WAS TWO TO THREE TIMES THE EMISSIONS FROM FOSSIL FUEL BURNING FROM ALL OTHER SECTORS IN B.C. But the impacts on the atmosphere are even greater because the many trees killed by fires will decompose over the next decades, releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Also, trees killed by fires will not be removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as living trees would.

    In comparison, it is estimated over 900 thousand hectares (2.24×106 acres; 9,060 km2; 3,500 sq. miles) of forest within the Amazon biome has been lost to fires so far in 2019. It’s not just the fires. Statistics gathered by Inpe, Brazil’s satellite agency, suggest that at least 7,747 sq km of Brazilian Amazon rainforest have already been cleared so far this year.

    https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/sept-15-2018-summer-science-camping-under-a-volcano-plastic-in-beluga-bellies-and-more-1.4821942/how-do-co2-emissions-from-forest-fires-compare-to-those-from-fossil-fuels-1.4821944

    1. I wonder how the Siberia fires rank?
      It also seems as if the vegetation regrowth in many areas burned in Calif over the past two decades is poor- slow and sparse in relative terms. I’ve not seen data on this, but it sure looks like a form of desertification. Less carbon is accumulated than would be the case in cooler climate times, in this climate zone.

      1. “I wonder how the Siberia fires rank?”

        Well NASA images have captured worst fires there in 10,000 years with 2019 ‘worst-ever year’ for wildfires in Siberia. Basically, finding a way to stop these [and other] fires from occurring or from burning out of control will be pivotal in our fight against climate change.

        https://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/2019-to-be-worst-ever-year-for-wildfires-in-siberia-and-only-rain-can-now-extinguish-flames/

        2. For those inclined to doing nothing at all, prayer is a good place to start.

          Daily CO2
          Oct. 11 2019: 408.86 ppm
          Oct. 11 2018: 405.52 ppm

          Looking very 3’ish for year over year for 2018/2019.
          Arctic methane plumes & wildfires world wide should kick in more severely rather soon.

          1. It’s interesting that those CO2 figures come out at the same time that an unprecedented historic fall blizzard strikes the Northern Plains. Actually, even more astounding, it’s not even the first unprecedented historic blizzard in the region this year! We’re talking about places receiving more than 3 feet of snow in October or September! Nobody alive has ever witnessed that sort of thing before. There will likely be significant negative impacts on the fall harvest in the region, which was still ongoing when the snow began falling. All in all, this is just another example of highly unusually cold weather phenomena that continue to occur in an otherwise warming world.

            2. Yep it was a real doozer of a blizzard in So. Manitoba, almost 4 feet of snow, in 3 days. Never seen anything like it in October, even in winter it would be rare for a single storm. Trees still with green leaves, but a bunch fell with the wet snow pulling them down. Luckily none on my house.

            3. Weather variation (cold and hot, wet and dry, calm and windy) has not been outlawed in this world of global warming.
              In fact, variability may increase.
              Weather variability is hard to live with, but it is not in contradistinction to the global warming of climate that is underway.
              Not complicated folks to understand folks.
              If it seems perplexing to you, there is science reading for the layman that can help-
              http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

            4. Steven Haner,

              Go to Climate Reanalyzer, out of the University of Maine, and at about 10 o’clock next to the globe click on 2m T anomaly and you’ll see that that cold area centered in the Plains is about the only cold anomaly in the Northern Hemisphere. There are plenty of warm anomalies though.

      1. I feel it’s all quite unavoidable. We’re well past the point of no return on this waterfall. My guess is that within a few years things will be moved up to “over the next 20 years”, and a few more after that we’ll be in the thick of it. Perhaps 2026 is my guess. Any anthropologist will testify that people steal before they starve. It’s gonna get Homeric.

        “The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” ~ William Arthur Ward

          1. I’m actually quite optimistic for myself, but most of ya’ll are fucked.

            “The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.” ~ George Bernard Shaw

            1. This is where I have a major difference of opinion with “preppers” or those who might think of themselves of “survivalists”. I wouldn’t be too cocksure about my chances of survival, no matter how remote and well prepared I think the location is that I have chosen to ride out the future in. Depending on the circumstances, there might be nowhere on earth that is safe.

              I hold the view that it would be better if there were massive efforts to help as many people as possible avoid ending up in extremely desperate circumstances. Unfortunately, what I consider one of the most important aspects of dealing with the future of humanity has not been stated in clear terms by most governments. There are various bodies that are forecasting ten plus billion humans on the planet by the end of this century. I consider any increase in human numbers even close to these numbers, sheer insanity. Alas, the prevailing wisdom seems to be that growth is good.

              My take is that, any technology that will allow some semblance of the current world economy get a chance to transition away from FF should be embraced as fast as is humanly possible. Having millions of people desperate for food and water is not something I would relish witnessing.

              So far it would appear that there is a non zero chance of a transition away from FF. I just read on reneweconomy.com.au that South Australia was getting almost 80% of their electricity from solar energy at around mid day this past Saturday. It does not seem too far fetched that some time in the next decade South Australia may rarely need FF to generate electricity. How many other places around the world can we expect to follow this example? I would like to see many more than we are seeing at present.

            2. islandboy, please try adding some balance to your fairy tale comments.

              “Australia’s share of global CO2emissions from domestic use of fossil fuels was about 1.4% of global fossil fuel combustion emissions in 2017. We find that accounting for fossil fuel exports lifts Australia’s global carbon footprint from domestic use and export of fossil fuels to about 5%. This carbon footprint is equivalent to the total emissions of Russia, which is ranked the fifth biggest CO2 emitter globally. Australia is the world’s largest coal (thermal +metallurgical) exporter, accounting for about 29% of traded coal globally in 2016 and will soon be the world’s largest natural gas (LNG) exporter. As a consequence, Australia’s global carbon footprint is very significant, with exported fossil fuel emissions currently representing around 3.6% of global emissions. In 2017, Australian coal and gas exports produced around 2.9% and 0.6% of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion respectively. AUSTRALIA IS ONE OF THE HIGHEST PER CAPITA CO2 EMITTERS IN THE WORLD. On a per capita basis, Australia’s carbon footprint, including exports, surpasses China by a factor of 9, the US by a factor of 4 and India by a factor of 37.”

              NB Caps are mine.

              https://climateanalytics.org/media/australia_carbon_footprint_report_july2019.pdf

            4. Balance? That’s what you guys are for! 😉

              Since this sub-thread has become really narrow, I’m re-posting my response as a new subthread.

            5. Australia: 70% uninhabitable due to desert, 30% uninhabitable due to Australians.

            6. I didn’t invent the world. I just live in it. My basic plan for life is to live as long as I can and die when I have to. I’ve looked at other ideas, but I think mine is better. Not for everybody though I suppose, it does take a bit of tolerance & perseverance from time to time. I’m very interested to see how it all turns out in the future. Hence my interest in not dying any sooner than absolutely necessary. Don’t want to cut the movie short, so to speak. It’s just getting good.
              I did a fair bit of overseas pro bono work when I was younger trying to help as many people as possible avoid ending up in extremely desperate circumstances. I’m the egalitarian type. It was an extremely rewarding experience. I don’t see it as being diametrically opposed to prepping. One can do both. That “either or thing” you’re throwing out there on the matter is weak tea.

  9. Russian scientists say they’ve found the highest-ever ‘flares’ of methane in Arctic waters

    Igor Semiletov, the chief scientist aboard a vessel carrying 65 scientists on a 40-day research voyage, told CNN via satellite phone that he found amounts of methane in the air over the East Siberian Sea up to nine times the global average.

    Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, with a significantly greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide, according to NASA. The methane emissions in the Arctic, fueled by the melting of permafrost on the sea floor, are one driver of climate change, NASA said.

    The emissions are presenting a growing risk.
    Methane levels Semiletov’s team found in the air above the seawater were “extremely high,” he said. “Nobody has detected these concentrations.”

    Levels are highest seen in decades of research

    Semiletov, a professor at Tomsk Polytechnic University in Siberia, said the ship full of scientists reached the East Siberian Sea around the beginning of October.
    The water is usually tough to get through due to it being “covered in ice,” but Semiletov said this year was different. The water was “fully open.”

    1. Yep, here we go.
      Over the past decade researchers have been highlighting this risk.
      These two articles are a good example of the research on this.

      From 2010 Univ of Alaska team-
      Methane releases from Arctic shelf may be much larger and faster than anticipated
      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100304142240.htm

      And from NASA more recently-
      Unexpected future boost of methane possible from Arctic permafrost
      https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/

      1. tipping point, noun, the point in a situation at which a minor development precipitates a crisis.

      2. I’m at a loss for figuring out what can be done to get rid of the methane. Perhaps we can engineer a way to attach some sort of afterburner to wildlife and domestic animals? Could we change diets so that animals no longer release methane?

        1. The Krell,

          There is research ongoing with focus on dietary changes to reduce methane released by herbivores (they belch most of it, since you ask.) There’s reason for optimism, as I recall, but I haven’t kept up on this.

          It’s worth a search.

      3. We’re so far past screwed that the light from screwed won’t reach us for 1.3 Billion years.

  10. Where is George Kaplan when we need him?

    REPLACEMENT RATE HITS 20-YEAR LOW: OIL INDUSTRY ONLY REPLACES 1 IN 6 BARRELS

    “Oil and gas companies have discovered 7.7 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) year-to-date’s latest global discoveries report. The industry is well on track to repeat the feat achieved in 2018 when around 10 billion boe of recoverable resources were discovered. The so-called resource replacement ratio for conventional resources now stands around 16%, which is the lowest seen in recent history. This means that only one barrel out of every six consumed is being replaced by new sources. This is the lowest replacement ratio we have witnessed in the last two decades. However, the industry has high hopes after the prolific success of ExxonMobil’s Stabroek block off the coast of Guyana and more recent discoveries by other operators in the region. Rystad Energy expects the Guyana-Suriname basin will continue to occupy headlines with a few planned wells in both Guyana and Suriname. The basin is pinned as one of the most prospective, underexplored basins in the world and will get a facelift from its current assigned volumes if hydrocarbons are established towards the east.”

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Replacement-Rate-Hits-20-Year-Low-Oil-Industry-Only-Replace-1-In-6-Barrels.html

  11. In response to a comment of mine further up, Doug suggested that I “try adding some balance to your my fairy tale comments.” I responded by writing that balance from other contributors is welcome! I initially wrote more but, the sub-thread had become too narrow so, I’ve re-posted it here.

    Here’s something to balance the fairy tale stories of never ending growth of coal consumption in India:

    Auction of 21 coal mines cancelled as govt sees tepid response

    The coal ministry has received valid interest for only six coal mines out of the 27 which were offered for the iron & steel, cement, and captive power plant end-use. Auction of 21 coal mines has been cancelled by the ministry as it received less than three bids for them.

    According to the norms of the coal auction under the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, each mine requires minimum three bids for the government to hold auction.

    Jamkhani coal mine, situated in the state of Odisha, has attracted maximum bids including from companies like Vedanta, JSW, Hindalco, JSPL, Rungta Mines and Natural Resources Energy Limited.

    “The response to the coal auction has been subdued, mainly because of the market sentiment and also changes in policy,” said a source from the coal ministry.

    The technical bids will be examined starting October 17 and the auction will begin on October 24. The government has allowed 25 percent commercial sale of coal from the mines offered on auction.
    The auction process was incorporated in 2014, post deallocation of 214 coal mines. India has not seen a successful auction of coal mines after the first round where it auctioned 24 coal mines, out of which about 12 are now in production.

    Might be wishfull thinking on my part but, that sort of story is not what you’d expect for a booming industry. Sounds more like a dying industry to me. Contrast that with the over-subscription of tenders for many solar projects.

    Then there’s this:

    The Great Coal Collapse of 2019

    Coal generation in the EU collapsed by 19% in the first half of this year, with falls in almost every coal-burning country.

    Half of coal’s fall was replaced by wind and solar, and half was replaced by switching to fossil gas. If this continues for the rest of the year it will reduce CO2 emissions by 65 million tonnes compared to last year, and reduce EU’s GHG by 1.5%. Coal generation already had fallen 30% from 2012 to 2018.

    However, even if these falls continued in 2019, coal generation is still likely to account for 12% of the EU’s 2019 greenhouse gas emissions

    And in the UK:

    Renewable Power Topped Fossil Fuels in UK During Q3

    That had never happened since the U.K. opened its first public electricity generating station in 1882.

    Renewable energy sources generated more electricity than fossil fuels in the U.K. for the whole of the third quarter, the first time that has happened, according to research by the Carbon Brief.

    Chunky capacity additions, largely from offshore wind, alongside a spate of coal plant closures and an overall decrease in demand have all accelerated the trend.

    Fossil fuels’ share of the electricity mix was 10 times larger than renewables’ share a decade ago, Carbon Brief’s data shows.

    The growth of renewable energy capacity in the U.K. has remained fairly steady in recent years, with sharp additions of solar and now offshore wind making up for a softening of onshore wind.

    In the space of a decade, installed solar capacity has increased from a negligible level to more than 13 gigawatts. Biomass grew from 285 megawatts in 2009 to almost 4.5 gigawatts in 2018.

    Meanwhile, the closure of EDF’s Cottam coal power plant last month means there are now just six such plants remaining. Two of those will close next spring.

    So, while those who choose to focus on the clouds continue to do so, in order not to sink deeper into depression, I choose to focus on the silver linings. Feel free to provide “balance” whenever you want!

    1. you ask for balance ?

      https://gridwatch.co.uk/

      currently not looking good for renewables . been better thats true , but as its true of an empty oil well , its true for solar at night and windmills without wind .

      I think we’ll need more storage if we are allowed to build it .

      not even the inter connectors will save the UK .

      Fascinating

      1. Interesting dash board type presentation. Thanks a lot for the link.

    1. Journalists and the press in general like to believe they are one of the bulwarks of civilization, but it’s simply astounding how one sided the coverage of such issues as population IS.

      I have recently scanned at least fifty articles in a couple of dozen publications, fifty in a ROW, that do NOT MENTION that in country with a falling population, there will be substantially LESS NEED for new roads, new schools, new water lines, new housing, an expanded electrical grid……….

      And with all of these things there free, having been provided by previous generations….. life can be pretty damned good without GROWTH, lol, or at least without growth of the sort that further degrades the environment.

      I don’t have figures, and I doubt any GOOD figures exist, but if I’m anything at all, I’m a WORLD CLASS rolling stone.Some of friends say I have a case of ADD or Asbergers or something along that line, which is why I never do anything longer than it takes to learn how, unless I absolutely must.

      Anyway I have LOTS of skills and experience in the building trades, and there’s ZERO doubt in my mind that people who know how can upgrade most existing houses to cut energy use by as much as eighty or even ninety percent for only a minor fraction of the cost of building new. Ditto schools, most factories that employ a lot of people, stores, and other large buildings.

      And with a falling population, the oldest and most decrepit of existing infrastructure can simply be abandoned. With the cost of transportation of people and goods probably rising due to energy costs, people could and would start moving closer together as empty housing becomes available.

      ETC

      1. I hadn’t considered the economic upside of population decline. Mostly we just hear about how lack of growth would be a catastrophe. Most businesses run on a model of growth.
        Certainly countries who have debt and run a deficit do- They expect to grow bigger so as to make the debt load relatively smaller. This doesn’t seem to work even when growth is slow, let alone when there is contraction.
        Much thought will need to go into the idea of how to manage an economic depression without prospect for mechanism of new growth.
        I hope to not witness it. Surely wouldn’t want to owe the bank anything, or expect income from government or pensions, in that scenario. Funds like that will evaporate.

    1. Arctic ice appears to be thinner than satellite radar is showing. The expedition that is trying to get stuck in the ice is finding it is only about 50% of the indicated thickness. They think it is because there is so much water on the surface it is affecting the measurement. Just another unknown unknown becoming a known unknown. I guess it will be a while before official figures come out rather than anecdotal reports.

      NAOM

  14. Every body should read this. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-obesity-era?utm_source=pocket-newtab

    “Yet the scientists who study the biochemistry of fat and the epidemiologists who track weight trends are not nearly as unanimous as Bloomberg makes out. In fact, many researchers believe that personal gluttony and laziness cannot be the entire explanation for humanity’s global weight gain. Which means, of course, that they think at least some of the official focus on personal conduct is a waste of time and money. As Richard L Atkinson, Emeritus Professor of Medicine and Nutritional Sciences at the University of Wisconsin and editor of the International Journal of Obesity, put it in 2005: ‘The previous belief of many lay people and health professionals that obesity is simply the result of a lack of willpower and an inability to discipline eating habits is no longer defensible.’

    1. Very interesting. Such a huge problem, and that fellow is an excellent science writer (rare breed).

    2. Hunter Gatherers ate animal meat and green vegetables, including the animal fat.

      They didn’t eat noodles, ice cream, pizza hut pizzas, coca cola, low fat potato chips.

      You are now told animal fat and meat are bad for you.

      I went on a diet of animal meat, animal fat and green vegetables and lost 50 pounds in 6 months doing no exercise.

      Best I ever felt in my life. felt satisfied after every meal, never had sugar cravings.

      Sugary drinks and refined carbohydrates are what is making us so fat IMO.

      We evolved to efficiently process animal meat, animal fat and green vegetables, not slurpees!

      1. Quite a bit of seasonal fruit and root veg in that old diet I bet too.

    3. It’s funny how people never realize what little it takes to gain 5kg of weight in a year.

      Instead they keep looking for the magic ingredient that somehow makes “all” of us fat…

    1. Palladium main use is for catalytic converters in automobile industry.
      https://fortune.com/2019/02/11/palladium-more-valuable-gold/
      It is also a key component for fuel cells. See Toyota Mirai , etc.
      In the last few days we may see a speculative wave , although I am not sure about this.
      https://cleantechnica.com/2019/10/14/did-the-us-navy-solve-clean-energy-with-a-compact-fusion-reactor/
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
      I am not sure that is the cause. My guess: it’s a bluff. May be a chance in a million to be true. But commodities are traded on hear-say sometimes.
      And more from the same guy:
      https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/02/if-these-us-navy-patents-are-made-then-we-are-in-a-star-trek-technology-world.html
      It seems that learning physics or chemistry only hinders some inventors.

      1. Hickory

        They plan to have 10,000 vans on the road in 2022. Best guess total number of electric vehicles in 2022 will be around 30/40 million, Out of 1,600 million.

        In order to prevent a 2C rise in temperature and the catastrophic melting of Greenland, Antarctica, mountain glaciers we needed to be reducing CO2 emissions 10 years ago.

        By now global coal consumption should be down to 3 billion tonnes at the most.

        Look how much that fucking China burns.

        https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=coal&graph=consumption&display=rank

        https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-china-energy-coal/china-boosts-coal-mining-capacity-despite-climate-pledges-idUKKCN1R712Z

        Even if they get down to 2 billion tonnes, that would still be 100 times more than France burns. In order to achieve even this, they would have to install each day the amount of solar and wind they do in a month in order to meet increasing electricity demand and reduce coal to that still unsustainable level.

        https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/electricity-consumption

        As I keep saying all this is simply far too late.

        1. How is china doing per capita?

          [each person is just as important as any other, independent of country, race, sex or religion]

          That is a better way to rank (fucking) countries Hugo.

          Otherwise, yep.

    2. Hugo,

      Diesel and gasoline are mostly used for land transport of all types, both commercial and personal vehicle use. In 2018 about 65% of World C+C output was used to produce gasoline and diesel fuel, so converting all land transport (rail, trucks, buses, and personal vehicles to some form of energy besides C+C, reduces World C+C use). Commercial vehicles and railroads will also convert to either electricity or natural gas as oil becomes expensive, electricity is likely to be the cheaper choice long term.

      1. Dennis

        We can talk about this til the cows come home.

        Not until we have peak oil will the difficulties become apparent.
        Then we will see exactly how easy of difficult it is to reduce the number of ICE cars, lorries etc by 50 million each year.
        How many wind turbines would it take to replace 1 million barrels of oil per day? Do you know?

        1. I had a previous discussion with Dennis regarding terminal GDP decline correlating with terminal decline in oil production.

          From the discussion he doesn’t agree GDP will decline after peak, since electrification and renewable can pick up the slack in GDP terms.

          I think after peak subsidies will start drying (in line with my view of terminal decline in GDP) up and the EV and electrification “transition” will end shortly thereafter.

          I can’t see industrial society continuing after such an event.

        2. Looks like it would take 2,276 GE Haliade-X 12 MW turbines to replace 1M barrels of oil per day.

          1 barrel = 20 gallons gas, 12 gallons diesel.
          At 40 mpg (high) efficiency, 32 gallons of fuel = 1280 miles of travel.
          An EV at 3 mpkWh (low efficiency) would require 426 kWh for the same distance.

          So, 1 barrel = 426 kWh x 1,000,000 = 4.26E+11 required kWh.

          The Haliade has a 63% capacity factor, so 12mW * 24 * .63 = 187.2 mWh/day net. 4.26E+11/187,200,000 = 2,275.64

        3. Hugo,

          EVs use much less energy. Natural gas can produce much of the electricity initially and oil gradually decreases, wind and solar power output have been growing very rapidly 15% and 30% per year respectively. It will take 10 to 20 years, but wind and solar can be ramped up, keep in minde that the average natural gas power plant only converts about 40% of the energy in the natural gas to electricity (60% for best in class combined cycle). So maybe 50% of the energy consumption of natural gas needs to be provided by wind and solar.

          Note that I have never said it will be easy, just possible, as far as economic output decreasing, the transition will create many economic opportunities for those with vision and the ability to innovate. Lots of wind turbines, utility scale PV, EVs, rail, and HVDC grid and heat pumps will need to be produced. That creates jobs and large new industries to replace dying fossil fuel industry.

          Potentially it could lead to an economic boom.

  17. We had a biofuel explosion at a fuel processing plant in the SF bay area yesterday.
    Two tanks exploded.
    A first everyone assumed it was oil, but turns out it was ethanol. The tanks were only about 1% full at the time, but the tanks are gone. Lucky the jet fuel in the next tank over didn’t go.
    There was a 4.7 earthquake about 16 hrs earlier with some minor refinery issues over night. Relationship unknown as of yet.
    Take note- no solar production facilities were affected.

  18. IMF WARNING

    The International Monetary Fund has presented us with a Gothic horror show. The world’s financial system is more stretched, unstable, and dangerous than it was on the eve of the Lehman crisis. Quantitative easing, zero interest rates, and financial repression across the board have pushed investors – and in the case of pension funds or life insurers, actually forced them – into taking on ever more risk. We have created a monster.
    There are ‘amplification’ feedback loops and chain-reactions all over the place. Banks may be safer – though not in Europe or China – but excesses have migrated to a new nexus of shadow-lenders. Woe betide us if this tangle of hidden leverage is soon put to the test.
    That broadly is the message of the IMF’s Global Financial Stability Report, always a thriller but this time almost biblical. “Policymakers urgently need to take action to tackle financial vulnerabilities,” said the Fund’s directors piously. It is a bit late for that my friends.
    Even a moderate shock would cause company ‘debt-at-risk’ – ie, where the debtors do not earn enough to cover interest payments – to spiral up to $19 trillion. This is a staggering 40pc of corporate liabilities.
    The tally includes a future cascade of ‘fallen angels’ now perched at BBB ratings just above junk. Such firms will be squeezed mercilessly by tumbling earnings and soaring risk spreads in a downturn.
    “In France and Spain, debt-at-risk is approaching the levels seen during previous crises; while in China, the United Kingdom, and the United States, it exceeds these levels. This is worrisome given that the shock is calibrated to be only about half what it was during the global financial crisis,” it said.
    Late-cycle reflexes are again on display. The debt is “increasingly used for financial risk-taking – to fund corporate payouts to investors, as well as M&A. Global credit is flowing to riskier borrowers.”
    Donald Trump’s tax reform has pushed M&A volumes in the US to record levels. We knew that. It is the detail that is revealing. The ‘markups on intangibles’ for debt-funded takeovers have jumped, “signaling increased bets on future gains despite a weakening outlook” – which means they are pocketing fictitious returns, and the bankers are winking obligingly to secure their fee.
    This year “highly leveraged deals” made up almost 60pc of US buyouts, comfortably surpassing the pre-Lehman peak. Firms are using “add-backs” based on purported M&A synergies (usually exaggerated or non-existent) to boost how much they can borrow.
    The use of debt for share buybacks or dividends is called ‘using your balance sheet efficiently’ on the Street. I remember the term well from the mass delusion phase of 2008. Just wait until the funding markets jam shut.
    Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and the Marxisant Piketty activists of the Democratic primaries wish to shut the US capitalist casino once and for all. They will have their excuse when these chickens come home to roost.
    In Europe, almost all leveraged loans are now being issued without covenant protection. The debt to earnings (Ebitda) ratio has vaulted to a record 5.8. Is the ECB asleep or actively promoting this?
    The IMF’s directors call for “urgent” action to stop these excesses but in the same breath suggest/admit that the cause of leverage fever is the easy money regime of the authorities themselves – that is to say the central banks and their political masters who refuse, understandably, to permit debt liquidation and to allow Schumpeter’s creative destruction to run its course in downturns.
    We are all to blame (with notable exceptions). Few of us have the stomach for the cleansing trauma of epic defaults and mass layoffs. I have supported central bank largesse since the Lehman crisis, with a clothes peg on my nose, though with hindsight I would rather it had been used for targeted public investment rather than stoking asset bubbles.
    But the longer this goes on, the greater the debt trap, and the harder it is to break free. The idea that tougher ‘macro-pru’ regulations can suppress the effects of a massively distorted incentive structure is surely wishful thinking. It is an empty IMF piety.
    As the report states, monetary perma-stimulus is wreaking havoc on the $10.5 trillion bond fund industry and forcing insurers, fixed income funds, and pension funds to join the hunt for yield. “It is driving investors into riskier and less liquid assets.”

    1. “But the longer this goes on, the greater the debt trap, and the harder it is to break free.”

      Indeed. Its all so very fragile.

  19. Personally I wish I had time to go back to school and learn all the stuff I don’t know about high finance, but right now……. it just can’t happen.

    But I know enough to know for SURE that Hugo is dead centered in the ten ring about all the stuff he’s saying about the risk of the financial house of cards collapsing.

    And in the meantime…….. the political situation is worse than at any time in my own lifetime, but there is plenty of good reason to believe that Trump is going to drag the R party right thru the gates of Hell with him, and that it will take it a generation to recover, maybe even longer.

    Here’s some of that evidence. Pretty soon only a Bible Thumper type R voter will be able to defend the Trump administration in public, other than a few congress critters that are in districts or states that are blood red.

    Let it be acknowledged that even though you may disagree with them on policy, there are at least a few Republicans in office who are willing to play fair and square, when the chips are down. The ones on the this Senate committee are among them.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/sen-richard-burr-puts-a-crack-in-trumps-red-wall

    1. I suspect that Trump will resign so that Pence can pardon him and his whole family and crew.

  20. Coal power takes dive in September, as renewables hit new record

    This September’s generation figures mark a noticeable turning point for Australia’s National Electricity Market. The major construction boom in renewables is now converting into extra generation that is driving a retreat not just in brown coal, but also finally black coal as well.

    The thing that stood out was that we saw Australia’s lowest cost fossil fuel generator Loy Yang A limping along at just a 50% capacity factor for the month due to outages at several of its units, and overall brown coal output was 37% below the amount that prevailed in September, 2016.

    Yet black coal did not flood in to fill the breach. Instead, its generation was also down 7% on September 2016 generation levels and almost 9% down on September last year.

    Combined black and brown coal generation for this September has now been pushed back down to levels slightly below what prevailed when the carbon price was in place in September 2013.

    Renewables on the other hand hit a new record for market share this month of 27.9%, more than a percentage point up on the prior record of 26.6% – achieved last month, and also reached in August last year.

    What’s interesting is the record market share in September was achieved even though hydro output was 11% below its September average (measured since 2006 when Tasmania joined the NEM).

    Also it wasn’t a particularly noteworthy month for wind. Overall wind generation was 16% below the record of around 1,760 GWh in July this year, with NEM wind farms achieving an average capacity factor of 34.2% (excluding wind farms currently being commissioned). By way of comparison it was 40.2% in July and the all-time record for NEM wind farms stands at 48% (achieved in September of 2017).

    Total solar generation, however, did break its prior monthly record, generating around 1500 GWh in September (the prior record was set in January this year).

    While September is a low demand month, higher electricity demand in subsequent months won’t provide all that much relief for fossil fuel generators.

    The high levels of solar won’t end here, with around 2,800 megawatts of large-scale solar capacity either committed, under construction or being commissioned. And small-scale rooftop solar is on track to exceed 2,000 megawatts of installations for this year (178 megawatts was added in September alone). And of course solar capacity factors will continue to rise as we approach the December solstice.

    For those who tend to accuse me of being overly optimistic, the above article underscores why I am increasingly trending towards optimism. The impact of fast growing renewables is proving to be sudden and supposedly unexpected. I noted in a recent report on the US EIA’s Electric Power Monthly that solar was attaining a milestone in the US. For the first time, in June the contribution from solar did not decline between May and June as total generation began ramping up, heading into the summer peak. The contribution from solar did decline between June and July but, as the amount of solar contributing to the total grows, that will change and solar will become a major contributor during the summer months. Australia is proving that this is the likely outcome.

    These developments should not surprise us.

    1. islandboy, almost sounds like exponential growth doesn’t it? 😉

      SUVS DRIVING HUGE GROWTH IN CO2 EMISSIONS

      The undying popularity of sport-utility vehicles has made them the second-biggest contributor to the growth of global CO2 emissions in recent years, just behind the power sector, the head of the International Energy Agency said Wednesday. In 2010, 18 percent of all car sales in the world were SUVs.

      In 2018, more than 40 percent of all cars sold in the world were SUVs! Demand for the heavy, fuel-guzzling vehicles is soaring in the US and Europe as well as in China, India and other developing countries, where they are particularly prized as status symbols.

      And, SUVs spewed 700 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from 2010 to 2018, nearly half the amount produced by the power sector. They surpassed emissions from heavy industry such as iron or steel production, and far outstripped CO2 from trucks, aviation or shipping other high-polluting transportation means.

      https://phys.org/news/2019-10-urban-suvs-huge-growth-co2.html

      1. Meanwhile, (Isn’t reality a bummer?) sales in US Large Pickup segment rose by 1.9% to 1,174,581 in the first half of 2019, all but matching the 2.1% growth rate the segment recorded in 2018. What’s more, all this happened while the segment is still awaiting the rollout of the all-new Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra, and while the new RAM Pickup is still ramping up production. This means the odds are that the segment will best the 2,450,000 or so cars that were sold in 2004 and 2005 either this year, or next. Oh yes, the EV market-share IS growing but represents a tiny fraction of all cars in the U.S. Of all new car sales EVs were 1.5% in Q1 2019.

        http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-analysis-2019-q2-large-pickup-segment/#more-54183

          1. Yep, they can sleep in the back when oil becomes scarce.
            Remove the engine for storage space.

    2. Islandboy

      It is good that you show what can be done.

      I just point out what needs to be done but is not.

      https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/limiting-global-warming-require-deep-emissions-cuts

      Considering CO2 emission rose again in 2018 and again in 2019, the likelihood of getting anywhere near cutting CO2 in half by 2030 is zero.

      Can you really imagine coal consumption halved, oil consumption halved and gas as well?

      https://www.climatescorecard.org/2019/05/indonesia-plans-to-increase-coal-production/

      I do not think so

    1. That’s the usual alarmism expected from the Wunderground folks. It was a hot one here in September, but we survived.

      2. Its data Lento. No one talked about alarms. Thats your mind spinning out on Rush and Fox.

  22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ

    for all u conspiracy theorists that believe we need propulsion systems that burn fossil fuels to power global economy

    @24 minute mark : the commander explains how the worlds best technology caught this unidentified object hovering at 20 thousand feet. And then zip off with out any exhaust fumes.

    1) Claims navy had been following these objects for 12 days.
    2) On satellite tracked them going from 80000 feet to just above the ocean and hovering.
    3) Multiple pilots saying the same thing and Navy’s world class radar systems picking them up.
    4) multiple pilots visually observe.

    No clue what this is. But on any intellectual level this is certainly interesting.

    1. “@24 minute mark :”
      really, you would spend more than 20 seconds on this.
      good diversion for you I suppose.

      1. I’m going to assume you weren’t impressed? lol

        Navy better upgrade their equipment. Giving off a lot of false positives at 80,000 feet and 20,000 feet and underwater.

        Of course the Navy could just come out and say this guy is full of shit if they wanted too…..

    2. That’s not a UFO zipping off.
      It’s a Raytheon targeting pod turning. The object in view exited view because the pod turned, not because the object moved. The optics pod turned forward to realign with direction of flight after looking at an object that was to the left side.

      I wonder why Pentagon is blowing UFO sunshine up your ass?

      “for all u conspiracy theorists that believe we need propulsion systems that burn fossil fuels to power global economy”

      And I wonder how many monikers the cornucopian gang operates under on this fine blog? The hope and promises offered by UFO sightings has to be the weakest tea yet!

      1. Of course the commander of 20+ years and trusted with 70 million dollar jets could be lying.

        He claims the radar footage that is too classified to show reveals there are many of them not just 1.

        He would obviously know he could easily be debunked, if what you claim is true, yet that hasn’t happened!!

        The system focuses on the primary target, not the others.

        Look, it is interesting no matter what IMO.

        These are highly sensitive radar systems.

      2. what was the object that didn’t move?

        what is hovering at 20,000 feet?

    3. for all u conspiracy theorists that believe we need propulsion systems that burn fossil fuels to power global economy

      Only a very stupid conspiracy theorist would believe we could get a propulsion system from those little green men from another planet orbiting a distant star.

      This is not a UFO, flying saucer blog. You should take your bullshit somewhere else.

    1. Good piece. Excellent points and well-said.

      I offer a point of contention/clarification-
      He points out that renewable sources of energy will fail to be an adequate replacement fossil fuels energy in powering civilization. I’m on board with that idea, on a global scale.
      The ramification is that we will need to dramatically downsize, sooner the better.

      How we manage that downsizing will make a huge difference, says I.
      Do we commence it voluntarily, or through war, poverty, famine, etc?

      Do we sit around with our hands in our pockets, or do we practice some foresight and innovation when it comes to energy?
      Imagine a USA that just burns through as much fossil fuel as it can until its supply plummets,
      vs a USA that slows it (fossil fuel consumption) down some by applying the foot to the brakes a little, while at the same time building out its vast renewable energy capability.
      Then follow these two pathways out 50 years and see where they land. I assert that the second path allows a more manageable pathway. Both may end at the same point. One path much more painfully than the other.

      ex. its a lot easier to forgo having any children, then witness them starve
      ex. its a lot easier to survive a shortage of imported fuel, when you generate an excess of power from your roof

      1. Yeah, the Rice Farmer article seems to imply that we should do nothing – just drill, baby, drill, and leave our grand children to fend for themselves.

        I agree with you – the sensible thing is to improve energy efficiency dramatically, and scale up alternatives to fossil fuels ASAP.

        I would hope that everyone could agree on that.

        1. It seems to me that Hickory’s larger point, the one Nick seems to have missed, or perhaps has only failed to mention, is that renewable sources of energy will fail to be an adequate replacement for fossil fuel energy in powering civilization, and that Down Sizing is certainly necessary. I didn’t see where Rice Farmer implied ‘Drill Baby Drill’, as Nick states must surely be the interpretation of the writing; but when one doesn’t believe in Nick’s particular brand of extreme hopium he tends to equate any form of disbelief with that of an all out attack from the fossil fuel industry; so surely Rice Farmer must be in league with the fossil fuel trolls saying ‘Drill Baby Drill’, what else could he possibly mean, Nick? Extremist behavior towards unbelievers is quite common in some cults.

          1. Hickory did say that he felt that renewables would fail to replace FF. But, he went on to say: “How we manage that downsizing will make a huge difference, says I… Do we sit around with our hands in our pockets, or do we practice some foresight and innovation when it comes to energy?”

            So, it seemed to me that his larger point was that we should take action, rather than do nothing. It seemed to me that this was something that people could come to a consensus on, even if they were not hopeful about renewables completely replacing FF.

            Do you agree?

            1. No shit Nick
              Thanks for pointing out the painfully obvious
              Yes, we should take action lol
              I would suggest however that I’m a little more into frugal minimalism (except for my preps, my preps are lit) and contingency based planing than you are, who I suggest is a shill for Tesla who believes no downsizing is necessary at all. You seem quite down on Dr Jason Bradford, or in fact anybody at all who suggests a Down Sizing type future is coming, like Nate Hagens for example. From what I recall, you, Nick, accused Dr Jason Bradford of pushing fossil fuel talking points because he suggested a Down Sizing type future is coming. So cut it with the ‘Do you agree’ gish gallop bull shit. I certainly hope you don’t see yourself as a persuasive person.

  25. >>
    The Australian Energy Market Operator has provided a fascinating insight into the potential future grid …

    Thermal generation (gas and coal) will play a much diminished role, so called “base-load” will barely exist. And in its place wind and solar will provide the bulk of generation, while balance and flexibility will come from storage, hydro, and imports/exports, while a whole range of technologies will play an important role, including electric vehicles, virtual power plants, and household batteries.
    <<

    Brave New World!

    https://reneweconomy.com.au/aemo-provides-glimpse-of-future-grid-not-much-fossil-fuel-even-less-base-load-78954/

    1. Sounds like a great plan. Go green at home and export your emissions. Norway has pursued a somewhat similar path where 50% of crude oil and natural gas amount to roughly half of the total value of Norway’s exports of goods. “Green Norway” is the 8th largest producer of oil and the 3rd largest producer of gas in the world but it has lots of hydro electric powered EVs running about.

      BTW “AUSTRALIA IS NOW THE NUMBER ONE EXPORTER OF BOTH COAL AND GAS AND IS SCHEDULED TO PUSH THAT OFF THE CHARTS IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS. IT IS LOOKING TO BECOME AN EMISSIONS SUPER-POWER.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/08/fossil-fuel-exports-make-australia-one-of-the-worst-contributors-to-climate-crisis

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/19/australia-is-third-largest-exporter-of-fossil-fuels-behind-russia-and-saudi-arabia

      1. Meanwhile,

        SOUTH AFRICA TO INCREASE COAL-FIRED ENERGY

        “The current 10-year plan includes increasing the country’s current 47,000 megawatts of energy by 1,500 megawatts from coal, 2,500 megawatts from hydro, 6,000 megawatts from solar and 14,400 megawatts from wind. Coal will contribute 59 percent of the country’s energy, as “it has the resource in abundance” and coal-fired power plants “are going to be around for a long time.”

        https://phys.org/news/2019-10-south-africa-coal-fired-energy-climate.html

  26. Here is an example of a vehicle that is projected to be available in 2021, that could easily reduce a persons petrol consumption by 1/2.
    It has an engine that burn petrol, plus a small battery pack that you plugin to charge=PHEV
    If the speculation on battery pack size is correct (43 miles all electric range), all of your trips under 40 miles could be electric, and cost you 1-2$ of electricity. The all petrol ICE version of this same vehicle would cost you 4-5$ of petrol at current prices, to go that distance.

    And if you need to go further you can run on petrol or electric for longer trips.
    Its an an example of an excellent transition vehicle, transition to a time when petrol is far too expensive for passenger travel.

    https://insideevs.com/news/377142/toyota-rav-4-phev-70-km-range/

    1. Yes that sounds like a very good transition vehicle.

      GM did extensive analysis of the fuel savings of their PHEV, the Chevy Volt, which had about the same all electric range. They found that it reduced fuel consumption by about 75% – 80% of all miles driven are within 30 miles of home.

    2. It sounds just like the now discontinued GM Volt. As an SUV though, it should be better received. I would think a similar all-electric vehicle with a 150-200 mile range would be a better way to go for most people. But, an ICE engine does alleviate the range anxiety problem.

  27. You seem really fixated on personal vehicles. The future might throw you a couple curve balls lol

  28. Why the world will start heating much quicker.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/world-zero-carbon-emissions-before-2040-two-decades-climate-change-global-warming-greenhouse-gases-a7682001.html

    Of the 153 thousand terawatt hours of energy used in 2017, 134 thousand came from burning coal, oil and gas.

    https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-and-changing-energy-sources

    At the moment much of the heat trapped is being converted by ice. The vast glaciers of the Antarctic, Greenland and mountain glaciers are taking the brunt of the results of CO2 emissions.

    The amount of heat the ice melt is protecting us from is beyond calculation.

    https://www.wyzant.com/resources/answers/409251/how_much_heat_is_required_to_raise_the_temperature_of_1_kg_of_ice_at_30_176_c_to_steam_that_is_110_176_c

    Step 1: heat to raise 1 kg ice from -30ºC to 0ºC
    q = mC∆T = (1000 g)(2.09 J/g/deg)(30 deg) = 62,700 J = 62.7 kJ (2.09 is the C for ice)

    Step 2: heat to melt 1 kg ice (no change in temp)
    q = m∆Hfusion = (1000 g)(334 J/g) = 334,000 J = 334 kJ

    Multiply that by the Antacrtic ice loss of 52 gigatonnes per year

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRe1ymYR45k

    and greenland and the mountain glaciers

    https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment/2019/06/himalayan-glaciers-melting-alarming-rate-spy-satellites-show

    As the ice masses shrink the heat will find other ways of dispersing, soils and lakes will dry quicker, more torrential rains.

    We failed to act in 1979, in 1990 and in 2009.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Climate_Conference

    The CO2 and other emissions are now at a level that guarantees the climate equilibrium will shatter.

    https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    1. Hmm, maybe we should give up on personal electric vehicles and perhaps downsize to electric buses? Though, Im not entirely sure that HB is sufficiently proletariat for public transport. Let’s not let it go unnoticed that it’s not the cornucopian gang’s style to predict a future that they don’t much care for, which, I would suggest, seems very naive, or perhaps indicative of an almost childlike innocence.

    2. We’re now about 50 years past the introduction of the global warming mathematics and many of the predictions from that math have been made 2-3 times without coming true. Presumably over another 50 years from now it will still be the case that people who think they know the math will be making the same predictions.

      1. Danny

        Most scientist predicted the melting of Greenland and Antarctica at a far slower pace than what we are actually seeing.

        Have you got any links to real scientists whose predictions have not come true?

  29. New Electric Power Monthly is up, any non-Petroleum comments (not related to oil or natural gas production) should be under that post.

    http://peakoilbarrel.com/eias-electric-power-monthly-september-2019-edition-with-data-for-july/

    The Open Thread this week is for Petroleum related comments only, sometimes people see Open Thread and assume it is non-Petroleum, which would be a poor assumption this week. Comments in the wrong thread may be deleted along with any responses to those comments.

    Open Thread Petroleum at link below

    http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-petroleumoctober-20-2019/

Comments are closed.