A Guest Post by Islandboy
The EIA released the latest edition of their Electric Power Monthly on August 26th, with data for June 2019. The table above shows the percentage contribution of the main fuel sources to two decimal places for the last two months and the year to date.
The Table immediately above shows the absolute amounts of electricity generated in gigawatt-hours by the main sources for the last two months and the year to date. In June, the absolute amount of electricity generated increased, as is usual for the month of June when compared to May for the period covered by the charts, January 2013 to date. Coal and Natural Gas between them, fueled 61.25% of US electricity generation in June. The contribution of zero carbon or carbon neutral sources declined from 41.85% in May to 37.86% in June.
New Record Solar Production
The 11.854 GWh generated by Solar in June 2019 is a record, handily exceeding the previous record of 10.869 GWh, set in June 2018. It is possible that this record will again be exceeded in July 2019 if the output from solar in July and August exceeds the output in June as was the case in 2015 and 2016. It is also worthy of note that June 2019, for the first time ever, the percentage contribution from solar did not decline between the months of May and June. It is customary for the percentage contribution from solar to decline as the total amount generated ramps up heading into the midsummer peak. For the first time in 2019 the increase in production from solar has kept pace with the total increase in generation. As solar capacity continues to increase, in future years it can be expected that the contribution from solar will keep pace with the total and eventually increase going into the summer months.
The graph below shows the absolute monthly production from the various sources since January 2013, as well as the total amount generated (right axis).
The chart below shows the total monthly generation at utility scale facilities by year versus the contribution from solar. The left hand scale is for the total generation, while the right hand scale is for solar output and has been deliberately set to exaggerate the solar output as a means of assessing it’s potential to make a meaningful contribution to the midsummer peak. In June 2019 the estimated total output from solar at 11,854 GWh, was 2.99 times what it was four years ago in June 2015.
The chart below shows the total monthly generation at utility scale facilities by year versus the combined contribution from wind and solar. The left hand scale is for the total generation, while the right hand scale is for combined wind and solar output and has been deliberately set to exaggerate the combined output of solar and wind as a means of assessing the potential of the combination to make a meaningful contribution to the year round total.
The chart below shows the percentage contributions of the various sources to the capacity additions up to June 2019. In June Wind contributed 45.64% of new capacity, with 40.98% of new capacity coming from Natural Gas and Solar contributing 11.37%. Batteries contributed 0.75% with Wood Waste Biomass contributing 1.08%, Petroleum Liquids contributing 0.13% and Landfill Gas the remaining 0.06% of new capacity. Natural Gas, Solar and Wind made up 98% of new capacity in June. Natural gas and renewables have made up more than 95% of capacity added each month since at least January 2017.
In June 2019 the total added capacity reported was 2725.9 MW, compared to the 2026.2 MW added in June 2018.
The chart below shows the monthly capacity retirements up to June 2019. In June among the retirements reported were 152.6 MW of Coal fired capacity in the states of Virginia and Maryland. Of the remaining retired capacity 394.7 MW consisted of Natural Gas fueled combustion turbines and steam turbines in the states of Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Maryland and Mississippi. Two plants in Alabama and Maine retired 69.5 MW of Wood Waste Biomass fueled capacity..
Below is a chart for monthly net additions/retirements showing the data up to May 2019, followed by a chart showing the net additions/retirements year to date.
Below is a table of the top ten states in order of coal consumption for electricity production for May 2019 and the year before for comparison
Data for the First Half of 2019
With the data for June now available some half year data can be produced. Below is a table showing the various percentage changes in the amount of electricity generated for a few selected sources, All Renewables and Non-Hydro Renewables, between the first half of 2018 and the first half of 2019, along with the percentage contributions from the same sources for the first half of 2019 and 2018 for comparison
In terms of generating capacity additions, Natural Gas made up 54.6% of new capacity additions for the first half of 2019, while wind made up 32.7% and solar made up 11.3%, the three sources making up 98.6% of new capacity added for the first six months of 2019.The only other category that came close to adding at least one percent of the new capacity was Batteries which made up 0.9% of the capacity over the period. The total amount of new capacity added over the period was 11,312 MW compared to the 13,529 MW added in the first half of 2018.
Coal remains the largest contributor to generating capacity retirements in the first half of 2019, making up just over two thirds (67.7%) of capacity retirements. Natural Gas plant retirements made up a little more than one sixth (17.7%) of the remaining retirements, such that Coal and Natural Gas between them made up more than five sixths (85.4%) of the retirements over the first six months of 2019. The retirement of the Nuclear, Pilgrim Power Station in Massachusetts contributed 8.4% to the retirements over the six month period. The only other sources that contributed more than one percent towards the retirements were Wood/Wood Waste Biomass at 3.1% and Petroleum Liquids at 2.3%. The total amount of generating capacity retired was 8,051.2 MW compared to the 13,835.2 MW retired over the first half of 2018.
Solar is about to boom in Texas, the only state where coal consumption is still above 5 million tonnes. For 2020, coal will be less than 20% countrywide. It would be a real surprise if it generates more than 800 TWH for the whole year. Trump started with 30% and will end with less than 20%.
Not looking good for global warming, natural gas is rising faster than renewables (some of those are GHG producers too). With the methane leakage from N gas use and the loss of dimming from lower coal burn, overall increase in global warming from electric power in the US is rising.
With nuclear stable at 18-20%, hydro around 8%, non hydro renewables at around 10-12% and growing, there is only so much space for NG to grow and it can only be at the expense of old coal (whereas the new NG is far more efficient). My guess is that it would peak and plateau out at 45% for a few years. From that point, where coal will be all but decimated, it will be one long downhill similar to what coal is experiencing now.
Shyam. I agree 9very roughly) with the trend you lay out, but realize that with that scenario the volume of nat gas consumed here and in the wider world over the next 40 yrs will be massive.
Hickory,
Natural gas will likely peak by 2035 worldwide, as it does it will become quite expensive relative to solar and wind and demand for natural gas will fall as it is rapidly replaced with other forms of energy (and reduced energy use as homes get refitted to be more efficient and passive solar design becomes standard for new construction and additions and retrofits). Under reasonable scenarios total Carbon emissions can be kept under one trillion metric tonnes, though it will take some effort. Even with very little effort anthropogenic carbon emissions can be kept under 1500 billion tonnes due to resource constraints.
Dennis
This is happening now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49756260
Scientists who first studied the melting of Greenland and Antarctica, made certain predictive models. All these models have been blown out of the water. The melting is 50 years ahead of their first models.
Your trillion tonnes is just a guess and not based on the melting actually happening now.
Hugo the trillion tonnes is total anthropogenic carbon emissions from 1750 to 2200 including land change if peak fossil fuels occurs by 2035 as I expect due to resource constraints, prices rise relative to alternatives and there is a transition away from fossil fuels.
It will require changes in government policy to speed up the transition and may not occur. Probably a 1250 billion tonne carbon emission scenario is more realistic.
Nothing to do with the melting of ice, those models need a lot of work.
Dennis
The only reason people talk about CO2 emissions is because it is having a massive impact on the climate.
Both your comments show and unrealistically optimistic view of what retrofitting and solar panels etc will achieve.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/18/arctic-permafrost-canada-science-climate-crisis
Do you actually understand that the melting will continue even if CO2 emissions were reduced to zero.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/08/news-arctic-permafrost-may-thaw-faster-than-expected/
The entire planet is powered by coal, oil and gas and the burning of these fossil fuels will send us over the tipping points of no return.
https://www.iea.org/statistics/?country=WORLD&year=2016&category=Energy%20supply&indicator=TPESbySource&mode=chart&dataTable=BALANCES
Hugo, thanks for this link. It is a real opener.
Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES) by source*
World 1990 – 2016
The world’s energy is produced by oil, coal, and natural gas, in that order. Everything else is negligible. And their use is increasing, not decreasing. We are not going to stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. We should stop kidding ourselves, we are doomed.
Hugo,
Resources are limited so fossil fuel emissions cannot continue forever. A reasonable scenario has 1200 Pg of Carbon emissions which is pretty likely as fossil fuels peak and fossil fuel prices increase.
I developed a Bern type model with and emissions scenario matching my medium fossil fuel scenarios with reduced consumption after 2050 as high prices lead to replacement of fossil fuel with alternatives. Fossil fuel emissions peak in 2025 and gradually decrease to zero by 2105.
Atmospheric CO2 peaks in 2093 at 515 ppm and declines to 471 ppm by 2500 CE and to 466 ppm by 3500 CE, by 34,200 CE atmospheric CO2 falls to under 400 ppm, though the time constants used may be somewhat too conservative.
This suggests that humans will need to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere at some point in the future.
An 1100 Pg C emission scenario would require until 20,200 to get below 400 ppm CO2.
A one trillion tonne carbon emission scenario gets back to 450 ppm by 2171, falls to 430 ppm by 3500 CE and we would fall to under 400 ppm CO2 by 18,200 CE.
Dennis
You are failing to take into account what the world will be like in 2035 and beyond.
Such as the increasing number and ferocity of wild fires.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/the-vicious-climate-wildfire-cycle
The amount of CO2 released from the melting permafrost regions.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/arctic-permafrost-is-thawing-it-could-speed-up-climate-change-feature/
Long term droughts are already killing millions of trees.
https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/drought-like-conditions-causing-slow-death-for-saanich-trees-1.4610684
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-centraleurope-environment-barkbeetle/climate-change-to-blame-as-bark-beetles-ravage-central-europes-forests-idUKKCN1S21LE
You really need to join all the pieces together, when you do you will realise that the trajectory you postulate means widespread destruction.
Hey Hugo,
How does one, (like Dennis) who has expertise in modeling, assign numeric risk values to model assumptions, when some are based on collection of past data, whereas other factors are only speculations of what future data may be? For example, how would you expect to adjust assumptions about the degree of methane release from permafrost melt? There is no good data for this. I assert that there is no answer for the magnitude of this problem. Just question marks.
Hugo,
I agree the model is far from perfect.
Consider the possibility that those who devised the Bern Model may have expected that many of the feedbacks that you mention will occur and that is why atmospheric CO2 remains on a plateau for about 35,000 years even with zero anthropogenic emissions after 2100.
It is a simple model, not likely to account for everything.
The point was to show that I do understand the melting will continue as atmospheric CO2 will remain above 400 ppm for 35,000 years or so, I guess you missed that part, thought it would be obvious.
Long term CO2 for 1200 Pg C emission scenario from 3500 to 40,000 CE, zero net carbon emissions from humans after 2100 CE.
Hugo,
Fossil fuel output will peak, they will become expensive and we will use less of them when that occurs in 2025 to 2035 (oil first, then, coal, and lastly natural gas probably 2025, 2030, and 2035 for the peaks all with +/- 2 years of uncertainty).
Things can change quickly when the price incentives are right.
The nation in the chart below reduced coal consumption by a factor of 15 from 1965 to 2018.
Can you guess which nation?
Hi Dennis
Yes Co2 emissions can be reduced, because countries like the UK tax petrol and diesel at 200% of market price.
However the UK has also exported much of it’s heavy manufacturing to China etc.
If you calculated how much pollution UK imports are responsible for the picture is less rosy.
Hugo,
I agree, the World data is more important.
The growth in coal consumption for the World has slowed since 2013, hopefully we can make continued progress, oil is likely to peak by 2025 and rising oil prices may lead to a faster transition to alternatives.
Natural gas is currently plentiful, but may peak by 2035 (I am less certain about the size of natural gas resources.)
It will be interesting to see when the non-hydro renewables generation 1st edges out coal (on the first graph). Looks like it will be an april, I’ll go fro April 2024. Wager on.
It looks like it will be quite a few years after that to hold above for all 12 months.
Someone else will have to speculate when non-hydro renewables will surpass NG for the 1st time. Thats too far beyond for me.
My guess is it will be much earlier. Possibly 2021 April but definitely by April 2022. The crossover will be around 50 TWH or roughly 16%.
If we are talking about crossover for the entire year, then yes, it would be around 2024.
Shy- “My guess is it will be much earlier. Possibly 2021 April”
Well, I hope you are right, but if we were drinking buddies, I’d bet you a years worth of rounds. Its only 18 months away, what you predict.
I agree 2021 April is a little optimistic but 2022 April is a near certainty. Not only will wind and solar go up but coal will be closing everywhere. Its 2 irresistible trend lines in the opposite direction.
If u examine the curves, it is apparent that the difference was 30% in April 2013, 20% in 2015, 15% in 2017 and only 5% this April. With 40 GW wind energy and a similar amount of solar energy in pipeline, there is no reason why it will not overtake coal in 2 years let alone 3.
It’s obvious that coal consumption is diminishing in the US and may be plateauing in the world, for now at least. Natural gas has been on the rise globally for heating and electric generation. I don’t see renewables taking over or over-taking anytime soon, the most optimistic is 80 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050, but that is highly optimistic. More likely there will be a mix of different sources as long as industrial civilization continues and available sources exist. There will be a range of mixes across the globe.
But much like the video below shows how quickly sources and technologies can change, if cheap long lasting batteries for power storage show up, renewable energy could take over globally.
Cormorants, farming, greed, economic disruptions, mineral wars and war in general all rolled into one video about poop. Maybe you will see similarities to the present shitty situation.
The Ghost Town that Collapsed the Poop Industry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waG7VNSUAb8
Good one, shows where we are going. We have bat guano fertiliser sprays available in the stores here, I wonder how that will last.
NAOM
It’s always a rate problem. If rate of poop mining >rate of pooping then the end is in sight. 🙂
No shit!
During the day of Aug 17 the PJM system was suppling 135,000 MW of power and wind was contributing 97 MW out of the 7000 MW installed. Only free money makes this happen.
What’s your source for that statistic?
I looked at the site stats for wind on the PJM. I think everyone who has been on planet earth more than a year knows that there are calm days occasionally. Nothing to do with money, more to do with the weather.
Or are you a recent visitor here?
This is a little confusing because sometimes it talks about fuel consumption and sometimes it talks about electricity production.
The natural gas retirements are mostly older, less efficient plants, and the additions are efficient combined cycle plants. I wonder how that is affecting consumption.
I think the overriding trend is away from boiling excessive amounts of water to produce electricity. Coal, nuclear power and older gas plants are shutting down, and they produce much more hot water per unit energy output than the newer additions.
Good video on the solar industry in uSA-
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/21/the-rise-of-solar-power.html
Open source algae-based CO2 sequestration.
https://www.inverse.com/article/59334-this-algae-bioreactor-can-sequester-carbon-dioxide?link_uid=9&utm_campaign=most-read-2019-09-20&utm_medium=most-read&utm_source=newsletter
Hélas, that’s look even too beautiful to be really true.
But if it is true, that would be really interesting to fight climate warming.
Indeed, that’s certainly would not be a efficient source of energy, as algue-based fuel always showed really poor potential.
CLIMATE CHANGE: IMPACTS ‘ACCELERATING’ AS LEADERS GATHER FOR UN TALKS
Recognising that global temperatures have risen by 1.1 degrees C since 1850, the paper notes they have gone up by 0.2C between 2011 and 2015. This is as a result of burgeoning emissions of carbon, with the amount of the gas going into the atmosphere between 2015 and 2019 growing by 20% compared with the previous five years. Perhaps most worrying of all is the data on sea-level rise. The average rate of rise since 1993 until now is 3.2mm per year. However, from May 2014 to 2019 the rise has increased to 5mm per year. The 10-year period from 2007-2016 saw an average of about 4mm per year.
“To stop a global temperature increase of more than 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, the level of ambition needs to be tripled. And to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees, it needs to be multiplied by five.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49773869
Add another 0.3 C since 1750. 🙂
Since 2007 methane has added at least 15 ppm CO2e to the atmosphere.
Gone fishing,
1750 was a pretty cold period of the Holocene, the average for the Holocene up to 1750, is pretty close to the 1980-2000 Global Land-Ocean Temperature average, based on the Marcott et al (2012) analysis.
So you are saying that the temperature rise from 1750 is a natural rise?
Fossil fuel use started about 1600, industrial revolution about 1750, so one could say the temperature was on a natural descent that turned upward in the 1700s. Maybe we just stopped up a further temperature descent. Who knows?
All I know is that warm interglacial periods do not normally last this long and it is getting warmer quickly.
Holocene started almost 12,000 years ago so includes the Younger Dryas. It was quite cold then.
See the graphs. The graph shows it was colder in 1850 than in 1750, so go figure. I am getting tired of the pick a point game, look at Wikipedia temperature record over the past 1000 years, graph of reconstructed temperature for 2000 years. We have finally left the noise and headed upward, so any arguments over small values of reconstructed past temps is mostly in the noise.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html
Thanks for the interest.
Gonefishing,
Marcott et al 2013 at link below
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf
The global temperature mean from 210 BP to 11290 BP is 0.2 C relative to the 1961-1990 Global mean land ocean temperature. Your chart may be Northern Hemisphere temperatures or simply an older estimate.
Absolutely pointless arguments, as shown by the 0,5 C range of variation in your cited source. Interesting that Mann et al shows 1750 same as 1850, land + sea.
Gone Fishing,
The best global temperature estimate in the science literature for the Holocene is the Marcott et al 2013 estimate. Pretty widely recognized as such.
Mann’s estimate is probably better for the past 1600 years. If we use Mann 2008 estimate from 500 CE to 1750 CE and combine with the Marcott et al 2013 estimate from 11290 BP to 1450 BP (500 CE) we still get a Global average temperature of 0.2 C above the 1961-1990 Global mean for the 11290 BP to 1750 CE period. In 1750 the Global temperature was about 0.6 C lower than the Holocene average prior to 1750 (using Mann 2008 for the 1750 temperature estimate).
Dennis, I am not arguing your precious Marcott et al. I think you are misinterpreting what is represented by that paper.
Gonefishing,
I disagree.
No problem Dennis, there is plenty of variance in the 1750 data for either of our views. I just looked at the Berkeley Earth Summary data and their averages do show about a 0.3C rise 1750 to 1850.
But with that much variance (about 2C)and so few data points, who knows what the temps really were back then.
A pointless problem.
Gonefishing,
I tend to go with the latest science on these questions. Science can sometimes be incorrect, when that is the case I revise my views.
According to the IEA fossil fuel use in 2018 grew almost 3 times faster than renewable energy (including biomass and waste). Biomass and biowaste consumption is still almost five times other renewables.
Other renewables need to increase by about 8 times just to match the growth rate of global energy. That will take about 15 years.
At current rates of growth in global energy the “tipping point” for renewable energy won’t be until around 2035. Optimistic projections might put it at 2030, while maximum effort projections could put it by 2025.
Of course growth could level off soon and degrowth in energy demand occur within a decade. How fast renewable energy would grow in that type of world is anyone’s guess. Ingenuity and innovation can reduce energy demand faster than we can grow energy production.
2025 give me some of that hopium you are smoking.
What makes you think that in a degrowth environment (i assume by degrowth you mean negative GDP) renewables would grow ? Absolutely absurd assumption.
Iron Mike, reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
But I guess that gives you a chance to shit all over my comments.
Do you understand what maximum effort means?
Do you understand what energy degrowth means and how it is accomplished?
Yes, your assumptions are absurd.
Oh yeah, just look at all the maximum effort going on lol…. any minute now!!!
Dudes mainlining Hopium straight in the jugular.
Never trust a junkie.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails” ~ William Arthur Ward
When you graduate sixth grade, please join the discussion/
Iron Mike, I agree with you.
Take note that GF indicated degrowth (contraction) in energy demand could occur within a decade.
Its possible, but I think it will not happen through innovation and careful management, rather only due a severe and prolonged economic downturn in the global economy.
Its a higher likehood, in my opinion, that energy demand will be higher in into the 2030’s, as the population continues to grow.
I am not at all thrilled that the world is projected to triple the ag and forest lands devoted to biofuel production.
Your home and business should be atleast 15 feet above the current sea level and flood plains.
“Its a higher likelihood, in my opinion, that energy demand will be higher in into the 2030’s, as the population continues to grow.”
Well, forgetting GDP arguments, etc., we have the “air cons” invasion. 😉
AIR CONDITIONING IS THE WORLD’S NEXT BIG THREAT
With temperatures in Europe and everywhere else soaring, demand for air con is booming — the extra power demand may cause a vicious circle on warming. Because of the combination of population growth, rising incomes, falling equipment prices and urbanization, the number of air-conditioning units installed globally is set to jump from about 1.6 billion today to 5.6 billion by the middle of the century, according to the International Energy Agency.
BTW Wiki says, production of the electricity used to operate air conditioners has an environmental impact, including the release of greenhouse gases. According to a 2015 government survey, 87% of the homes in the United States use air conditioning and 65% of those homes have central air conditioning. Most of the homes with central air conditioning have programmable thermostats, but approximately two-thirds of the homes with central air do not use this feature to make their homes more energy efficient.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-28/air-conditioning-is-the-world-s-next-big-threat
The legacy of our past investment in totally crap designed buildings is starting to bite the world in the butt.
Hickory,
If you are right about renewables not even taking up the growth of global energy, then time to toss in the towel and welcome in the new warm world.
It’s party time, if you are right.
“not even taking up the growth of global energy”
Ah, I missed that wording earlier.
You are right.
Towel toss likely in order either way.
true Doug. I was thinking about AC as I wrote that.
Hickory,
Less of a problem if the electricity is produced with wind, solar, hydro, or geothermal.
One more issue “yet been incorporated into the models”.
SURFACE MELTING CAUSES ANTARCTIC GLACIERS TO SLIP FASTER TOWARDS THE OCEAN
“The effects of such a major shift in Antarctic glacier melt on ice flow has not yet been incorporated into the models used to predict the future mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet and its contribution to sea level rise.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190920111355.htm
It is a fact that glaciers are going through some melting just about everywhere, including Antarctica, Alaska, even Greenland.
When Renewables Replace Fossil Fuels
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/when-renewables-replace-fossil-fuels
That was written two years ago: does anyone have handy the global growth rates for the 2 categories? A quick search finds information on capacity growth, but that’s not what this article is talking about – it’s talking about actual kWh consumption generated by renewables vs FF. For instance, in the US and China kWhs from coal is dropping faster (or growing more slowly) than coal capacity, as coal capacity factors are also dropping.
From the article:
to reach a tipping point where the annual output of renewable energy matches the overall growth in demand and the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere levels off.
So the tipping point here is when output of renewable energy matches only the growth in demand. When that takes 25 more years or more…
We need to focus on demand destruction for fossil fuels and other carbon emitting activities. At the same time implementing energy/material conservation with carbon free energy sources rising. Otherwise we are just chasing the ever increasing demand until it crashes.
W. ANTARCTICA’S CRUMBLING ICE SHEET TO REDRAW GLOBAL COASTLINE
The fate of the world’s coastal regions and the hundreds of millions of people who inhabit them depend on a block of ice atop West Antarctica on track to lift global oceans by at least three metres. It is not, according to available science, a matter of “if” but “when”. There is no longer any ambiguity. The studies we have in hand tell us that West Antarctica has passed a tipping point. It has become unstable and will discharge all its most vulnerable ice into the ocean. Period.
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-antarctica-crumbling-ice-sheet-redraw.html
Meanwhile,
UN SUMMIT TO OPEN WITHOUT KEY LEADERS
US President Donald Trump, will not take part. Brazil and Saudi Arabia are also among the countries staying away. The sensitive issue of coal reportedly means that Japan and Australia – whose leaders are not attending However, China and India have been given a podium place despite leading the world in developing new coal capacity.
As the dangers of climate heating become ever more apparent, so does the absence of collective will to tackle the issue. In 2015 in Paris, all the world’s leaders sounded their determination to curb the emissions that were heating the climate. Today will see a host of initiatives from businesses and small- and medium-sized nations but President Trump is encouraging fossil fuel in every way he can.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49795270
Yep-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V0Vu_utUZY
Just another case of which end of the egg will be cracked and when. The egg will still be cracked and the promise of life will ooze out.
Denialism is rampant. Neither “side” is facing reality for it is far too inconvenient and implies real change and courage.
The fact that China are there, tells us how ridiculous the fight against global warming is.
https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/china-plans-coal-power-projects-globally-190919081115665.html
Continuing with my joyful news theme — Last month, the number of wildfires in the Amazon tripled compared with the previous year.
PLANET SOS: AMAZON FIRES FEARS RAINFOREST WILL BECOME DESERT
“The fires have prompted a warning from some scientists that escalating deforestation could eventually turn the rainforest into a dry savanna. Despite a ban on fires for land-clearing, the Amazon is burning at a rate not seen in almost a decade.”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/planet-sos-amazon-fires-fears-rainforest-desert-190920153336750.html
Deserts come and go but have never eradicated life on the planet.
Has anyone here thought about the alternatives to a warm world (the general state of planet earth)?
Gone fishing
which deserts have gone?
All of them, except the most recent and they too will change. Go to various badlands to find fossil aquatic life and vast amounts of fossil life in general not found in deserts or badlands. Deserts once bloomed and inland seas became deserts and badlands. The Sahara Desert is only a few million years old and is not always desert, even lately. The Badlands of South Dakota sport fossils of aquatic life.
In fact during the time of the ancient Egyptians much of the Sahara had rain, rivers and vegetation. Then it all changed in a short time to one of the driest places on Earth.
6,000 years ago the Sahara Desert was tropical, so what happened?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161130141053.htm
Gonefishing
I agree that deserts have appeared within human times. But I asked you which desert has turned from desert to lush forest and grassland.
You missed the example I gave.
just name one
One.
Examples would be of areas where deserts have disappeared is where there are “red beds” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_beds) and are now well watered. Look at the Chugwater formation, the red hills of Kansas, the Old Red Sandstone, and the New Red Sandstone. Examples of man made greening are the crop fields of the Midwest and the orchards and fields of Eastern Washington.
Jay Woods,
The examples you give don’t have human application.
Chugwater–Triassic, more than 200 million years ago.
red hills of Kansas–Permian, more than 250 million years ago.
Old Red Sandstone–Devonian, more than 300 million years ago.
New Red Sandstone–Permian into Triassic, more than about 220 million years ago. (Had to look that one up)
What about the Sahara switching on and off?
Gonefishing,
That’s a fun one: The Sahara was greener, with integrated drainage basins (rivers!) and lakes during the early Holocene warm peak–it has names: the Hypsithermal, the early Holocene climatic optimum–as a result of a stronger West African monsoon.
Look at West Africa south of the Sahel latitudes and you see, or used to, rain forest. The West African monsoon supports that but it doesn’t have effect all that far into central North Africa. It did, though, when it was warmer in there and stronger winds carried more moisture farther into the continent. Savanna was widespread. As climate cooled, moving into the middle Holocene, and the monsoon weakened the stream systems dried out (archaeologists use satellite maps of their former water courses to look for early sites) and the Sahara came back. It was herders moving down into the Nile valley from the drying regions who played a role in the rise of ancient Egypt.
Time for more Port.
If you want examples where the deserts don’t happen and disappear because of continental drift but because of ice ages coming and going and you are willing to consider the Arctic a cold desert then there have been several episodes with continental glaciation. Most of Northern US and Southern Canada couldn’t grow crops about 15,000 years ago. Migration of people to North America was blocked until the melt down.
Jay Woods,
That’s an important point. Too often “desert” is thought of as implying “hot” yet the driest deserts are the coldest, like northern Greenland and, driest of all, the Dry Valleys of Antarctica. Desert and semi-desert were much more widespread during glacial maxima than they are today.
We could call Mars The Desert Planet, and it is one cold place.
Hugo —
Deserts come and go but at the moment over 45,000 square miles of arable land are lost to desertification each year. If this process continues, two thirds of the planet’s landmass could turn to desert by the end of this century—including most of Africa, Australia, Central Asia and Western North America.
https://www.thetrumpet.com/15978-why-are-deserts-expanding
“If this process continues, two thirds of the planet’s landmass could turn to desert by the end of this century”
45,000 square miles X 80 years =3.6 million square miles by 2100.
Total land surface is about 197 million square miles. One third is already desert. So to add another one third would be 65 million square miles >>3.6 million square miles.
Did they mean 1/3 of arable land (total is now 10.5 million square miles) land lost by 2100?
Additional info:
Dryland climate change: Recent progress and challenges
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016RG000550
Doug
We have already lost a third of arable land in the last 40 years.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/arable-land-soil-food-security-shortage
Hugo, from your link —
The continual ploughing of fields, combined with heavy use of fertilizers, has degraded soils across the world, the research found, with erosion occurring at a pace of up to 100 times greater than the rate of soil formation. It takes around 500 years for just 2.5cm of topsoil to be created amid unimpeded ecological changes.
Majority of geological time, the earth has been a hothouse planet.(including a few stints of snowball events)
Past 20 million years it has been cooling . One of the factors being the drop in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Until we came along and really started exponentially using all that locked up carbon in the earths crust.
Whether we manage to succeed into driving the planet into a hothouse again remains to be seen, but it is looking like a real possibility.
Even if we fail, the fate of the earth is eventually a hothouse. As the suns increases its luminosity by a factor of ~ 1% every 100 million years or so.
Will we survive to witness the earth being turned into a massive desert. Close to a zero chance for me.
I think we won’t even make it out of the 21st century. We are a dead end species in my worthless opinion.
Nice chart depicting climate records from the Cambrian to present.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg
As one paleontologist put it, if this is a mass extinction event there is nothing we can do about it.
If not then humans might last long enough to radiate into something else or force changes upon themselves to adapt to new conditions.
It is my assumption that the majority of humans don’t have the genetic stock to adapt to the coming low-energy environment.
We’ve taken for granted the agrarian and industrial civilization, people go crazy if McDonalds don’t have chicken nuggets. Also our attachment to various tech has dulled our brains ability to problem solve.
The population will be halved probably within the first 10 years as a result of not having WiFi or damage to the Facebook, instagram or youtube servers. Trump will be suicidal if Twitter goes offline lol
OMG, back to pens and paper and snailmail!
My generation invented the internet. Maybe that will solve the population/consumption problem.
There were actually more fires in the Amazon, burning a greater amount of land, during the previous Brazilian regime than during the current one.
To claim that you have to wait until the current fires are over
Arctic sea ice extent annual low
3964239 on sept 17
2nd lowest on record
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/blog/polview.html
Piomas here
https://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2019/09/piomas-september-2019.html
Paul Beckwith covers Arctic sea ice rather well on his YouTube, although he doesn’t get anywhere close to the tens of millions of views that the Millennials who review dollar store makeup products are getting.
Lol your last statement is pure truth.
Yes, very few want to deal with the broader reality and those who do often wish they had not.
It’s not just the Amazon.
AUSTRALIA GETS READY FOR POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC FIRE SEASON
Some of the Woronora volunteer fire brigade have just come back from helping with firefighting efforts up north. The fire there was so erratic, said Giles, that the firefighters were struggling to breathe, not as a result of the smoke, but because the fire was so large it was sucking the oxygen from the air. “That’s the weird stuff that’s going on,” he said. “And we’re going to see more of it.”
“Everyone has an understanding that once the drought index gets above a certain value, fire behavior becomes erratic,” the firefighter said. “We’re in that zone now.”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/australia-ready-potentially-catastrophic-fire-season-190919035100031.html
Lots of heat out in the North Pacific.
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/09/23/more-heat-second-largest-pacific-ocean-heat-wave-now-underway/
Do you think because the ocean near the US is warm then that means the US is in for an ice age like very cold winter this year?
We are in an Ice Age now, so every winter is an Ice Age winter.
Might get the RRR again in association with the blob.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridiculously_Resilient_Ridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob_(Pacific_Ocean)
Umm, we are not in an ice age
Correct 2.7 million years ago, but wrong since then.
Speaking of fires.
INDONESIAN FOREST FIRES PUTTING 10 MILLION CHILDREN AT RISK
Air pollution from Indonesian forest fires is putting nearly 10 million children at risk, the UN warned Tuesday, as scientists said the blazes were releasing vast amounts of greenhouse gases. The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, part of the EU’s Earth observation program, said this year’s Indonesian fires were releasing almost as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as blazes in 2015, the worst for two decades. At the peak of the 2015 crisis, the fires were emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each day than all US economic activity, according to environmental watchdog the World Resources Institute.
Major forest fires are a double blow to the climate. As well as releasing greenhouse gases, the blazes destroy a natural buffer against global warming as forests suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Indonesia has insisted it is doing everything it can to end the crisis. But firefighters have struggled to tame the most serious blazes, which burn deep underground in carbon-rich peat.
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-indonesian-forest-million-children.html
Not to worry, they will just create more palm oil and rubber plantations. Which of course will then succumb to disease.
Ah yes, Tipping Points, nasty little devils aren’t they?
EXTREMES OF GLOBAL HEAT BRING TIPPING POINTS CLOSER
Researchers once again warn in the journal Science that even the seemingly small gap between 1.5 deg C and 2 deg C could spell a colossal difference in long-term outcomes. Right now, the planet is on track to hit or surpass 3 deg C by 2100. The case for drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is now more compelling and urgent than ever.
“First, we have under-estimated the sensitivity of natural and human systems to climate change and the speed at which these things are happening. Second, we have under-appreciated the synergistic nature of climate threats – with outcomes tending to be worse than the sum of the parts,” said Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the University of Queensland in Australia, who led the study.
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/extremes-of-global-heat-bring-tipping-points-closer
Meanwhile,
“We, the human citizens of the planet, are facing a climate crisis and an unprecedented climate emergency. It’s not just because climates are changing planet wide, or because impacts keep cascading and worsening through the biosphere, or because human activities are the primary cause. No. It’s a crisis and emergency because the institutions and habits of humankind still lack a commitment to end the destabilization of the life-sustaining biosphere by any date or at any point in the future. Humanity and the planet are veering toward a future that strips away the freedom of families to flourish across generations. We are veering toward a catastrophic bust.”
https://www.co2.earth/2-uncategorised/213-stabilize-or-bust
Just for once, I wish you and the writers of this stuff would admit you can’t really believe it, because you don’t put any of your effort into living the lifestyle you think everybody else should live in order to be “climate friendly.” So how about giving up the 10 mpg pickup or SUV, giving up electricity, ending your consumption, hunting and growing all your food, moving into a wooden hut, and, most importantly, giving up the internet. Maybe society would have cause to listen after an earnest demonstration of being a true believer in what you preach.
“because you don’t put any of your effort into living the lifestyle you think everybody else should live”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience
Hi Jack, your view of the world is wildly skewed.
You see the green movement does not want to go back to the primitive stone age life, they want lots of PV, wind turbines, batteries, LED’s, internet of things and EV’s. It will be a highly industrialized “green” world full of electricity and gadgets galore. You know, business as usual with less CO2 and more parks.
But they do want to take away your gas sucking pickup truck, your heat leaking house and your incandescent bulbs. I know it sounds awful but you will feel much better once Elon chips your brain and everything becomes clear. You won’t miss that smell of burnt hydrocarbons in the morning. Trust me.
Geez Jack, that’s not what people are saying.
The plan is to eliminate coal, oil and natural gas. We will still drive, just drive EV we plug in at home, powered by electricity from solar panels and wind mills.
We will still fly, electric airplanes. We will have no food issues. Electric tractors. People are even working on ways to grow many times more food in a small area, so most farming might end up being done without much large equipment anyway.
We will be able to process all the food without fossil fuels and transport it to the stores in electric delivery trucks (see Amazon plans to buy a ton of electric delivery vans). We continue to develop products that taste like meat but aren’t, so meat can be eliminated as a food. That will also reduce emissions.
We will continue to improve our roads without fossil fuel. Also, all plastics will be produced without fossil fuel. We are working towards eliminating plastics bags, that will also help.
It is my understanding that the above can be accomplished in a decade, as long as we print between $10-20 trillion dollars to pay for it, plus provide five years salary and benefits to every displaced fossil fuel worker or until he/she finds a comparable job.
Industries change. The fossil fuel industries make up way less of the S & P 500 than they ever have. That appears to be a long term trend.
I don’t know of the above what to believe. But things are definitely changing and it looks like my little community will get the worst of it economically.
Nice bedtime story for the kiddies. Do you tell them about the dead planet they won’t be living on in the future?
15-20 trillion dollars is a bargain compared to current spend on energy.
The Hidden Subsidy of Fossil Fuels
A new report says that the world subsidized fossil fuels by $5.2 trillion in just one year. But that calculation is less tidy than it seems.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/05/how-much-does-world-subsidize-oil-coal-and-gas/589000/
Big oil is set to spend $5 trillion on fossil fuels we can’t afford to burn
Our analysis found that all production from new oil and gas fields – beyond those already in production or development – is incompatible with reaching the world’s climate goals. Yet the oil and gas industry is set to spend $4.9 trillion (yes, trillion) over the next ten years on exploration and extraction in new fields. That’s an eye-watering amount of money to spend on fossil fuels we need to leave in the ground
https://www.globalwitness.org/en/blog/big-oil-set-to-spend-5-trillion/
No bedtime story.
This is what is going to happen per what I am reading in the news practically every day.
I wasn’t being sarcastic.
I am worried about the major hit my local economy will take from this. That is just the way it is. Don’t know that I am in favor of government bailing out communities like mine. People will just have to move where the jobs are.
The majority of the US population has these goals. So they will happen in some manner or another I assume.
Shallow Sand, what would the outcome be if there were only fossil fuels for energy? How long do you think before general civilization collapsed from pollution, loss of food and habitat due to climate change, and post peak fossil fuels reductions?
Be thankful there are some alternatives and hope they are robust enough when their time is really needed.
I have personally observed the collapse of a whole region that was mostly economically dependent upon mining. When the mines ran low and other technologies took over the region fell apart economically for almost two generations. That was during good times.
Maybe getting ahead of the game a bit is a good thing overall. Fast collapse sucks.
I agree. I am just worried that the disruption will happen too fast and there won’t be time to adapt.
But disruption really can’t be influenced much, except by big time government spending/regulation.
100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and
Sunlight All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139
Countries of the World
SUMMARY
We develop roadmaps to transform the all-purpose energy infrastructures (electricity,
transportation, heating/cooling, industry, agriculture/forestry/fishing)
of 139 countries to ones powered by wind, water, and sunlight (WWS). The
roadmaps envision 80% conversion by 2030 and 100% by 2050. WWS not
only replaces business-as-usual (BAU) power, but also reduces it 42.5%
because the work: energy ratio of WWS electricity exceeds that of combustion
(23.0%), WWS requires no mining, transporting, or processing of fuels (12.6%),
and WWS end-use efficiency is assumed to exceed that of BAU (6.9%). Converting
may create 24.3 million more permanent, full-time jobs than jobs lost.
It may avoid 4.6 million/year premature air-pollution deaths today and
3.5 million/year in 2050; $22.8 trillion/year (12.7 ¢/kWh-BAU-all-energy) in
2050 air-pollution costs; and $28.5 trillion/year (15.8 ¢/kWh-BAU-all-energy)
in 2050 climate costs. Transitioning should also stabilize energy prices because
fuel costs are zero, reduce power disruption and increase access to energy by
decentralizing power, and avoid 1.5C global warming.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf
For those who like facts and figures, here it is.
“There Is No Planet B” – Mike Berners Lee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLa3CnM7sSg&t=739s
Shallow-
I don’t think we are about to stop with oil or NG anytime soon. Coal is different story.
There will be plenty of demand for the next 2-3 decades, question is will supply be able to keep up.
Having alternatives to replace oil is a national (international) emergency, considering depletion.
Look at the chart linked by Ron-
https://www.iea.org/statistics/?country=WORLD&year=2016&category=Energy%20supply&indicator=TPESbySource&mode=chart&dataTable=BALANCES
Hickory.
I agree if fracking is banned soon after the 2020 election in USA, there will be a shortage soon thereafter.
The question is whether that will occur. Dennis and others think Warren and Sanders won’t follow through with this campaign promise.
I think people assume I have some agenda. I do in that I am worried about what happens to the place I have lived for over half a century, which is tied to oil production, oil refining, agriculture and ICE auto manufacturing.
I am not asking for a bailout. I am not asking for anything really. I am questioning how quickly FF can be eliminated and if printing trillions is the right way to go. But I am not saying this idea is wrong.
I’d like to see more detail and less ideology. I really think both political parties spout a lot more ideology and a lot less facts and actual plans than is helpful.
I drilled down on shale facts because I could understand them, having an oil and gas background. I have no background in solar, wind, electricity, auto manufacturing and many other relevant areas.
Guess I’d like to see less pointing, political stuff etc, and more facts.
Maybe something fact based, like Enno Peters shaleprofile, only dealing with how we are going to eliminate FF without major lifestyle impacts.
Shallow-
“I’d like to see more detail and less ideology”
I completely agree with you on this. I’m not coming around to hear more half-baked opinions from anyone- I’ve had plenty of those from myself, locals, the media and the government over the years. I’m interested in facts related to pretty much all things energy, as well as earth science and related issues of population, food, ecology, and economy.
Coming around here has been useful to me, since I’ve heard others perspectives and sources of information, including yourself. It is an exercise in critical thinking.
I really appreciate the effort Dennis, and Ron, have made to getting information regarding oil production in all of our hands.
I am much more of a realist/pragmatist than many who visit here, but am also extremely concerned about the scenario we face, on many fronts- oil depletion, population overshoot, severe wealth inequality, and severe environmental degradation. It adds up to a very high risk of economic disruption. I am not optimist for a smooth path. Unlike some others, I do not look forward to witnessing this.
I also think transition from oil will take a very long time, and will more likely come via depletion than ‘voluntary/policy’ changes.
Things will look very different in tens years time, of that I am certain.
” how we are going to eliminate FF without major lifestyle impacts.” Me too, although I suspect it is not possible, not even remotely. We are far to reliant on this tremendous source of energy. And we have most people desperately avoiding the consideration of all the unpleasant and inconvenient consequences of various options, whether on the right or left of these issues.
The question for me is more about what policy, lifestyle and purchase choices we can make to have the transition be timely, at scale, and digestible. We are lucky here in the states to have a lot of domestic energy sources. Many of our close international partners are in deep trouble in this regard.
Enough rambling, pardon.
Great discussion guys, thanks.
A fair amount of factual data is presented over here, though there are plenty of opinions, politics, ideology etc as well.
EV transition below, with low, high and average scenario, when supply is above demand price will fall so that oil supply falls to match demand.
2028 to 2042 is the range for when this occurs with the average of the two scenarios having demand fall below supply in 2037.
Vertical axis is Mb/d of oil supply or demand. Click on chart for larger view.
Also note this scenario does not consider autonomous vehicles, when those are approved (2030?) the transition to EVs will accelerate.
Hickory. Thanks for this post.
I’m just having a hard time understanding how this all shakes out, and maybe that is because no one really knows how it will.
Just like Dennis notes a scenario. But it is far from certain.
One example is his mention of autonomous driving. He says “when it gets approved.”
I can’t even understand how autonomous driving helps the transition away from FF. I also haven’t seen any induction that many of the major problems with autonomous will be solved ever.
Ride sharing is another. I am not sure I want just anyone riding with me, or want just anyone driving my car.
For example, I have seen people riding scooters around cities, and just leaving them anywhere. Is that the plan for light passenger vehicles?
There are a ton of issues here that I just can’t grasp, so maybe people who know more could help me out here.
Shallow- “I can’t even understand how autonomous driving helps the transition away from FF.”
Me too. For practical purposes, I consider it a non-issue. Perhaps we will be surprised. So be it.
I definitely think plugin hybrids will have a significant effect in the shorter term (this coming decade), especially for short distance riders, but it will take a long time to permeate the huge stock of vehicles out there on the worlds roads.
Seems that a very big wild card is the progress of batteries. If they get cheaper/stronger, it will have a big impact.
I must say that I have been surprised by the projections demonstrated in the longterm graphs by Dennis. The long ‘tail’ of available liquids productions is more than I would have guessed, but I have no specific quibble with his assumptions to offer.
Regarding transition away from fossil fuels, it is going to take a long time folks. Many people acknowledge calif as a leader in this country on this matter. The current state goals for this biggest state in the 50, is- “In 2018, California committed to 60% renewable electricity by 2030 and 100% carbon-free power by 2045.”
Take note that is just for electricity generation. It does not include any goal for liquids. Of course there is some overlap, especially as vehicles gradually become more electrified.
Regardless, it will take considerable luck and big escalation of effort to achieve the transition ahead of oil depletion. The highways are filled with more truck and light vehicle traffic than ever. Bursting at seams. I don’t commute, or I would/could not tolerate living any where near the cities. Same goes for many of the bustling cities of the country.
Shallow, there are no firm answers only better and worse directions. No one knows all the answers when treading into unknown territory. The earth system has already deviated into new territory, taking us and bulk of the lifeforms with it (those we did not kill off).
The problem is not technology, it’s scale and thinking. I am all for free and cheap solutions, but that involves changing the very structure and aims of society. It involves getting people involved in their planet instead of themselves and their gadget. It involves being a positive force in the world.
Much tougher to do but it should actually work for the long term, unlike fossil fuels and renewable energy just pushing more BAU.
On autonomous driving, machine learning is likely to make this possible along with the inexpensive sensors, 5G communication may also help. It has the potential to reduce oil use as it may speed the transition to EVs.
Basically people will be able to use their personal vehicles as robotaxis (a self driving uber) and it is likely that car ownership will be reduced as people simple use a car service which will be very inexpensive with self driving cars. The average car will travel 60,000 miles per year instead of the average of 12,000 miles so 5 time fewer vehicles will be needed.
Those who like riding by themselves will pay more than those willing to ride in a car with others.
The main point was that the transition to EVs might occur 2 to 3 times faster, if every EV travels 2 or 3 times more miles than the equivalent ICEV. Also when the World moves towards Transportation as a Service (TaaS) there might be more cars on the road with more than one passenger which reduces fuel use.
Note that the point where demand falls below supply simply indicates the point where oil prices may start to fall. The model has assumed basically flat consumption of oil from air and water transport and other uses of oil, the focus was simply on oil used in road transport.
I’m still not getting the robo taxi self driving thing.
I am at work, getting ready to go home to eat lunch. Less than 5 minute drive.
So, rather than get into my pickup truck, I would hope a robo taxi is there to take me home?
Would the robo taxi be parked in the parking lot? Will I have to call it in?
This stuff just seems so far fetched to me. And I’m sitting here in a town of under 10K people.
How does this work in a major city? Will there be robo taxis scattered everywhere, just like the scooters I see scattered all over in major cities?
shallow sand,
The robo taxi will park itself, just like an Uber driver would until it gets a call for another ride. The car will drive to the address where the pick up is drive to the destination, then park and wait for the next ride. Not clear how charging would work, maybe they will drive to a supercharger and a robot or human attendant will plug the car in. I imagine it will be figured out.
In the future there would be robotaxis parked here and there, probably the car could be scheduled in advance, but typically with an Uber you type in your destination in your smart phone.
Have you ever used Uber when in a city? It will work like that. In low density areas, people may continue to use their own cars, but in more densely populated areas people may switch to TaaS and no longer own a vehicle. This has already begun, some people have given up their cars in metro areas, with robotaxis TaaS will become much cheaper and more and more people will switch. Wealthy people may continue to own cars, but most cars will be owned by companies specializing in TaaS (Uber, Tesla, Lyft, etc).
I live in the big city (11,000).
Shallow Sand,
Where Uber (or Lyft, etc) is popular and mature, it is very reliable: you enter a request 2-3 minutes before they’re needed, and they show up.
This will obviously happen first in big, dense cities. In really rural areas, it’s hard to imagine that kind of instant service, but it might be pretty close – if you can schedule something ahead of time, it doesn’t have to be instant.
I do personally know people who for the past 5 years always go to the airport in a Lyft or Uber, often sharing the ride with nearby customers at a much lower cost. you can specify solo or shared.
These same people go into town for the evening the same way, and hail a ride home within minutes of their desired departure on their cell phone. They like it a lot. This works very well in cities and suburbs.
It would be interesting to see data on the 5 of rides or passenger miles provided by these services growth over time. Between this and autonomous vehicles in 10 yrs it could be significant.
@Shallow
“So, rather than get into my pickup truck, I would hope a robo taxi is there to take me home? ”
You are thinking of 1 robotaxi. A specific taxi for your use. When there is a fleet then there will be one that can respond first. Think sticking your arm up for a yellow cab.
NAOM
I know many people who live in cities. A few don’t have vehicles. Almost all, however, do have vehicles. Generally, for married couples each has a vehicle, and every kid 16+ also has a vehicle. The ones who don’t have a vehicle tend to be single and live in the city, and not in the suburbs.
Uber is nothing more than a non-union, low paid, no benefit, unregulated taxi company IMO. Same with Lyft.
We have taken Uber and Lyft when we have been on vacation. Two times, we made a side deal with the driver the first time we were driven, that we would just call him by cellphone the rest of the week – outside of the app – and he would drive us anywhere and wouldn’t have to give the company a cut. I can’t figure out how Uber and Lyft keep this from being commonplace.
I still don’t see what this robo taxi business has to do with cutting down on cars. Why is the fact that there will be no driver make any difference? Why won’t my relatives in the cities still own the number of vehicles they already own? Even if they don’t have to drive?
Maybe younger people will not be as interested in owning cars. I hear that is happening. But that has to do with lifestyle choice, not robo taxis.
I think sometime people get hung up on the techie angle. A good marketing job can sucker in a lot of people. I can see why Uber and Lyft would want robo taxi. No drivers to pay and no drivers cutting side deals.
Dennis. I think you and your better half own a Tesla and a Camry. Why will robo taxis cause you to give those up?
So far, I don’t know anyone that has given up a vehicle for any kind of ride service, but I do think some 20-somethings have delayed purchase, since they have alternatives.
But its still early in this story.
shallow sand,
No that is not likely in the near future, though, if autonomous vehicles don’t get approved until 2025, possibly we might go to one car.
Already the Camry miles were cut from about 15k to 5k in the first year owning the Model 3, pretty much all of our driving together is in the Model 3, mostly the Camry gets driven by me and I do not drive it much.
Not sure the wife would be comfortable going to one car.
What I do envision is that the Model 3 could be used by me as a robotaxi when AV driving is approved, while my wife is at work the car can drive around giving rides and earning income after dropping her at work and it will be waiting for her to pick her up at the end of the day.
Also I think we would probably not give up owning a car altogether, but I could see making do with one car.
Keep in mind that younger people are more open to change than us older folks. I could see my kids giving up their cars and just using TaaS in the future.
Shallow Sand,
Like a drug addict there will be some pain during withdrawal. Waiting is not going to make the transition any easier and only going to leave more stranded assets on the playing field. No one knows how this transition is going to proceed, but for sure those who put their head in the sand are going to get kicked in the ass.
There is no reason any of your currently high paid refinery workers need to be laided off over the next couple of decades. The most inefficient and polluting refineries will close down over time first. Shit happens, your little town has time to prepare for the future.
Dennis, sorry I posted yesterday’s comment on the denial god lover side. It was an accident and didn’t realize it until it was to late to delete it. My dog always turns her head away from me when in trouble and doesn’t think I can see her too. Out of sight, out of mind.
No Problem.
Just realize in the future I may choose to delete posts I deem off topic. I will not move them to the other thread, too much work.
Shallow sand,
Very funny. We might stop using airplanes or might find some other source of power. Trains can be built and electrified, electric trucks can go from rail terminal to final destination.
It surely will not happen in a decade, more like a gradual transition over three or 4 decades.
Ever talk to grandparents about the days before tractors and pickup trucks? My guess is the transition in that case did not occur in a decade, it is a big job, will take lots of time and that is why sensible people advocate starting now. Yes it will cost money, but as old ICEVs wear out they need to be replaced anyway, and trucks wear out and can be replaced with rail cars, coal and natural gas power plants require constant fuel which costs money. People will gradually retire from dying industries or lose their jobs as plants shut down as demand falls, just as was the case for the leather industry in the US, and the shoe industry, and paper industry, etc. This is how capitalism works.
I generate all my own electricity, thank you very much. Don’t need an SUV because I quite driving off road years ago. The electric car does just fine. The biggest life style changes I have made is giving up red meat and pork and I guess plastic bags at the grocery. Everything else is pretty much the same except my conscience.
I had a friend who was a biology major (this is some 35 years ago).
He mentioned a solution to overpopulation that had been suggested in academic biology circles (probably not in a reviewed journal): If every biologist went out and killed 500 people, well, problem solved.
Obviously, this is a short term solution- it doesn’t stop the survivors from procreating back to the tipping point. And that is the crux of doing anything about the predicament. It doesn’t matter what you do if you do not have broad acceptance of the problem, and agreement on the actions to take to mitigate it.
In a late reply to Dennis on an earlier thread I opined…
I don’t think that “…stopping the export of oil…” will help much, although when viewed from a hundred years hence how the oil and coal burning gets stopped may not matter much.
In the short term tho, if any semblance of social order is to be sustained, the only ‘safe’ way forward to a lower-carbon-emitting future is via demand destruction with the individual energy consumer.
I grumble when Greenpeace pickets another coal mine – its not the miner’s fault, its the fault of those who buy and burn the coal. Its not the oilman’s fault, its the fault of those who by and burn the fuel.
At the individual level governments can do a lot to swing people’s choices, and to support changes to less harmful (however you may define that!) ways of doing things. Support for uptake of good technology and discouragement of bad. Support for job training to transfer skills from bad to good jobs etc.
I understand that in WWII the entire USA car production was swapped onto producing planes etc. An instantaneous policy decision which completely changed the nation’s main industrial systems from one mode to another within a matter of days and weeks.
Imagine if a Trump or a Macron bought all the fossil-fuel business leaders into a room and told them “You have until Thursday to come back to me with a plan to replace 50% of your production (50 million barrels a day equivalent, plus coal) with energy systems which emit no more than 25% that of oil at lower price per kWhe, or I will increase your income and company tax by a factor of ten, and if you haven’t sorted it by Thursday week I will do it again.” and on the same day he tells the nation “The government has agreed with all opposition parties to form a united coalition government to meet this emergency. We will subsidise good business and penalise bad businesses. We will subsidise good jobs and penalise bad jobs. We will subsides training for a low-carbon life, we will penalise training for bad. We will do this by using carrot and stick rebates and taxes, with minimal net cost to the taxpayer. It will be an exciting ride to a new way of doing things, and we will ensure that nobody gets left behind. But woe betide he who seeks to stand in our way!”
With the right signals and a clear national goal and commitment, the free market can be pointed in the right direction for the greater good. While a lot of sea level rise is already locked in, we can keep a lid on temperatures if we act very fast, at scale IMHO.
“With the right signals and a clear national goal and commitment, the free market can be pointed in the right direction for the greater good. ”
Well said. We are desperate for adult leadership on environment and energy policy.
In other words, Fuck Off!
AMAZON RAINFOREST BELONGS TO BRAZIL, SAYS JAIR BOLSONARO
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has insisted that the Amazon rainforest is his country’s sovereign territory. His policies of opening up the area to development have been criticised amid the wildfires raging there. But in an address at the UN in New York, he struck a defiant note. “It is a fallacy to say that the Amazon is the heritage of humankind, and a misconception confirmed by scientists to say that our Amazon forests are the lungs of the world.” he said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49815731
New IPCC report
“Extreme sea level events that [occur] once per century in the recent past are projected to occur at least once per year at many locations by 2050 in all scenarios.”
The world’s high mountain glaciers, upon which almost 2 billion people rely for water, are also melting fast, the IPCC found, while landslides are expected to increase.
“Widespread permafrost thaw is projected for this century and beyond.” A quarter is already near certain to melt, it said, and 70% or more would go if emissions are not curbed. In the latter case, hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and methane could be released, supercharging the climate emergency.
Hugo, also from your link —
UN PANEL SIGNALS RED ALERT ON ‘BLUE PLANET’
Climate change is devastating our seas and frozen regions as never before. According to a UN panel of scientists, waters are rising, the ice is melting, and species are moving habitat due to human activities. And the loss of permanently frozen lands threatens to unleash even more carbon, hastening the decline. There is some guarded hope that the worst impacts can be avoided, with deep and immediate cuts to carbon emissions. In a nutshell, the waters are getting warmer, the world’s ice is melting rapidly, and these have implications for almost every living thing on the planet.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49817804
” In a nutshell, the waters are getting warmer, the world’s ice is melting rapidly, and these have implications for almost every living thing on the planet.”
How many decades have we known that?
“How many decades have we known that?”
Enough decades to know we won’t do anything meaningful in the next one to avert disaster, assuming it isn’t too late already of course.
Nature will do many meaningful things for us over the next decade.
Meanwhile,
THE UN ASKED FOR CLIMATE PLANS. MAJOR ECONOMIES FAILED TO ANSWER
“World leaders were asked to come to the UN with concrete plans to cut emissions to net zero. But on Monday, the presidents and prime ministers of the world’s largest emitting economies stumbled. Signalling just how difficult the work of removing CO2 will be compared to setting targets.”
“I haven’t met any leaders who know… how to get there. Most haven’t started really seriously and most leaders “don’t have a clue” how they will meet a 1.5C compatible target.”
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/09/24/un-asked-climate-plans-major-economies-failed-answer/
Yes Doug
The UN is rightfully damning.
“From China and India there was “nothing”, Tubiana told CHN.”
The EU recently dropped the 2050 commitment.
https://euobserver.com/environment/145227
Spending on renewable energy is pathetic.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/08/global-renewable-power-spending-has-been-virtually-flat-for-seven-years.html
Some time ago, I did an approximate calculation that the world needed to spend around $2.2 trillion each year to become carbon neutral in good time, to prevent serious climatic turmoil.
This is about what the world spends on clothing, shoes and Jewellery!!
“Spending on renewable energy is pathetic. ”
Thank you.
“When I was a young man, I could go into the forest and find lots of fruit to eat. Now many of the forests are gone and even the monkeys have little to eat, that is why they invade the cities. ”
A wise Indian
There are many inexpensive ways to change our world and make it a healthy place to live. Food, good soil, lots of fresh water, those are the things we really need to aim at for the future. Without a healthy livable world, the machines and people will all wind down and fail.
The hardest thing to change is the ways of man, not the world. The world changes itself.
When I was working I ran the device fabrication lab for the solar energy research institute in Colorado. In the eighties and early nineties we did our research in converted office buildings off of I-70 West of Denver. The “Clean Room” was a tiny space about 10 X 12 ft with an ancient mask aligner an old fume hood and some hot plates. Even so we set many performance records in that space. I remember taking visiting scientists from all over the world into that lab and telling them “This is the United States of America’s advanced Photovoltaics fabrication Lab” and watching their faces for some sort of reaction. It was always amusing. Years latter as NREL we moved into a bigger space in a dedicated laboratory, but by industry standards it is still laughably tiny. And dated by about thirty years. No one gives a shit. Oh well.
Nature will do many meaningful things to us over the next decade.
“How many decades have we known that?“
Gonefishing, The message now is that this is accelerating. Changes faster than previous predictions
The government massaged and selected message is incomplete, outdated and well behind the times.
Yes, we have known it is accelerating for quite some time. I guess it’s startling for anyone who does not keep up with the latest research and knows little about the subject.
Otherwise, way too little, way too late. Not that it will be acted upon.
Yes, we have known it is accelerating for quite some time.
But we don’t know that many decades.
“Sea levels are rising at an ever-faster rate as ice and snow shrink, and oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a report issued as world leaders met at the United Nations.“
If tipping points have reached, and that seems so, what will happen the next two decades ? Considerably less CO2 emissions?
Two decades of ever-faster rate of changes could be devastating.
The fossil fuel industry will continue until it can’t. Simple as that. Renewables are merely an extender of BAU and the biomass renewable surge is just another disaster.
What will happen? Crossing of major tipping points, then lots of wailing, screaming and death. But we already have that and the elites take it as usual, always ready to sacrifice the populace to promote their own common good and safety.
Peasants with torches are no longer much of a problem when machine guns, bombs, heavy weapons, drones and large amounts of surveillance are in place.
Each time they come up with a report the news is that it is worse than the last report. This one has the 2100 seas rising by 1.1m instead of 1m. I guess the next report will put that up another 10%, then the next again. This makes me think that the figure will be more like 2m. Another worry is that the difference in changes between 2.6 and8.5 will not start showing up till about mid century and we won’t really know which track we will be on until the latter part. We are well and truly fucked, several times over.
NAOM
I find the timing of these discussions on how badly our civilisation is doing with respect to what needs to be done to reign in carbon emissions (and other stuff) very interesting. Yesterday I watched a clip of teen climate activist, Greta Thunberg addressing world leaders at the UN Climate Action Summit:
WATCH: Greta Thunberg’s full speech to world leaders at UN Climate Action Summit
She started by saying:
“My message is that, we will be watching you”
She ended by saying:
“You’re failing us, but the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say we will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up and change is coming whether you like it or not. Thank you.”
The transcript does not do justice to the raw emotion displayed by this young woman. It is the most emotional I have ever seen her. She described her emotions as sad and angry and the anger was palpable as she used the phrase “How dare you” a couple of times.
The US has it’s own climate activist prodigy, Xiuhtezcatl Martinez and when Greta Thunberg addressed the House Foreign Affairs and Climate Crisis Committee joint hearing in Washington, D.C, on Sept. 18, he was right there (over her shoulder in the video). Martinez is part of a group that filed a lawsuit against the US government for failing to combat the climate crisis back in 2016. He may also have partly been behind Greta Thunberg and 15 other youth filing suit against five countries Monday, arguing that carbon pollution violates their rights under the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, including the right to life, health and peace.
These young people are getting angry and are getting to the age when they will have considerable influence as a voting block. Those who deny the science of global warming for their own selfish financial reasons (Charles Koch) should take note. As these young people grow up and see the chance for a “good” life on this planet slipping away from them, they may decide to take out their rage on those they perceive as responsible for the challenges they face. Just listen to Thunberg’s impassioned four and a half minute address to world leaders at the UN if you think it is a joke!
The sad message is that if tipping points have reached this decade, even reducing CO2 emissions to zero within two decades won’t change much the magnitude of changes for this entire century. Unless they find a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
That miserable child is at the age where many children think they got the entire world figured out. What she is going to realize is that she has nothing figured out, as she hasn’t put in the work of explaining a plan for humanity to survive without fossil fuels and several other related dilemmas. What does she think Russia and Iran will do when there most significant source of income is taken away? How will billions of Africans, Chinese and Indian live when there country gets to have no natural resource sales? Privileged people like Greta may be cunning enough to survive, but everybody else in the working class isn’t going to be so lucky.
+1
That miserable child doesn’t see herself as having all that much to be happy about even though she counts herself as “one of the lucky ones”. My paternal grandfather was a saddler and a good friend of mine had a grandfather who was a blacksmith. What did they do when “their most significant source of income
iswas taken away?” There are jobs that I used to do that have gone the way of the dodo. I had to find new employment.Maybe Greta is more concerned that stories like this might become more common:
“Zimbabwe’s capital runs dry, 2 million people affected ”
How are the millions of people who depend on rivers fed by the melt-water from Himalayan glaciers going to fare if those glaciers cease to exist?
More questions than answers!
I’d wager that the miserable child, despite English not being her native language, knows the difference between “their and there”.
Pops, how do you think Russia, Iran, Africa, China, and India or anyone else will do when global average temperature increases by 3.5°F and beyond, and sea levels are a yard higher?
The primary economy of our planet is its ecology. The economies of mankind are utterly and completely dependent upon it.
And rather than attacking the messenger, a remarkable child with the fortitude to address the U.N., how about you actually address her message. Here is the core of it:
So, Pops, where in the above quote is she wrong? Dismantle the argument of the miserable child rather than distract with a personal attack.
Also, Just curious, what were you doing at 16?
“I’d wager that the miserable child, despite English not being her native language, knows the difference between “their and there”.“
Nitpicking and sarcasm is not the best reaction if you hope for answers.
“So, Pops, where in the above quote is she wrong?“
She is not wrong, but what she expects or urges world leaders to do is an utopia. Cutting emissions in half in 10 years is impossible without world economy entering a great depression (she asks for not continuing BAU).
Imagine what happens if they order: plans for new crude oil projects canceled, plans for more gas fields development canceled. Plans for new coal plants canceled. No more biofuel production.
More realistic is if she hopes and advocates for 50% less CO2 emission in 2050. Because she knows that this will no be enough to avoid disaster, she comes with something impossible to execute without the risk that hundreds of millions if not more die of hunger and disease within 10 years
“Cutting emissions in half in 10 years is impossible without world economy entering a great depression”
No.
To achieve that goal will take a major effort that will create jobs and boost economies. To fail will make the Great Depression look like a minor, overnight stock ,market glitch.
NAOM
NAOM,
In an utopian world, yes, it could happen.
Go the presidents of China, India and a few more other countries give the order that they have to tell their rising middle class to give up flying more. Go let them cancel the plans for building quite a few new big airports.
Building numerous windmills, solar panel farms and producing much more EV’s certainly will boost the economy. But that is not the only thing that the rising middle class is looking for. The politicians facilitate what their citizens want, for their own benefit.
One could answer: but crude oil used for the aviation sector is not that much, so when percentage EV’s on the road increases a lot oil use will go down despite growth of aviation. However, I wrote above all about the next 10 years, the next decade, when emissions ‘have to be’ cut in half. An optimistic scenario imho is that in 2030 the percentage of EV’s on the road will be about 20%. When world oilproduction starts to decline a few years before 2030, then maybe more than 20%. Anyhow, world leaders will not consider to move away from oil the next decade, because they expect aviation to grow strongly and they don’t expect EV’s to penetrate the market rapidly.
It’s working down the field. Start with cars, trucks, trains then work on down, quite a standard way of dealing with issues. Despite wishful thinking, air travel is on the brink, just look at the collapses. Cook’s is the latest and will hit destinations too. Climate is starting to hit air travel as planes cannot take off in the heat. Climate will hit destinations too, those that have not been destroyed by storms. I live in one and do not see it being viable past mid-century or earlier. It will get too hot and humid while the beaches disappear. There are a lot of changes in the pipeline and we need to start moving before they swamp us. Solar, wind, EVs etc may not solve the problem but they give us a chance to solve the problem.
NAOM
“politicians facilitate” > “politicians fantisise”
FIFY
NOAM 🙂
Climate is starting to hit air travel as planes cannot take off in the heat.
NAOM,
What temperature and/or heat index have to be reached for planes not being able to take off ?
@Han
Sorry, I don’t have the numbers but there have been several reported cases of flight delays due to this.
NAOM
Each generation faces a significant challenge or two as they are growing up. For my parent’s, it was the great depression followed by the second world war. For mine, it was the threat of nuclear war with the soviets. For grumpy Greta’s generation, climate could be the challenge they call their own. The specifics of all these issues are different but the effect is the same. People come together to overcome them. The problem is today’s kids are made to think they are all special “snowflakes” which makes them believe they should always be sheltered from all life’s realities.
“which makes them believe they should always be sheltered from all life’s realities.”
No.
That is what the adults believe, not the children.
NAOM
Pops
She is simply telling the world leaders what the IPCC has been saying.
The point she is making is that without an all out effort, children will die.
Globally we spend over 2 trillion dollars on clothing and footwear.
The same amount of money invested in wind, solar, batteries and hydrogen would be enough.
I guess people love clothes more than children
Yeah I guess the kids are pissed about dying in a famine.
The strong ones will die in the famine. The weak ones will die in the civil unrest as the hungry hot ones escape to points north and south, displacing all those who confront them in their desperation.
We need to allow capitalism to light the way towards slaying the climate change beast rather than standing by while a snot-nosed little runt tries to whip us into submission. Here are a couple examples, from just the past week, showing how private industry is figuring out on its own what needs to be done to combat climate change.
Jeff Bezos pledges that Amazon will swiftly combat climate change
https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/19/20873834/amazon-sustainability-jeff-bezos-climate-change-pledge-emissions-paris-accord
Today, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos announced a massive new commitment to fight climate change called The Climate Pledge. He says Amazon will work to drastically reduce its carbon emissions with the ultimate goal of becoming carbon-neutral by 2040 — all part of an effort to avert some of the most catastrophic effects of climate change.
IKEA is investing $2.8 billion in renewable energy infrastructure
https://qz.com/1712654/ikeas-retail-arm-is-investing-2-8-billion-in-renewable-energy/?utm_source=reddit.com
Weaning off fossil fuels isn’t just about a social good initiative, says Pia Heidenmark Cook, Ingka Group’s chief sustainability officer. As a resource-intensive operation, mitigating its significant carbon footprint is essential to its longevity as a global enterprise. “We have to do this because we’re here for the long term,” she explained to Quartz.
“It’s actually smart business and what the business model of the future will look like, echoed Ingka Group CEO Jesper Brodin. “Everything around fossil fuels and daft use of resources will be expensive,” he said to Reuters.
Frank
Capitalist enterprises do what is the cheapest and most efficient.
Without taxing coal and oil and subsidizing solar and wind non would be built.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/05/home-solar-panel-installations-fall-by-94-as-subsidies-cut
That is why you can hardly see the solar contribution on this chart.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-and-changing-energy-sources
Frank,
Why are we able to pollute for free? This is an unpriced externality, and is at the core of our predicament. What is your proposed solution to removing this massive hidden subsidy so that the market can effectively reflect the true cost of burning shit.
Frank-
it is funny to hear you talk about trump-hole like this
” standing by while a snot-nosed little runt tries to whip us into submission.”
Good one. The congress should seize his passport and freeze all the assets (that aren’t held in Moscow) of his, and his family, and all of his “men”- like Giuliani.
I would recommend to sweet little Greta, set up meetings with CEO Lynn Forester de Rothschild since they have acquired and now own a 70% interest in Weather Central LP. The investment firm is interested in weather patents and are involved in climate geoengineering programs, requiring they also control the forecast models. These are old world influencers with the money needed to influence major sectors of the global economy.
Perhaps she could shed light on the size and scale of what can hardly be comprehended in our skies, namely Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (SAG) and Solar Radiation Management (SRM). The confusing matrix of support structures for these initiatives will blow your mind. What is even more difficult to comprehend is how it is happening in plain view with too few willing to connect the dots.
Raytheon performs the climate modeling for NOAA and the National Weather Service; Lockheed Martin performs the same for the FAA. Because both of these private contractors hoarde weather modification patents and programs, their models are more or less the scheduled daily weather. With Rothschild acquiring the most dominant private modeling organization, complete control of modeling has seemingly been achieved. This provides for the perpetual visual conditioning the public needs for acceptance.
We here all have the right to question, especially whenever a careful evaluation of the UN’s meticulous climate reports reveals that certain significant global polluters, such as the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC), have been left out of the overall discussion. It is important because the MIC has weather warfare abilities and will be in charge of the technocratic and electromagnetic polluting 5G smart cities emerging in the next decade. For more details on this front, I recommend Greta obtain a copy of ‘Under an Ionized Sky’ by Elana Freeland.
I also recommend Greta perform a comprehensive review of weather patents and their related now-declassified documents. Incorporate all of this educational and eye opening material into your platform, now that you have an audience. Understand that the people who stole your childhood have also stolen the right of all taxpayers to know divine truth. Polluters such as big oil should pay the bills when they come due, not innocent taxpayers to sketchy transnationals.
Good luck, Greta.
Any company that could reverse climate change or stop hurricanes and tornadoes or more importantly make it rain to prevent crop failure would make a fortune.
They don’t because they can’t.
WORLD’S OCEANS ARE LOSING POWER TO STALL CLIMATE CHANGE
The oceans “can’t keep up” with humanity’s greenhouse-gas output, says Ko Barrett, vice-chair of the IPCC and a deputy administrator at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02897-7
Mont Blanc glacier in danger of collapse, experts warn
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/mont-blanc-glacier-in-danger-of-collapse-experts-warn
So, I would like to know what the models show the climate will be like after the bulk of the oil and gas has been burned off say in thirty years or so years because deep down in your hearts you know it will be burned. Then how long does that crap linger in the atmosphere? 1000 years? 2,000 years? 5,000 years? These numbers are all of course catastrophic for currently existing ecosystems. But in terms of geology, these are tiny numbers. We of course are part of the ecosystem so because of disease and who knows what, I am guessing the human species isn’t nearly as clever as it perceives itself and will not escape the trap. But the Earth? The Earth laughs at these sorts of hic-ups and all of these right wing nut jobs who accuse those concerned about these issues of putting the Earth before the human race really have it backwards.
“So, I would like to know what the models show the climate will be like after the bulk of the oil and gas has been burned off say in thirty years or so years because deep down in your hearts you know it will be burned”
Indeed. A hundred years will be plenty of time for the damage to exert itself, when it comes to the affect on living beings.
Dennis has posted charts modeling the climate response in response to burn off of the FF reserves.
In effect depletion saves us from the very worst scenarios, unless several things happen, in my opinion.
Things that could push things into the more severe zone includes
-positive feedbacks that are unable to be accurately assessed until after they happen, like methane release from melting permafrost, alteration in ocean currents or jet stream, for example.
-the burning off of mass quantities of very low grade coal reserves and the worlds forests
-continued severe failure of humanity to take strong proactive steps towards downsizing in recognition of overshoot conditions
Hickory, I agree.
Depletion only has the potential to save us from the worst climate change scenarios and may simply represent wishful thinking by Dennis. Because, if we pass, or have already passed, any number of tipping points Earth may be facing anything from widespread drought to overwhelming sea level rise — regardless of fossil fuel depletion. But, wouldn’t it be nice if we could just carry on the way we are and watch the world transition to a “green state” as all the oil and gas are finally consumed, in thirty years? And, we still have that tiny issue of human population overshoot that somehow keeps being ignored.
Because, if we pass, or have already passed, any number of tipping points Earth may be facing anything from widespread drought to overwhelming sea level rise — regardless of fossil fuel depletion.
The cockroaches and jellyfish will thank us.
Most of the models ignore and underestimate a lot of feedbacks and are of course inaccurate at predicting future climate.
Best guess is a climate similar to the PETM or just short of that. The current blast of CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. is merely a trigger to massive long term feedbacks that in concert are several times more warming than our current emissions. Carbon in the atmosphere will not reduce though the rate of temperature rise might slow on the average. The Arctic will probably be about 24C warmer than it was in the 1800’s and the continental US about 8C warmer. The time period for this could stretch into the millions of years
The fall of Greenland Ice Cap will cancel out the cooling effect of major mountain ranges on the planet. Liquid ocean area will increase, providing the absolute best heat collection device known. Collapsing plankton will reduce that positive feedback. And the list goes on.
Humans will lose all control shortly, control was mostly in the mind. It will only take a couple of Gt of CO2 per year and even much less of methane to continue the heating. The Arctic regions can easily produce that. If humans are still doing agriculture, they too will provide atmospheric GHG.
What’s the hope, what can we do?
1)preserve as much ecosystem as possible now (stop and reverse the destruction)
2) planting and preserving that 1 trillion trees might help (or they could dry out and become tinder for future fires). They will also return a lot of the hydrology and soil carbon in areas that have been losing water due to agriculture and other land destruction. They also help build and retain soil.
3) If you can’t avoid meat and dairy totally, reduce it as much as possible. The climate impact and environmental impact is vast.
4) Cut back on all fossil fuel use as much as possible without spending large amounts of money.
5)Eat whole unprocessed foods.
6) Don’t use any poisons on the landscape or yard. Let wild plants grow and also plant food plants for wildlife/insects/birds. Discourage county health departments from spraying for mosquitos.
7) Spread the word. One of the best examples to use is the clean windshield story. Ask them when the last time their windshields were covered with dead bugs. Another way is to walk them through their lawn in the summer and ask why nothing much is hopping or flying away? People have an amplified view of insects, if they see a few they think there are many. They are easily bugged. Little do they realize the critical role insects play on this planet to keep the larger life forms going and the plants.
There are a lot of problems with focusing on human caused emissions, especially fossil fuels. Transport is only about 14% of all emissions, so even if we completely electrified the transport system with PV and wind turbines it would not solve much of that problem. If we converted all electricity production to PV and wind, then down goes another 25%. Still not even half. (numbers from EPA global emissions charts).
One would think that considering the dire potential of just the Arctic to change climate that we would have millions of sensors, hundreds of ground crews and lots of money pouring into studies of that region. Sadly the few researchers have sometimes had to crowd fund their efforts.
Climate change and the environment are treated more like a hobby on planet Earth than a global conundrum. They even have meetings and publish occasional summaries (IPCC and some other groups) just like a big set of hobby clubs. I wonder why they don’t have their own popular magazines, everything else does.
“The time period for this could stretch into the millions of years”
What is your source for this?
Thanks
Quite obvious from geologic temperature record, takes many millions of years to cool down enough to even have ice on Antarctica.
Being in a low eccentricity orbital period for the next 100,000 years gives plenty of time for the natural carbon to be released, the oceans to warm and all permanent ice to disappear. Once that happens it will take millions of years to bring the earth back to a cold state, if ever.
About time we got back to normal.
With all due respect, “quite obvious” doesn’t really carry much weight among the technically literate. There is a ton or research being carried out on this topic. Someone has to have run the numbers. Before you repeat them as though they are gospel, lets see what the experts say. Let’s see what is in the literature. You may very well be correct. But our side is supposed to be the side that uses science. Not bullshit not hand waving and spinning a narrative based priors. So, the reason I asked is because I like to base my arguments on facts, not gut feelings. The data is out there, we just have to be industrious enough to find it. And include it even when it doesn’t fit our preconceived notions.
Another example of dependent elitist thinking.
“Not bullshit not hand waving and spinning a narrative based priors. So, the reason I asked is because I like to base my arguments on facts, not gut feelings. The data is out there, we just have to be industrious enough to find it. And include it even when it doesn’t fit our preconceived notions.”
Fuck you SW, I have spent over two decades studying geology, paleontology, climate science, atmospheric physics and had a professional career in chemistry/physics in particular analytical spectroscopy. All of my conclusions are a synthesis of long study, thought and calculation. If you and others think I pull this stuff out of my ass, up yours. You and others are too lazy to even look things up on their own, let alone comprehend earth system analysis. Incapable of independent thought, you are.
I came back to add a paper on the subject but your remarks and disrespect demand a withdrawal of that action. Go find your own crutches to lazy effort and lack of thinking.
Good bye to you all, I need a break from this nasty place full of Dunning-Kruger syndrome non-thinkers and worse. Maybe it will improve in the future. Most likely it will just be more monkey-mimicking and parroting.
“Good bye to you all, I need a break from this nasty place”
That is what the trolls are trying to do to reduce this blog to trash and drive us away. Don’t give in to them There is always the Ignore button 😉
NAOM
+1
I was asking a favor. You obvious have this background. I do not. I have a simple solid state physics background. If I am in an argument with someone else, I cannot cite, “Gone Fishing” I had hoped you could give me a reference that I could cite. In the “elitist” world I live in, that is how you make a convincing argument. If you didn’t have one handy you could have said so. I have tried sifting through google but the issue is so contaminated with grinding axes that it is difficult to get a simple answer to a simple question. You were speaking with such authority that I thought perhaps you had those answers. You seem to be well read and up on the literature.
Well, after hearing you recite your resume, and the way you reacted to a simple request for a reference I have to conclude that you did pull that bit about millions of years straight out of your ass. Not because you calculated it. Not because you read it. But because it “stood to reason”. And that ain’t science buddy.
you need to go fishing for awhile
GF,
You need to relax. Such an emotional response. Your initial response was level-headed and informative, then because you got triggered by SW’s response you blew a fuse. A man of science shouldn’t be responding like that
You also mentioned:
Once that happens it will take millions of years to bring the earth back to a cold state, if ever.
About time we got back to normal.
Define normal. For the earth, normal is hot house.
SW,
Hickory gave you a very nice well written answer.
Also Lloyd is correct too, some species will thrive in the hotter world.
My worthless opinion, no one know what will happen and i mean no one. The complexities and non-linear systems involved are too much for our brains and our supercomputers. We can say with a degree of confidence it will get hotter. And the paleoclimate knowledge that comes with a hot earth can be modeled. But the exact events which will result will remain unknown in my humble opinion.
Why is Norway building wind power? I thought that they are 100 % hydro powered.
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Protests-Threaten-Norways-Onshore-Wind-Power-Growth.html
OneofEU —
Because, it allows Norway to curtail its domestic consumption of hydroelectricity, which is a valuable asset in the international power market. Norway has been exporting about 15% of its electricity but was a net importer in the first quarter of 2019, reversing a trend of net exports seen in the last five years. The reason for this is that hydro power output fell and high prices attracted wind power supplies from neighbors. If you live in the EU you should know this.
The NORDLINK cable connecting Germany to Norway just finished.
Also, have a look at this:
https://www.electricitymap.org/?CountryCode=EE&page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false
Norway trades a lot of electricity.
I have never heard that Norway is an exporter of power. Morevoer, the nearest potential client, Sweden, exports power itself.
The only way I see Norway could help is to act as a large hydro storage area for EU; this is the way of Switzerland already.
Besides:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/norway-power-windpower/norway-swings-to-importing-power-as-domestic-output-falls-short-idUKL5N2263HY
One of EU
“Why is Norway building wind power? I thought that they are 100 % hydro powered.”
What happens when their oil and gas run short (depletes), they will want energy to replace what is lost.
Perhaps they would like to sell electricity to the some of the 513 million in the EU who may like to stay in the modern age of energy. When you sell electricity you can make money.
Your question is like asking – why would Russia want to produce more coal, NG or oil than they could use within their own border?
“The only way I see Norway could help is to act as a large hydro storage area for EU…” this kind of thinking is why no one has offered you a job in planning or policy.
Drought and cold (ice) at the same time will limit hydropower.
Wind power is kind of hard to sell since it cannot be reliably offered in advance.
One of EU
You come up with some of the most ill-informed statements I have heard, kind of like Trump.- ” In April he said that “the noise” from the turbines “causes cancer,” a false claim dismissed by the American Cancer Society.
One of EU- “Wind power is kind of hard to sell since it cannot be reliably offered in advance.”
For your education, in the USA all wind power projects have contracts to sell all their electrical production for a long term contract, generally a 20 yr period, prior to construction. They are required to have such a sales contract in place prior to securing permits/funding/grid interconnection. It called a PPA- power purchase agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_purchase_agreement
Europe too, especially Scandinavia-
https://www.windpowerengineering.com/europes-ppa-revolution-report-assesses-market-leaders-corporate-buyers-more/
Perhaps you should consider informing yourself on issues before you make big pronouncements and form opinions. It makes you look poorly educated to operate as you do.
Finish school?
Could that be true? Really only concentrated solar power and charcoal?
‘Yet CSP in a fossil-free world will be essential to generate the very high heat needed in manufacturing, much of it steam heat which requires enormous amounts of water. The only other source of non-fossil, renewable high heat is charcoal from wood. ‘
http://energyskeptic.com/2019/concentrated-solar-power-are-in-deserts-only-and-use-too-much-water/
Ever hear of an electric arc furnace?
An electric ceramic kiln?
Induction furnaces?
Electrolysis?
Alice is off her rocker again.
The couple of paragraphs about charcoal and heat are her extrapolations, not in the report she “summarizes”.
For every one of the industries she lists, there are “alternative” electric processes, sometimes the only way of doing things:
Aluminum (or magnesium) electrolysis for example. Aluminum (and many other metals) cannot be reduced from an oxide with carbon or hydrogen reductants because it wants to bond to the oxygen stronger than carbon or hydrogen want to bond to the oxygen.
Iron bonds less strongly with oxygen than oxygen with carbon/CO or hydrogen, so iron is most commonly made using cheap coke (carbon) as the chemical reductant – heat supplying the activating energy for the reaction.
But iron can be electrolytically produced as well.
There is some amount of specialty iron produced electrolytically today for magnets and powder metallurgy.
Iron/steel can also be produced by reduction using hydrogen, which can be produced from water electrolysis.
Here’s an open access article on hydrogen direct reduction for fossil-free steelmaking.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618326301
Then there’s high temperature electrolysis of iron:
https://phys.org/news/2013-05-electrolysis-method-green-iron.html
It’s also wrong that only one of the 39 CSP plants has storage:
Crescent Dunes has 10 hours, Nevada Solar One has .5 hours, Solana Generating Station has 6 hours. (and SEGS had storage, but after a fire it wasn’t replaced).
https://solarpaces.nrel.gov/by-country/US
(no big fan of CSP, just want to set the record straight).
FYI, the report she references:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/61376.pdf
Go here: IEA Global Energy Statistics
Mouse over the below. That puts things in perspective. You will be shocked. At least most people who think wind and solar will be our salvation should be shocked.
Mouse over didn’t do anything.
My mouse didn’t work either. Here’s part of the numbers:
Total primary energy supply (TPES) by source, World 2017
Wind, Solar, Etc ………… 1.8%
Hydro ………………………. 2.5%
Nuclear ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 4.9%
Biofuels and waste …….. 9.5%
Natural gas ………………. 22.2%
Coal …………………………. 27.1%%
Oil …………………………… 31.8%
By the way, I stand corrected. We are in the warm interglacial period of what is technically an ice age. My bad.
But not to worry about freezing over again. Of the world radiation budget of 240 watts/square meter, all we have to do is keep one extra watt/square meter to prevent that. Umm, we’ve got that covered. Even if we didn’t, one fluorocarbon factory could do the trick if that was ever an issue, which it is most definitely not. (James Hansen).
Limiting global warming to below 2c is impossible now.
https://www.vox.com/2015/5/15/8612113/truth-climate-change
We are most likely heading towards 3 to 5C
If the world put the same amount of money into wind and solar as has been spent on oil, gas and coal from the year 2000, we would have been on the right track. Reducing CO2 emissions by 3% a year.
http://folk.uio.no/roberan/t/global_mitigation_curves.shtml
Now we have to reduce CO2 emissions by 10% a year.
Not a chance.
Hugo —
“Now we have to reduce CO2 emissions by 10% a year.”
Reduce CO2 emissions? Despite the 2015 agreement, global carbon emissions increased 1.7 percent in 2017 and a further 2.7 percent in 2018; it has been estimated that the rate of increase in 2019 will be among the highest on record. Meanwhile, the last four years have been the hottest on record, with 2019 on track to make it five.
And, from your link: “The message is always; “we’re running out of time; we’ve only got five or 10 years to turn things around, but we can do it if we put our minds to it.” That was the message in 1990, in 2000, in 2010. How can we still have five or 10 years left? The answer is that scientists are baking increasingly unrealistic assumptions into their models.”
Yep
and deforestation emission are equivalent to the EU.
https://news.mongabay.com/2018/10/tropical-deforestation-now-emits-more-co2-than-the-eu/
Deforestation is the third biggest emitter after China and The United States, and until very recently not taken into account.
‘ALARMING’ EXTINCTION THREAT TO EUROPE’S TREES
The conservation status of most animals in Europe has already been assessed for the inventory of endangered species known as the Red List. Experts are now turning their attention to plants, with an assessment of all 454 tree species native to the continent.
The report found:
42% are threatened with extinction (assessed as Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered)
Among endemic trees – those that don’t exist anywhere else on Earth – 58% are threatened.
Species highlighted include the horse chestnut, which is declining across Europe, and most of almost 200 trees in the family that includes the rowan and mountain ash.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49838650
New posts are up
http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-september-27-2019/
and
http://peakoilbarrel.com/eia-international-energy-outlook-2019-and-oil-shock-model-scenarios/