150 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, October 6, 2019”

  1. Good article on the implications of 100,000 electric delivery van order by Amazon, from Rivian

    ” Even if this scenario were to occur, an additional 2 gigawatts during peak periods would not create significant strain on wholesale markets across the U.S., especially as these vehicles would likely do most of their charging at night, when wind power is more abundant and power demand is typically at its lowest.

    Yet while the wholesale market can accommodate 2 gigawatts of additional demand, even a fraction of that demand could exceed the local capacity available to individual sites (i.e., the distribution grid near fleet depots). Increased demand at depot facilities could necessitate extensive electrical service upgrades for the local network.

    The severity of this challenge could range from a head-scratcher — a warehouse next to a underloaded substation taking on 10 vehicles (or 200 kilowatts of potential demand) — to a migraine — a fulfillment center in an urban center requiring 200 vehicles or 4 megawatts of worst-case scenario load in an already-congested location.”

    https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/4-takeaways-from-amazons-huge-electric-delivery-van-order-with-rivian#gs.7w5hd8

    1. Obviously they didn’t read the bit about adding industrial grade battery storage and renewables – duh! Nobody talks about the impact on the local diesel pumper when a big new IfCE fleet suddenly sprouts.

      NAOM

      1. Yes battery storage will be a big component of the infrastructure upgrades needed to accommodate the energy needs for all the new charging that will be happening over the next decade.
        As pointed out in the article, its all local, and we’ll need to spend a bunch on the infrastructure to eliminate the bottlenecks.
        Hopefully a new administration will get their priorities straight, and get out in front on it.

        1. Well, lithium ion is still the go to technology.
          And it has been from the early 1990’s.
          So——

            2. Standing on your own two feet WRT nature and actually living within it so that you’re not undermining your own survival/thriving.
              ‘Tech’ as tech for tech’s sake(/the dystem’s sake) isn’t that.

    1. The Amazon cult took seven years to turn a profit, once they went public.
      Of course it was a different business (with lower margins), but Bezos does seem more grounded than Musk.
      Time will tell, so they say.

      1. I’m not a big online shopper, I do most of it in real life, so to speak, but I do like Amazon for it’s wide variety of books. I remember ‘back in the day’ my reading was limited to what was on the shelves of the local independent book stores. Then the big retail chains appeared with larger selections. But still, if you wanted something obscure or hard to find, it was usually a rather expensive ‘special order’, followed by a long’ish wait time for it to arrive. Nowadays one can find a pretty good deal on just about every book in the world, delivered right to your door.
        To put it mildly, I’m not an expert on the history of Amazon, but I’d imagine the transition from profitless to profitable had something to do with establishing the logistical networks needed for lower cost delivery. I’m not sure the analogy to Tesla, a manufacturing/production co, is apt.
        I could point to any number of profitless companies in the world, many of which will fail, and it’s adherents can reply “Amazon”. It seems like a non sequitur to me.

        1. Globally, Amazon makes a profit by off-shoring operating profits to tax havens, thereby undercutting regional or local booksellers, and by paying very low wages and very onerous working conditions for warehouse operatives.

        2. Fair enough.
          I have no specific allegiance to tesla, but it does look like they are one of the big pioneers on what will become a massive industry.

          1. Amazon is a good example of a standard business model of postponing profit until economies of scale are achieved. You’ll find this approach in the history of Japanese and Korean car makers.

            Tesla is the first new car company in the US in r0ughly the last 100 years. It’s an astonishing achievement. More importantly, it has accelerated the implementation of EVs and utility-scale batteries dramatically, thus doing the world a whole lot of good.

            1. “Tesla is the first new car company in the US in r0ughly the last 100 years.“

              You forgot about DMC- DeLorean. 1975.

            2. Yes, indeed. Perhaps it would be better to say “successful new car company”, or “new car company with major sales“. We can debate opinions about the long-term viability of Tesla, but it hasn’t failed yet, and you can’t say it hasn’t achieved major sales success.

              There have been others: “Periodically, other entrepreneurs would found automobile companies, but most would soon fail and none achieved major sales success. Some of the best known included Preston Tucker’s 1948 sedan, Earl Muntz’s Muntz Car Company, Malcolm Bricklin’s Bricklin SV-1, the modern Stutz Blackhawk, Clénet Coachworks, Zimmer, Excalibur, and John DeLorean’s DeLorean.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_the_United_States

            3. I think Tesla is the first American car company to go public since Ford.

    1. Written version linked here: https://www.peakprosperity.com/getting-real-about-green-energy/

      An interesting thing to note: In the above linked article and video, the claim is made that we need to add 1500 2.5 MW wind turbines every single day in order to hit net zero emissions by 2050. (With absolutely no growth in energy consumption.) That’s 3.75 GW of capacity additions per day.

      In 2018, total global capacity additions amounted to around 257 GW (source: https://sdg.iisd.org/news/in-2018-66-of-new-electricity-generation-capacity-was-renewable-price-of-batteries-dropped-35/)

      To be on track for 2050, we need 1368.75 GW capacity additions per year, ALL from clean energy. And this is assuming zero growth in total energy production globally. Total renewable additions in 2018 amounted to 171 GW, 8 times slower than the necessary rate, and putting us on track for net zero by year 2267, assuming we stop all fossil fuel capacity additions of any kind NOW (including building new ICE cars, planes, and ships), and we do not grow the world’s energy supply for 248 years.

      It’s certainly possible that renewable additions will increase in speed by a factor of 8. Guess we will see.

      1. Niko, thanks for the link:

        Dennis, and all others on this list who believe renewable energy will be our salvation, please read this. To quote Chris Martenson:

        I’m often asked where I stand on wind, solar and other alternative energy sources.

        My answer is: I love them. But they’re incapable of enabling our society to smoothly slip over to powering itself by other means.

        They’re not going to “save us”.

        Some people are convinced otherwise. If we can just fight off the evil oil companies, get our act together, and install a national alternative energy system infrastructure, we’ll be just fine. Meaning that we”ll be able to continue to live as we do today, but powered fully by clean renewable energy.

        That’s just not going to happen. At least, not without a lot of painful disruption and sacrifice.

        The top three reasons why are:

        1. Math

        2. Human behavior

        3. Time, scale, & cost

        My sentiments exactly!

        Here is the link again:

        Getting Real About Green Energy
        An honest analysis of what it CAN’T promise
        by Chris Martenson
        Friday, October 4, 2019, 2:58 PM

          1. Her starts out, “They aren’t going to save us, if by saving us we mean carrying on exactly as we have been, just by other means.”

            Spoken with a heavy American accent, of course. Turns out the rest of the world (ca. 96% of humanity) doesn’t have and interest in this form of being saved. For example, a major reason why Americans use so much energy is the fact that American cities are very poorly designed and managed. Not only do very few countries want to emulate that, Americans themselves are belated moving away from it.

            The world is definitely changing. We don’t have horse drawn carriages any more, but the world didn’t end. His entire premise is flawed from the start.

            In fact, renewables are going to kill the energy business, and EVs are already killing the car business. We will not continue as before. It is not the end of the world.

            Just as an example he starts by talking about how many millions of tons of oil “need” to be replaced. Right off the top of my head, I can say 1) EVs use about 20% of the energy as ICEVs, and 2) transportation is extremely wasteful in its current form and can easily be improved to nobody’s detriment.

            1. Alimbiquated,

              Not sure why you are talking about America. All of those calculations were done on a global basis.

            2. Because that guy can’t imagine acting any differently than Americans do now.

            3. Those calculations were done on a global basis, in other words they represent how the WORLD lives, not how Americans live. If the same calculation was done for America the situation would be far, far more hopeless.

            4. In fact, renewables are going to kill the energy business, and EVs are already killing the car business.

              I am sorry Alimbiquated, but that sentence is just so far from reality that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. At any rate, it tells me how to regard anything else you have to say.

            5. Businesses live on profit Ron.

              Car companies are already starting to switch from selling cars to providing transportation services. Selling is looking more and more precarious. Around here there are dockless Ford rentabikes, a sign of desperation if there ever was one. Ford is basically giving up everything but pickups, and will start rebadging VWs for the car business. The unions are striking GM because they see the writing on the wall.

              I live in Germany and I can tell you the the Germans are in full panic mode right now because they see the writing on the wall. My company sells planning software to automotive suppliers, and our customers are very worried indeed.

              This is not science fiction, it is already happening. Have a look at some of my remarks about the electrification of internal combustion engines. Mild hybrids with 48V batteries are already a major threat to automotive suppliers. Note that the BMW5 is quietly switching to 48V without promising any improvements at all. Their main goal is probably to cut costs on wire harnesses.

              Looking ahead, electric autonomous vehicles are about to hammer the car industry from manufacturing to down to the Jiffy Lube places. What will survive is transportation subscription services, things like Amazon to do your shopping for you and Uber to get to work. America will get hit hardest, because cities are so heavily car oriented.

              Of course there will still be some market for private vehicles, like there is now for speed boats and horses. But car and fuel payments are a major financial burden for tens of millions of people, and taking a taxi will soon be a much cheaper alternative.

              The energy industry will be hit even harder. Its existence is based on the fact that some people have fuel and some don’t. But selling fuel to people with access to zero marginal cost renewables is a chump’s game. Worse, the sun shines on everyone’s lot, giving nobody a competitive advantage.

              If nobody has a competitive advantage, trade no longer makes sense. So the business of trading energy for other goods will shrink down to a mere shadow of its current glory. For example the Saudis like to think that if oil runs out, they can sell solar instead. But to whom? Africa? India? Europe? I don’t think so. They have no competitive advantage. The sun shines everywhere, not just on Ghawar.

              The industry won’t die because nobody needs energy, it will die because nobody can make money selling energy.

            6. Excellent points about the automotive sector alimbiquated
              “Of course there will still be some market for private vehicles, like there is now for speed boats and horses.”

            7. Also I’d like to point out that there is a logical connection between the reason that software is replacing hardware and the reason that renewables are replacing fuel.

              If I invent a mechanical gadget, I have to build it again every time I sell it. You only build software once — copying it is a zero cost operation. That is why there is so much awesome free software around, like this browser.

              If I want to supply energy with a fuel based system, I have to dig the fuel up out of the ground for each sale. With renewables, all I have is the initial investment. The energy itself comes at zero marginal cost.

              Regardless of “total system costs” (whatever that means), zero marginal cost products tend to displace products with marginal costs, because prices in a free market are set by marginal costs only.

              I can imagine downsides. For example, if enough people get their own energy, utilities might go bust and the grid could collapse, leaving poor people to fend for themselves. That would not be a good thing, but it doesn’t change the argument.

            8. Honeypots & The Self-Traitorous In A Dunning-Kruger World

              Much of this so-called industry isn’t really industry anyway, in the sense that it’s largely government-funded, controlled and operated, by the tax-pimped sheeple. Google, SpaceX, Walmart, national oil companies, weapons manufacturers, media outfits, honeypots, shilling outfits…
              So-called renewables appear an excuse to keep the dystopic system going for awhile longer, so that it adds more strain, such as more and different wastes and socioeconomic disparities, etc., to an already strained ecosystem and culture.

              When fossil fuel-burning really took off way back when, what was the planet’s population then? Ok, so what is it now as solar panels, electric cars and batteries are now being manufactured? Do the math/logic.

              ‘Markets’? ‘Automotive sector’? What are those really?

              Renewables are not going to ‘kill the industry’, the industry/status-quo machine is practically failure by another name as per its modus operandi. The industry/etc. is killing itself and taking us and fellow creatures with it already. We are killing us.
              Some people just haven’t thought hard enough about these sorts of things, or done the math.
              As for living in Germany or the US or wherever, they are artificial borders/constructs. We live on planet Earth. That’s important, among other importants, to bear in mind.

        2. Section 1, “Math” has no real arguments at all – just an “arm-waving” argument that the numbers just seem way too large:

          “So to dismantle that 7,000 mile long conga-line of ultra massive crude carriers, we’d have to build and commission 3 new nuclear plants every 2 days. Or 1,500 very large wind towers installed across 300 square miles every day.

          It’s just not going to happen.”

          That’s not a real argument. It’s just the old fallacy: “Boy, that’s a lot! Woo! Way too much!!”.

          The obvious counter argument: by 2050 we’re going to have to replace most of our current fossil fuel supplies and infrastructure, due to depletion and rust. If the FF were actually available and still affordable, we’d pay for it just have we have in the past. It’s obviously not “way too big”. And… renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, so they’re even more obviously not “way too big”.

          1. That’s not a real argument. It’s just the old fallacy: “Boy, that’s a lot! Woo! Way too much!!”.

            NO, that is a real and valid argument. That is how much fossil energy we are using and therefore that is how much must be replaced. You dismissed it by calling it Woo Woo just shows you have no argument, so you just dismiss it without even trying to counter the argument. And old trick but a very ineffective one.

            The obvious counter argument: by 2050 we’re going to have to replace most of our current fossil fuel supplies and infrastructure, due to depletion and rust. If the FF were actually available and still affordable, we’d pay for it just have we have in the past.

            Hey, that is not a counter-argument. Simply claiming we have to do it does not say how we are going to do it or even say we can do it. Yes, we have to do it but we cannot do it. That is the argument. Or at least that is MY argument.

            Nick, you simply have no idea of the scale of fossil energy that must be replaced by renewables. That is so very obvious from your reply. Until you address the scale of what must be replaced your argument is nothing bur woo-woo.

            1. Ron,

              When I say it’s an “arm-waving” argument, I mean that Martenson didn’t actually provide quantitative context. Martenson talks about how much renewable electricity is need, but how much is spent annually on fossil fuel infrastructure and fuel??? That’s the current scale, and the scale of energy investment to replace it will be enormous, whether it’s fossil fuel or renewable.

              Again: current renewable spending is just one part of one part of the energy economy: it’s part of electricity, and electricity is just one part of energy, which includes electricity, oil and gas, coal, etc. It’s unrealistic to compare just a fraction of the current energy economy to what we would need to invest in electricity if we want to electrify energy.

              Let me try again:

              Energy infrastructure doesn’t last forever: most of it will have to be replaced in the next 30 years regardless. Fossil fuels must be mined and drilled continuously. The cost and scale of renewables would be smaller than the current cost of fossil fuels.

            2. True Nick. In fact, it will be much smaller. The actual energy needs themselves are less than half our current consumption. As we all know, most energy used today is currently wasted as rejected heat.

            3. naive optimism ~ the belief that good outcomes are more likely and bad outcomes are less likely to happen.

            4. Nope – just pointing out the basic flaws in the argument presented.

              Again: renewables are cheaper than fossils, and faster and easier to install. It’s unrealistic to suggest that they are unaffordable, or that their scale presents a new and impossible problem.

            5. Yes-yes, we get you, Nick G; ‘fossils versus renewables’.

              ‘Bad versus evil’.

              Superman versus Lex Luthor.

              So reductive that even the sheeple can wrap their heads around it.

          2. Dear readers, Nick G keeps presenting, like a broken record that has spun on for over a decade, an either-or false dilemma in mindless argument for ‘his’ plans for the rest of us sheeple to mindlessly consume. Choo choo, eat eat, yum yum.

      2. Hi Niko,
        I accept the premise that we will not be successful, on a global basis, in replacing fossil fuel energy available currently. If I (we) are wrong on this- great.
        But lets assume renewable sources of energy cannot make up the depletion shortfall.
        What are the options?
        Here are a few-
        1. Party likes its 1953.
        2. Learn to use much less energy in your life, personally and at a country level.
        3. Buy yourself some time- Live in a fossil fuel rich zone, make sure the government will save the fuel for the locals, have a big army and wall to protect it.
        4. Live in a territory that has good prospects for energy generation without as much fossil fuel. It varies. Iowa has a lot of wind, Australia is sunny, Norway has tonnes of hydro, for example.
        5. Take advantage of the technological advances that have occurred since the 1973 saudi oil embargo. For $20,000 US you can purchase your own power plant, and have considerable price protection and security. Not failsafe, but sure better than sitting on yer hands.
        Same goes for your territory.

        note on number 3- many people live in zones with a lot of fossil fuel. yet the resource is owned by multinationals or governments that are oligopolies. there is no guarantee that you as a citizen will have a share of the resource to consume in many of these locations.

        1. I bet PG&E’s customers are glad to have such a reliable electricity source such as centralised fossil fuel generation with a huge distribution network.

          NAOM

          1. Yeh. Its a brilliant sunny day here in PGE territory, but things are in turmoil because we do not have a decentralized and redundant grid. This will put a fire under the furnace of innovation.
            UC Berkeley (#6 in the world for Noble Prize winners) is 3 miles from here, and is closed. Hospitals are scrambling to make sure the backup systems are working. Yours truly had to call in backup (from another state) to cover my work. And it is not even windy (yet).

        2. 1. Party likes its 1953.

          Yeah, that’s exactly what we will do. But that is not a conscious option, that’s the default. In other words, we will do nothing.

          Oh, we will continue to build wind farms, and solar panels, but their effect on the big picture will be negligible.

          We will continue to burn fossil fuel until it is all gone. We will continue to drain our fossil water aquifers until they are bone dry. We will continue to take territory from all the wild species until they are extinct. We will continue to clear the rain forest until they are nothing left exept parched earth. We will continue to deplete the ocean fisheries until there are no fish left. We will continue to do what we are doing because it is just in our nature to do so. Anyone who thinks we will all change our behavior in order to save the world simply has no idea how or why human nature works.

          1. Planet is overpopulated. This is obvious.
            I really hope that the problem will not be solved by a nuclear reaction, I mean the bomb.

            1. The only way that renewables might make sense at this juncture is in an enlightened world where certain critical applications for them are prioritized and relatively limited to them, rather than for frivolity like battery-powered vacuum cleaners or electric Tesla ‘limos’ for the single-occupant ‘well-to-do’. Anyone see any indications of that?

        3. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said Hickory. I am not arguing that a personal solar generation system, disconnected from the grid, won’t help you individually. What I generally argue is that industrial society, in any form resembling the way we know it, will not survive over the long term. And, eventually, we will lose our ability to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines and all the rest.

          1. “There’s never been a country that has developed with intermittent power”
            Jim Yong Kim
            Former World Bank President

            1. The reason no country has ever developed on intermittent power is that until recently, the cheapest power was the power produced most steadily. Ramping a coal plant up and down costs money. So why would any country develop on more expensive intermittent stuff?

              You need to get your causality pointing in the right direction.

            3. The World Bank has been a little slow catching up to the new realities of energy, but it’s getting there:

              “At the World Bank and IMF Annual Meetings in Bali in October, the Bank signaled that it would further limit its future coal finance portfolio, introducing a new policy that will encourage divestment from coal in financial intermediaries (i.e. commercial banks and asset funds) that are clients of the International Finance Corporation (IFC, the Bank’s private sector arm).”

              https://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/2018/12/as-climate-crisis-bites-world-bank-further-distances-itself-from-coal/

            4. Give ’em a shout Nick. I’m sure they’d love it if you got them up to speed on the world.

            5. Read a little about the World Bank and coal – you’ll see that they’ve already agreed that they need a new approach.

          2. Niko,
            I share your concern.
            Its a questionable experiment to undertake.
            But we are well into it, before even getting the ethics review panel to agree.

            The Fukushima part was not part of the experiment consent form. The lawyers have said that plugging in any appliance to the grid is ‘defacto’ consent.

            1. What I’m actually worried about, what I believe, is that we are betting on the wrong horse.

              We are now on the path toward burning our remaining fossil fuels, in one last effluent burst of industrial activity, in order to build a staggeringly large and complicated system based on the premise that doing so will “save” industrial society.

              And what if it doesn’t work? There is no backup plan, meanwhile we further the rampant destruction of Earth in order to save the current incarnation of civilization, without having seriously considered the question of whether this incarnation is even a desirable one.

            2. Niko- “what I believe, is that we are betting on the wrong horse. ”
              Yes, many of us share your concern. Very legitimate concern.
              But what is the other ‘horse’ to bet on?

            3. Making the best of a bad or forced situation is of course not defacto consent for the bad or forced situation.
              Apparently in Fukushima, there are or were old high-water or tsunami markers that were ignored and that the nukes were built over sand and/or a kind of delta as well.

              If those are the cases, they do appear to highlight the kind of blinkered thinking that, for example, might be chiming for renewables, come hell or high water, or both.

  4. Solar and wind make coal unprofitable in Japan

    Recent investments into 11 GW of new coal generation capacity may result in reduced operating cashflows of $71 billion. That will occur, according to a report from the Carbon Tracker Institute, because solar and wind will become cheaper than coal in Japan by 2025 at the latest, despite high renewable energy costs at present.

    Even in Japan, where the price of solar and wind energy is taking longer to fall than in other mature PV markets, the relentless retreat of renewables costs will undershoot new investment in coal by 2025 at the latest.

    That is the main conclusion of the Land of the Rising Sun and Offshore Wind study published by financial thinktank the Carbon Tracker Initiative with the University of Tokyo. The authors of the report claim the Strategic Energy Plan and Long-term Strategy for Decarbonization policies recently approved by the government lay the ground for an increasingly important role for renewables – which could mean grim news for the coal industry.

    The report lists 21 new coal power projects with a combined generation capacity of 11 GW which are being planned, developed or built in Japan and warns several may be doomed to close prematurely and become stranded assets if the Japanese government is serious about its new decarbonization targets.

    1. What does the term, profit, even mean though, such as if, for example, externalities or subsidies are ignored?

  5. From reneweconomy.com.au:

    Queensland celebrates 4GW solar milestone, three panels for every person

    The Queensland state Labor government has celebrated reaching the milestone of 4GW of solar energy capacity in the state, which it says is now more than twice the capacity of the state’s biggest power station – the Gladstone coal generator.

    The 4GW milestone was announced by energy minister Dr Anthony Lynham over the weekend, although official data suggests that the milestone was probably passed a few months ago, if not earlier, with solar analysts and Clean Energy regulator data putting small scale rooftop installations in the state at around 2.7GW alone.

    And there has also been about 1.7GW of large scale solar capacity connected from more than 30 large scale solar farms commissioned to date, according to the government’s own data (see table below), which means that the capacity of large scale solar alone is now more than the 1680MW Gladstone coal facility.

    Whatever the numbers, or the timing, it reflects a major shift for the state which remains the country’s most fossil-fuel dependent grid, but has grand plans to even that out between renewables and fossil fuels by the end of the next decade.

    It also comes as the local grid experiences extensive periods of “negative” pricing in its wholesale market during day-time hours, especially periods of low demand.

    This has led to solar farms turning off en masse, calls for more storage, and interest in how the newly formed CleanCo, which will manage the state owned “clean energy assets”, including the little used Wivenhoe pumped hydro storage facility, will change the dynamics of the market.

    “More than 560,000 Queensland roofs now sport solar systems and 30 solar farms are now generating across the state,” Lynham said in a statement issued over the weekend.

    “Queenslanders are embracing solar energy because they know that solar reduces power bills and carbon emissions.”

    Renewables deliver 47% of total generation in Germany so far in 2019

    Renewable energy in the European industrial power house of Germany has delivered 47 per cent of the country’s total electricity generation so far in 2019, with wind and solar alone combining for more than one third of total generation, and renewables outstripping fossil fuels for seven months in a row.

    This year has seen a significant change in Germany’s electricity mix after years of relatively slow progress that was partially caused by a reassessment of nuclear after the Fukushima disaster and the decision to close some reactors.

    This first graph, sourced from the renowned Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, and via researcher Bruno Burger, shows the share of generation for the first nine months of 2019.

    That’s the funny thing about this exponential growth thing. Initially the growing quantity is insignificant, then all of a sudden it isn’t and before you know it, the competition is overwhelmed!

    1. Islandboy,

      You are correct, but many will claim that renewable energy will never amount to anything, this will no doubt still be claimed right up to the last coal and natural gas power plant being shut down because they can no longer compete with cheap wind and solar power.

      After all Germany is just a minor nation, of no significance. 🙂

      1. Please, do let us know, Dennis, when fossil fuel Mtoe per year starts to decline.
        A collaboration piece between you and Chris Martenson on the subject would be most interesting.

        1. Survivalist,

          Just watch BP statistical review of World energy. I expect coal may have already peaked in 2013 at 3867 Mtoe/year, C+C will peak around 2025 at about 4330 Mtoe/year and natural gas I am less sure of probably 2035 at 4400 Mtoe/year.

          Probably the peak for all fossil fuels in Mtoe will be in 2028+/-2 years.

          As fossil fuel peaks it will become expensive relative to wind, and solar and EVs and other forms of electric transport will become much cheaper than fossil fuel powered transport, price differences can change things and more quickly than many foresee.

      2. Like the green and industrial ‘revolutions’ will never amount to anything, Dennis? What have they amounted to?
        And who would suggest that of renewable energy and what does ‘amount to anything’ even mean? Amounting to something can amount to outright desolation and despair, if not necessarily right away or even within a few generations.

        “Traditional scientific method has always been at the very best 20-20 hindsight. It’s good for seeing where you’ve been. It’s good for testing the truth of what you think you know, but it can’t tell you where you ought to go.” ~ Robert M. Pirsig, ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’

        “The historian is a prophet looking backwards.” ~ Friedrich Von Schlegel, ‘Philosophical Fragments’

        “The problem with comprehension is, it often comes too late.” ~ Rasmenia Massoud, ‘Human Detritus’

    1. But not the never-ending exponential stratosphere of sales that so many have predicted. can EVs roll out fast enough to avoid a 2008-style GFC due to demand outpacing supply? we are already bouncing on that line.

      1. “can EVs roll out fast enough to avoid a 2008-style GFC due to demand outpacing supply?”
        Good question.
        They is certainly a scenario where EV [battery] supply comes up far short of demand.
        Luckily many of these small vehicles can be used for the local economies, and their battery requirements are much smaller.

        1. I’ve given a LOT of thought to the possibility that stripped down electric vehicles might sell like ice water in hell, under certain circumstances. And by stripped down, I do mean STRIPPED of every thing not REQUIRED by law. I have driven many vehicles that lacked even a heater, never mind air conditioning, carpets, nice seats, etc. People in need of jobs will be happy to drive such a vehicle if they can’t find a better job.

          So far as I can see, it would be legal under current American law to build a three wheel light duty cargo truck, making it a motorcycle in legal terms. A thousand pound payload would be a piece of cake, and such a truck/ motorcycle could run hard all day in a city environment with one quarter of the battery capacity of a new Leaf or Bolt.

          And if the cards fall in such a way that the economy can continue to function ok but only if oil is severely rationed, etc, then people by the tens of millions will be HAPPY to buy a car that’s REALLY built to be energy efficient…. a low narrow fore and aft two seater.

          Such a car could easily be designed and built with ninety five percent off the shelf suspension and drive train components, and the rest would be nothing but some glass and stamped out and welded steel and or aluminum sheet metal.
          In wartime, they could be shipped within six months in small numbers, and huge numbers within a year.

          A battery capacity of as little as fifteen kilowatt hours would be ample if the owner of such a car were to use it to commute to work and run local errands.

          Leviathan might have to put a giant foot down in order to force the driving public to accept such cars at first, by way of MANDATING that every manufacturer sell a certain number of them, say one for each full size car sold, or even two or three, lol. That would impose a de facto luxury tax on large cars.
          I see a day coming when you will have to be a REAL plumber, electrician or farmer in order to register a new six thousand pound truck.

          Or such little cars could simply be subsidized, with the government paying a substantial portion of the cost of building them, with the subsidy available to anybody.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car

          A car similar to this one could be built out of ordinary materials such as aluminum and light weight high strength steel without the diesel engine and easily go over a hundred miles on a fifteen to twenty kilowatt hour battery.

          And there’s no really good reason to get all RELIGIOUS about electric cars.

          A little propane heater could easily achieve ninety percent energy efficiency in terms of warming up the passenger cabin in cold weather.

          And then there’s the possibility of heating and chilling ONLY the driver’s seat. I have worked a couple of times wearing a jacket especially built with little sealed up plastic bottles of water,frozen, sewn into it. Such a jacket works GREAT, in terms of keeping you cool for a quarter of an hour or longer in a really hot environment such as checking out big machinery in a factory that may take a couple of DAYS to cool off enough for maintenance and repair work. This stopgap might reduce the need for air conditioning energy by eighty percent or more.

          1. agree
            places like India and China may be at the forefront of developing these smaller and simpler vehicles, since many of their consumers cannot afford all the fancy stuff, like airbags. And they have a long tradition of making the most out limited resources.
            China and Taiwan have certainly been far out in front in the electric bike/moped industry.
            Here is a sample of the electric food delivery vehicles you can purchase today-
            https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/electric-food-delivery-vehicle.html

            1. Interesting that many of these are coming in well below the price of a basic USA electric bike.

              NAOM

            2. And if you look at many of them, you can imagine how useful they would be,
              compared to a mule.
              Or a ICE with an empty gas tank.

            2. I agree. Getting the weight down and accepting more minimalistic commuter conveniences is paramount. Dudes going around buying luxury cars are dicks. Personally, I’m a frugal minimalist, (except for my preps, my preps are lit) so I use bike or bus when going about in town, but I can see that kinda thing working for a lot of driving folks I know.

            1. You ever see ’em towing a trailer around for ‘trunk space’ when needed, like for groceries etc?

  7. Surface air temperature for September 2019
    In Europe, temperatures were above average over most of the continent, especially in the south and south-east. Below-average temperatures occurred over much of Norway and Sweden, and over the far east of the continent. Globally September 2019 was 0.57°C warmer than the average September from 1981-2010, making it the warmest September in our data record, virtually on a par with September 2016. Regions with most markedly above average temperatures include central and eastern USA, the Mongolian plateau and parts of the Arctic. Much below average temperatures were only recorded in a few regions, including southwestern Russia and parts of Antarctica.

    https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-september-2019

    1. “Virtually on a par with September 2016” is saying there’s been no change for a few years now.

        2. Yep.
          The ‘cooldown’ from 2016 to 2018 is hard to see on the graph, since it was minimal. Years 2015, 2017 and 2018 were far warmer than all other years (except 2016) dating back the 1860’s- globally, both ocean and land.
          Sorry to pop your bubble Bradley et al.
          I wish you guys were right, instead of lost on this topic.

    2. I can confirm the climate change for September here in Michigan. Very hot and humid for most of the month, not like most other September’s here. So far in October it’s cooled down closer to what it is suppose to be.

      Regards,
      Ralph
      Cass Tech ’64

    1. It seems that some here are prone to celebrate whenever news comes out that suggests EV sales are stagnant or declining, a situation I find somewhat puzzling. While I certainly cannot claim to know why sales growth has stopped in 2019, I have some suspicions that I can offer.

      In terms of Tesla’s offerings, Tesla has been making noises since early this year about significant improvements in it’s battery technology, with the acquisition of Maxwell Technologies and their patents. They are planing a “Investor Battery Day”, originally planned for H2, 2019 but, now delayed to the q1, 2020. My suspicion is that Tesla is busy integrating their new patents into their manufacturing process so that when they do make their battery presentation, they will be able to say, “As of today all new Teslas will incorporate the upgraded battery technology”. To announce battery improvements before they are available would surely result in “The Osbourne Effect” as customers put off purchases, waiting for the announced improvements to hit the show room floor. Expect to hear basically zip from Tesla about batteries before their investor day presentation! Notwithstanding that there may be potential buyers out there that share my suspicion and are holding back on purchases.

      One big factor IMO is Volkswagen’s entry into the high volume business with it’s ID 3. This is the first of a slew of new battery EVs to come from VW and has had a steady stream of pre-release showings and test drives, leading up to the official reveal of the production model at the Frankfurt Auto Show in early September (last month). Production of this car will start in November and first customer deliveries are slated for “mid 2020” according to the following article from insideevs.com:

      Volkswagen ID.3 1ST Reservations Hit 33,000

      In other words the EV market may be suffering from the Osbourne Effect as potential buyers hold out for a number of new, announced but, not yet available products. At any rate, the EV market appears to be supply constrained since, I am not aware of any large inventories of unsold product or any huge discounts to move unsold inventory. Products like the Nissan Leaf are not doing well but, that is because Nissan is failing to stay competitive with the increasing number of competitive offerings. For a long time, the Nissan Leaf was the only choice if one wanted to buy an EV for less than about $40,000. Not so any more and some of the new competitive offerings are more interesting

      One final note about the Leaf is that, the redesigned 2018 model does not have the distinctive looks of it’s predecessor. It passes for a very ordinary car and some people who want to buy “green” cars want to make a statement with a car that people can immediately identify as a hybrid or EV. Tesla has that distinctive look while the Leaf no longer does.

      1. Last I heard BYD might well be supplying VW with EV batteries. Anybody know if that’s still the case?

        https://www.autonews.com/china/byd-close-battery-deal-vws-audi

        China will eat Tesla for a snack once the competition shakes out.

        China’s Electric Vehicle Market: A Storm of Competition Is Coming (with audio)
        https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/chinas-ev-market/

        In Tesla’s Jan. 2016 shareholders letter, Musk tells shareholders “We plan to fund about $1.5 billion in capital expenditures without accessing any outside capital….”

        Three months later, the company announces that it plans to sell $2 billion of Tesla shares in order to invest in the just-announced Model 3 production.

        “Right. Three months ago, you had no idea you’d need capital for the new model?”

        https://qz.com/723893/elon-musk-is-using-tesla-to-make-a-great-leap-forward-for-electric-cars/

        Musk is a mountebank.

      2. islandboy —

        “It seems that some here are prone to celebrate whenever news comes out that suggests EV sales are stagnant or declining, a situation I find somewhat puzzling.”

        For my part, I find it puzzling you persist in talking about EVs with almost religious fervor, because they currently represent a very small segment of the market for light vehicles (SIMPLY, EVs ARE A NICHE PRODUCT — AT THE MOMENT).

        BTW, I have watched the rapid growth of EVs in Norway which is impressive if only because they are fueled by relatively “green” hydro electricity there. Perhaps this is something to celebrate though when you are stalled in rush hour traffic, sitting in an EV seems pretty much like BAU to me. This would be especially true when/if the electricity being consumed comes from coal or NG plants, which is often the case. You could at least stop using phrases like “exponential growth” and (some) people might take your EV comments seriously.

        1. Doug,

          We all agree that society isn’t doing enough to meet the existential threat of climate change. If that’s what you are feeling strongly about, well…we agree.

          But, some of these other ideas are really, when you think about it, climate denier talking points (EVs are a niche product, electricity comes from coal, etc).

          I’m confident that you don’t want to support climate denial.

          Just to clarify these points:

          Regarding exponential growth: sometimes global temperatures go up sharply and sometimes they appear to pause: the general consensus here is that one should look past short term variations and look at the longer-term. Wouldn’t the same approach make sense when looking at EVs?

          Regarding coal: EVs are cleaner even on 100% coal; there aren’t any grids that are 100% coal; and EVs can selectively charge when coal is a lower % of power.

          Finally, EVs are also a solution to all of the problems created by oil: import costs; supply insecurity; oil shocks; oil wars; pollution, etc.

          1. “EVs are also a solution to all of the problems created by oil.”

            Really? Passenger vehicles consume only about 26 percent of the oil used worldwide. So, if every car in the world is an EV ALL our oil problems are solved? BTW, don’t EVs travel on asphalt? What about pollution from car tires? (Biggest source of microplastics in California coastal waters = car tires.) Last I heard, EVs had tires. And, haven’t seen many electric jets flying over or electric ships ships for that matter.

            1. Hmmm. It seems like you’re looking for negative details about EVs, and not really discussing your most basic, broad reason for being negative about them. I took a guess, above, but I feel there’s something not being addressed. Anyway, here are some thoughts about those details.

              ALL our oil problems That’s just my way of saying that oil creates many problems. And, yes, EVs don’t completely eliminate oil, but they are a pretty comprehensive solution for passenger cars, which makes it a very important one.

              Passenger vehicles consume only about 26 percent
              That looks low – it’s just under 50% for the US. Do you have a source?

              EVs travel on asphalt
              Asphalt isn’t burned, and it’s recycled. OTOH, concrete works, and it can be made GHG-neutral.

            2. Nick G,

              What are the practical solutions for electric shipping and air travel? I think we should be designing working prototypes now if we hope to replace the existing petroleum fleet in the next twenty years.

            4. Hey Chilby, I saw that too. Unsettling trend. I hope this finding stimulates more observation & research up there. Could be a spicey one!

              “Yield volatility is gonna go through the roof”

              Climate Change and Global Food Security: Prof David Battisti

              https://youtu.be/YToMoNPwTFc?t=45m36s

            5. Furthermore,
              … Paul Beckwith is out with an update. I quite like Paul. I hope all the luxury car 2 miles to the gym types give him a few quid.

              Arctic Methane Measurements over Eastern Siberian Shelf Are Now the High…
              https://youtu.be/tyJvtDdGls4

            6. Survivalist,

              Yes, these observations are definitely unsettling. I don’t believe carbon outgassing of the land and sub-sea permafrost can be correctly taken into account in the IPCC models, as the amounts and rates are too uncertain. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

              And if we didn’t already have enough problems, there will be a massive albedo flip once the arctic goes ice free. Based on the nonlinear empirical trend that could happen as soon as 2030.

              https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL082914

              “During recent decades, there has been dramatic Arctic sea ice retreat. This has reduced the top‐of‐atmosphere albedo, adding more solar energy to the climate system. There is substantial uncertainty regarding how much ice retreat and associated solar heating will occur in the future. This is relevant to future climate projections, including the timescale for reaching global warming stabilization targets. Here we use satellite observations to estimate the amount of solar energy that would be added in the worst‐case scenario of a complete disappearance of Arctic sea ice throughout the sunlit part of the year. Assuming constant cloudiness, we calculate a global radiative heating of 0.71 W/m2 relative to the 1979 baseline state. This is equivalent to the effect of one trillion tons of CO2 emissions. These results suggest that the additional heating due to complete Arctic sea ice loss would hasten global warming by an estimated 25 years.”

              How much faster can we incentivize the free market??

            7. That question about zero-carbon shipping is a really big topic. There are good solutions we can discuss, but first let me go wider and broader: I’d suggest incentivizing the free market aggressively, which would find the optimal, cheapest, most effective solutions, in the fastest way.

              That might include an incremental carbon/fuel tax starting at 2%, and rising by another 2% per month, for about 60 months (the revenue should probably be used to reduce regressive taxes, like payroll and sales taxes, or returned via a “carbon dividend”).

              That would reduce the pain by spreading out the increase, while incentivizing immediate reductions, especially for long-lived infrastructure and vehicles.

              You’d see really fast change.

            8. Nick G,

              I agree that creating incentives is a good start. It helped me pay for the panels on my roof. I can also see the gradual transition towards EV automobiles happening around me. As a side note, I personally favor rapidly expanding and improving public transit networks. I think personal automobiles are too resource intensive, both in manufacturing and infrastructure support. But people have become accustomed to their creature comforts.

              Since you are a vocal supporter of EV’s and energy transition it would be reasonable to extrapolate that you also believe that the global trade network needs to continue on its current track. (There are only so many rare earth and lithium mines on the planet, after all.) And if I recall correctly, the IPCC models to keep us on track for limiting global warming to 1.5 C require negative emissions by ~2070 (I am skeptical that this can be accomplished). Therefore, I think further discussion is warranted on the “good solutions” for global shipping that you casually allude to.

              Is it possible to build an electric ocean freighter that can carry hundreds of steel containers across the ocean? How many batteries, or weight in batteries, would be required to do this? What is the real-world range? Do we need to construct mid-ocean charging stations? If so, how can this be done? 2070 isn’t really that far off, so let’s assume there are no fundamental changes in battery / storage technology. I believe storage will continue to rapidly improve, but scientific breakthroughs are not something that can be predicted. I would love to read a piece on what this requires using existing technology. It would be great if you can point me to something, or even better, if someone can submit a blog entry to good folks who moderate this forum.

            9. chilyb,

              A few thoughts.

              First, a minor quibble: rare earths and lithium aren’t rare, and they’re widely distributed. And, rare earths aren’t necessary for EVs, wind turbines or PV. They are commonly used, but they’re being phased out as manufacturers get fed up with the Chinese playing games with their exports.

              I like rail – electric trains have been my primary transportation for a long time. But, I’m lucky: most people can’t live that close to a train. Trains work very well for roughly half of personal transportation, but rail would be incredibly expensive for the other half. That other half would require buses which are also very expensive to provide for all transportation locations, 24×7. And, of course, ICE buses use oil. So…we’re back to EVs of some sort.

              The elimination of GHG emissions from water shipping will likely require multiple solutions: greater efficiency; onboard energy capture with PV and wind kites; batteries; and zero-carbon fuel such as synthetic liquid fuel, hydrogen, ammonia, etc (synthetic liquid fuel, aka “drop-in fuel” is the most likely, as it doesn’t require major infrastructure investment within the shipping industry).

              Batteries are likely to be only a partial solution for long-distance water transport. They’d be less expensive than oil, but they displace cargo (see discussion below), so they’re likely to be a bit limited in size. You could shorten the maximum run length and go back to using multiple ports, but synthetic liquid fuel, or hydrogen, are the likely solutions.

              Water shipping is less than 5% of overall oil consumption. The largest new container ships cut fuel consumption by 50% over typical current container ships. In the short term, commercial shipping will simply outbid personal transportation, which has enormous slack for reduction (think small cars, hybrids, EVs, etc).

              In the long term, synthetic fuel at $2 per liter would be very affordable for water shipping. It would be convenient, but probably the most expensive option. The tech for it is conventional and available, so that’s the outside limit of shipping costs.

              I wouldn’t worry about global trade being killed by PO, though it might shift the economics a bit towards localization.

              On the other hand, we should shift away from oil ASAP with improved efficiency, onboard wind and solar (think enormous kites, and PV on top of containers-also useful on trains and intermodal trucks), batteries (swappable at ports like shipping containers) and alternative low carbon synthetic fuels: H2, ammonia, etc.
              –
              Water shipping is mighty fuel efficient – it’s far more efficient to ship something 6,000 miles in a Panamax container ship, and include it with a truck’s regular route, than it is for you to drive to a local store. If that allows you to reduce your local shopping, then it’s a big saver.
              Of course, if you’re determined to shop at the local store every week anyway, then adding a lightbulb doesn’t add much to your car’s fuel consumption.
              ———-
              “The cost benefits are clear. When speed is reduced by 20%, fuel consumption is reduced by 40% per nautical mile…. special anti-fouling paint. This has been shown to cut around 9% from CO2 emissions by keeping their bottoms free from barnacles and other sea life.

              Some ships have been fitted with kite-like “skysails”, or systems that force compressed air out of hulls to allow them to “ride” on a cushion of bubbles. These measures can cut fuel consumption by up to 20%.”

              https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/25/slow-ships-cut-greenhouse-emissions
              —
              “Promising to cut fuel use by 60% and harmful carbon emissions by up to 80%, a Lade AS’ fuel-efficient ship concept could revolutionize the overseas cargo shipping industry and reduce fossil fuel use by millions — if not billions! — of barrels per year.”

              http://cleantechnica.com/2013/09/26/vindskip-fuel-efficient-ship/
              more recent:
              http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/16/tech/vindskip-wind-powered-container-ship/

              “Maersk was developing its Triple-E vessels which used ultra-long stroke engines, efficient vessel shape and advanced waste heat recovery systems to improve CO2 efficiency by 50% per container.
              “If you look at the technology already on-board our vessels today, it’s remarkable just how far we’ve come,” she said.”
              —
              The following courtesy of GoneFishing http://peakoilbarrel.com/peak-oil-back/#comment-567739

              Do container ships carry dead weight ballast, which could be replaced by batteries? Enough to reduce fuel consumption by about 50%?

              How much battery storage a ship would need to cross the Pacific? Wind, PV?

              Battery weight would not be much of a problem on ship since they need ballast anyway. I also wonder if this would be a good use for hydrogen fuel cell technology.

              For example, a large Panamax ship must carry about 12,500 tons of ballast. The Panamax freighter uses 729,600 kWh per day traveling at 20 knots. That is 7.6 GWh across the Pacific. Considering the engine used is about 30 percent efficient, that would be 2.28 GWhr actual.
              If the battery/motor system is 85% efficient overall then 2.85 GWh of storage would be needed. Round that up to 3 GWh. That would be 25,000 tons of lithium batteries or 78,000 tons of lead-acid batteries. That is more than the ballast needed. A Panamax can carry 60,000 to 80,000 tons of freight, so that would reduce the amount of freight by 12,000 tons or 65,500 tons depending on the batteries.

              Obviously there is a need to improve battery energy density by at least a factor of 2 to make the crossing practical. More efficient ship designs would also assist in moving to electric ships. The new grapheme batteries might just be the answer.

            10. @NickG
              Not sure if batteries are the answer to shipping electric storage. Flow storage systems might be more workable. Ships already use big fuel bunkers and the weight of some large amounts of liquid wouldn’t matter so much.

              NAOM

            11. Good thought. I haven’t seen much from flow batteries lately – how are they doing getting to large scale commercial viability?

            12. “Finally, EVs are also a solution to all of the problems created by oil: import costs; supply insecurity; oil shocks; oil wars; pollution, etc.” ~ Nick G

              It appears that the oil-depletion/EROEI issue will be ‘its own solution’, so EV’s look like less of one for that so much as to keep ‘BAU’ keeping on.

              Did anyone ever suggest that ‘late stage capitalism’ was going to die easy? Perhaps not in part with an increasing army of tax-slave-funded mountebanks for it.

          2. Nick G-
            “Finally, EVs are also a solution to all of the problems created by oil”

            Well, they ae somewhat better, but regardless, the severe environmental destruction of severe human population overshoot makes even the EV industry a monster. Maybe a little better monster than oil/ICE.

            1. You mean 7.7 billion people in a collapsing ecosystem is a problem?
              You mean a EV is not the solution?

        2. I think most people are missing the point with EVs. It is part of a general trend towards replacing complex mechanical stuff with software and electric motors.

          Even ignoring EVs like Tesla, there is no question that the car industry is electrifying. Mild hybrids with 48V battteries will kill off mechanical gizmos one by one in combustion engine vehicles. The death of the carburetor was just the start.

          Look at my recent post about how switching from 12V to 48V allows Audi to downsize the A8 for 8 cylinders to 6. The starter motor isn’t just there to turn the engine over any more — it powers the vehicle when the combustion engine can’t.

          The future holds active electric suspension to replace shock absorbers, four wheel fly-by-wire steering to replace servo powered steering, electric valve control instead of mechanical valve control, electric turbo chargers, etc. Each of these changes make the car perform better and lose weight, so the combustion engine will automatically shrink.

          Combustion engines are like cathode ray tube TVs — a great invention whose time came and went. They can’t compete with all-electric vehicles in the long run.

          1. And, they couldn’t compete with EVs 100 years ago, until ICEs took the first step toward electrification with the electric starter motor.

            1. There has been a creeping electrification of cars since for decades. Better electronics have accelerated the trend since Motorola introduced the car radio in the 30s.

              Look what Bosch says about electric steering:

              By integrating the electronic control unit into the vehicle’s electrical system, Servolectric® becomes the key technology for automated driving. The base model of electric power steering provides the foundation for driver assistance functions. The advanced fail-operational steering variant has a redundant system layout and in this way allows highly- automated driving. The fail-operational steering system makes its contribution to highly automated driving via networking with the vehicle’s assistance systems.

              As computers take over driving, replacing mechanical regulation with electronics is turning cars into integrated “self aware” systems instead of a jumble of ingenious engineering hacks.

            2. We’re far better for talking about and working with natural systems.

            3. Whatever “natural” means. However, I was talking about what I think WILL happen, not what I think SHOULD happen.

        3. The vehicle I use to move around in daily, is a fuel guzzler by Jamaican (Japanese) standards and I get absolutely no joy from awareness of that fact. However it is a light commercial vehicle and I do use it to carry goods on a regular basis. Part of my intense interest in EVs is my desire to reduce my carbon footprint. PV on my rooftop is one step in that direction and an EV would be another. The only somewhat affordable EV that is close to what I use now is a small van made by Nissan using battery and drive train components from the Nissan Leaf. It is smaller than what I have now but I can live with that, once I can find a used one at a price that is acceptable to me. The government has announced that they are formulating an electric vehicle policy that most likely will affect prices so, I am waiting to see the outcome of that.

          That brings me to the “EVs ARE A NICHE PRODUCT ” statement. If EVs are ever to become more than a niche product, manufacturers will have to invest in R&D to bring products to market and increase the scale of manufacturing to get to the economies of scale currently enjoyed by ICE vehicles. Which manufacturers look serious about trying to move EVs from niche product to mainstream? Tesla? Definitely! Nissan/Renault? Maybe. VW? Maybe. The rest? Not!

          Sitting stalled in rush hour traffic in an EV is not BAU, in the sense that, if all the cars stalled in traffic were EVs, they would be using a tiny fraction of the energy being used by ICE powered vehicles. When discussing the source of the electricity, below is a graph of petroleum consumption by activity for the island of Jamaica. I expect the line for “Electricity Generation” to go down steeply when the data is released next year. This is based on the addition of a 37 MW solar farm to the grid in June and more importantly the commencement of commercial operations at a new 190 MW CCGT plant by the local utility. So the trend for petroleum consumption for electricity generation in Jamaica is heading in the right direction but the trend for “Road and Rail Transportation” is heading the other way> As far as I am concerned, EVs need to become mainstream a lot faster. A whole lot faster.

          As far as my use of the phrase “exponential growth” goes, I guess I’m just describing some of the trends that I am observing when you the”noise” is removed from the data. The graph from berkeleyearth.org posted by Hickory further up is a good example. When you ignore the “noise”, the trend is unmistakable.

          1. Today I saw four Tesla 3’s on my 2 mile drive home from the gym. The day before that I parked next one. You see them every day. It’s just a matter of time.

            1. You drive 2 miles to the gym to get exercise, ever heard of a bicycle? Reminds me of the guy that lives in a high rise who bought a stair climber.

            2. “guy that lives in a high rise who bought a stair climber”
              Makes me wonder if he needed the climber because he was unfit through not exercising 🙂

            3. Probably should have taken the stairs more.
              HB is ludicrous, as usual. Driving 2 miles to the gym to get some exercise, yeah better get a Tesla for that lmfao!

            4. Makes me laugh, or cry, those who drive to their spin exercise class.

            5. Make no mistake about it camouflage master, I live the good life. I don’t know how to trap a squirrel, skin it and cook it by rubbing two sticks together. I went to school and studied economics and finance. I basically retired at the age of 45, 18 years ago owning my million dollar home out right and trading equities as a hobby.

              I do drive to the gym in my XT5 wrapped in soft animal hide seats that are heated and cooled. When it comes to riding my Madone 5.2 about 5,000 miles per year. I spend most of it leaving right out the front door and within a few minutes cruising up and down Pacific Coast Hwy. Enjoying the white sandy view of the coastline. On a clear day one can see Catalina Island 26 miles off shore.

              Oh wise one camouflage master, at least back in 2016 I could distinguish the difference between a conman and an environmentalist. Which is more than you can say for yourself.

              He who laughs last, laughs best. How was your day at the work grind trapping those medical sales ?

            6. You make me think of the idea that ‘state capitalism’ has created evolutionary niches for some kinds of human adaptations to especially flourish.
              And there’ve been a few words written about this sort of thing, one of which I am reminded of is, sociopath.
              Niches, naturally, can change and change into environments absolutely hostile to their previous adaptees.
              Frankly, I’d hate to be too adapted to a system that might generally run counter to the healthful functioning of the living planet, but that’s just me.

            7. And yet when one promotes suggestions replacing ICE with carbon free transportation you condemn. You have no realistic answers except living in the 17th century and that’s not going to happen.

              What you are really about is justifying your failed quality of standard living to yourself.

            8. Although I can imagine it in a glossy corporate brochure, EV’s are not carbon-free transportation. But even if they were, there are many other problematic issues. Same sort of thing with reducing the complex issue of ecocide to climate change.
              It’s an approach that might work for the sheeple perhaps, but not likely in the long run or in the quest for a deeper and broader understanding, like for better helping to keep ourselves out of the kinds of trouble we seem to keep getting ourselves into.

              But here’s an expression a sheeple might better understand WRT EV’s in the current context: ‘You don’t get something for nothing.’

    2. New Rivian coming soon, Tesla Model Y coming soon, Tesla pickup coming soon, other makes/models coming soon. A lot of people may be biding their time to see what choice they will have, add to that some uncertainty about the financial markets and prospects of a downturn.

      NAOM

      1. “A lot of people may be biding their time to see what choice they will have,”

        Early days of the Osbourne effect.

  9. Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
    September 2019: 408.54 ppm
    September 2018: 405.51 ppm

    My guess is humanity will be 100% solar well before 2050; I just don’t think the billion or so of ’em still left will be feeling very stoked about it.

    2. In about 100 years the CO2 concentration has gone from about 300 ppm to now just a smidgen over 400 ppm. A 1000 ppm change is a 1 % change, so the actual change we’ve observed is closer to about .014 % change. Such a small change is relatively negligible in the grand scheme of things.

      2. Thats funny Larry. Third grade logic. (Heard it on Fox news?)
        Ever wonder how much arsenic you would have to eat to die?
        Hint- it is not measured in pounds.

      3. Larry Butler,

        Let’s see: Oxygen is about 21 per cent of the atmosphere. If we move the decimal point that means oxygen is about 210 000 parts per million. And it’s all part of the atmosphere because photosynthesis put it there and photosynthesis depends on that tiny part of the atmosphere that is CO2: no CO2, no photosynthesis. That suggests that a small change in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is important.

        CO2 also intercepts infrared (we feel it as heat) that otherwise would be lost to space. Without that tiny part of the atmosphere that is CO2 the average surface temperature here on Earth would be about 15 degrees below freezing. Think of our planet with the oceans frozen over. Perhaps a small change in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is important.

        We need better-quality trolls.

        Time for more Port.

  10. Some rarely mentioned basic information:
    More than 90% of world ice is located in Central Greenland and Greater Antarctica. Those areas do NOT melt. Arctic has only floating ice and thus is of secondary importance. Floating ice from Arctica can only move towards warmer zones, as the ice will follow ocean streams, which at the North Pole can be only outgoing: icebergs are periodically invading warmer zones, not colder ones. So some ice will always melt, but new ice will be created in its place.

    By the way, does anyone know why the name ‘Antarctica’ is composed of ‘Arctica’ + ‘Ant’? It kind of suggest that Antarctica really is an ice-covered continent of Atlantis, as some say.

    1. “It kind of suggest that Antarctica really is an ice-covered continent of Atlantis, as some say.”
      Another in a huge pile of false suppositions from One of EU.

      1. Supposition is supposition, information is information, curiosity is curiosity.

        At least you did not deny that most of ice is in Antarctica; I am happy to have deflected your attention with my remark about Atlantis!

        1. “The Antarctic lost 40 billion tons of melting ice to the ocean each year from 1979 to 1989. That figure rose to 252 billion tons lost per year beginning in 2009, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. That means the region is losing six times as much ice as it was four decades ago, an unprecedented pace in the era of modern measurements. (It takes about 360 billion tons of ice to produce one millimeter of global sea-level rise.)”
          (It has been known for some time that the West Antarctic and Antarctic Peninsula have been losing mass, but discovering that significant mass loss is also occurring in the East Antarctic is really important because there’s such a large volume of sea-level equivalent contained in those basins]

          1. ‘from 1979 to 1989’

            If that still were true, they would be saying about it.

            2. There is something fishy in those statements. If the matter was straight, the description would be straight too. But it isn’t.

              For example, what was happening between 1989 and 2009? No loss of ice? Ice increase?

            4. Hightrekker,

              I admire the effort, but I feel like it is a waste of time to engage with the contrarian.

    2. To put it mildly, I’m not a linguist, but I found this online by Googling ‘why do they call it Antarctica’

      The name Antarctica is the romanised version of the Greek compound word ἀνταρκτική (antarktiké), feminine of ἀνταρκτικός (antarktikós), meaning “opposite to the Arctic”, “opposite to the north”.

  11. US energy giant says renewables and batteries beat coal, gas and nukes

    Robo’s comments are significant for a number of obvious reasons. Close watchers of the US energy market will already be aware that the cost of wind and solar has fallen dramatically, and recent auctions for “dispatchable” energy has seen renewables and battery storage projects beating out gas, which is significantly cheaper in the US than in Australia.

    And the fact that renewables and storage, without further incentives, can beat out existing coal and nuclear plants, most of which have been fully depreciated, is just as significant. As is Robo’s point that “you can be green and low cost” at the same time. And, as he also notes, can deliver reliable power as well.

    “You still have coal being roughly 35 per cent of the energy generated last year and effectively, we think renewables can replace almost all of that by 2030,” Robo said in response to a question.

    “When you look at wind and solar paired with a battery, new construction is cheaper than the operating cost of existing coal.

    “So there’s very little reason from an economic standpoint to continue to run those units and there’s very little reason from a reliability standpoint to run those units and there’s certainly no reason from an environmental standpoint to run them.

    “So we see a massive shift there in terms of much of the coal in the country being phased out by 2030.”

    1. I like the simple-mindness of that: if you want a Nobel prize, work on batteries!
      Who said Pavlov’s theory doesn’t work on Nobel laureates [in spe].

      Should be a separate prize for applied stuff. Likewise there are art prizes and design prizes.

      In a way the Nobel prize has become very didactic during last years. Today we have learnt that Africa is our future (it may be even right ;). Anyway, better than the prize for Obama. Nevertheless, the Nordic people have special fascination with the black people; the opposites attract.

  14. WARM OCEAN WATER ATTACKING EDGES OF ANTARCTICA’S ICE SHELVES

    “The findings, published today in Science Advances, describe a new process important to the future of Antarctica’s ice and the continent’s contribution to rising seas. Models and forecasts do not yet account for the newly understood and troubling scenario, which is already underway.”

    https://phys.org/news/2019-10-ocean-edges-antarctica-ice-shelves.html

  15. Two cases of Charles Koch’s investments in anti-EV disinformation campaigns. His involvement is not stated but, it is very unlikely that he is not involved somehow :

    Massachusetts rejects National Grid EV plan, advocates say oil interests sowed disinformation

    Multiple parties raised concerns about the fast approval of National Grid’s Phase II plan absent analysis of the first phase, including the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, the state’s Attorney General’s office and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which some groups found troubling.

    “The oil industry was in the mix, and it is important to note they have a broader strategic disinformation campaign,” Samantha Houston, analyst for the Clean Vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who has written about oil industry disinformation techniques told Utility Dive. “They are clearly threatened that EVs could undermine their market share.”

    API’s “deceptive behavior” included comparing National Grid’s EV proposal to other utility plans using “nonsensical metrics,” and “gloss[ing] over numerous factors about those cost metrics that render the comparisons meaningless,” according to Houston’s blog post.

    “This fight will ramp up,” she said.

    API declined to comment.

    Ultimately, DPU’s order reduced National Grid’s base revenue request by approximately $41.8 million, and decreased the utility’s original requested increase of $132.2 million by 32%. National Grid’s electric base distribution rates had not changed since 2016.

    “The final result of this order will ensure Massachusetts continues to lead the way by investing and providing clean and reliable energy solutions to the ratepayer,” DPU Chairman Matthew Nelson said in a statement, adding that the agency is “conscious of what every dollar means to customers.”

    Minnesota shuts down oil, manufacturing groups’ attempt to derail Xcel EV pilot

    Other clean energy groups also noted it was out of place for large industrial groups to make these arguments, but that the trend would likely not slow down as electric vehicles increase their share in the market.

    “I think what we’re seeing is primarily a rise of opposition that’s generated out of the oil industry. We certainly saw that in Minnesota. And we’re seeing it in other parts of the country,” managing director at Advanced Energy Economy Matt Stanberry told Utility Dive. That opposition by “nontraditional actors” in these proceedings is primarily driven by the fact that the oil industry is beginning to see rapid EV adoption as “an existential threat to their business,” he said.

    Electric vehicles operating at 4 miles per kWh are 78% cheaper to fuel than the average gasoline-powered vehicle in the U.S., according to the Idaho National Laboratory.
    As electric vehicles reach cost parity with gasoline-powered vehicles, the market is expected to take off. |

    “I’ve found that as you move forward, your opposition gets louder and shriller the better you’re doing,” Mark Nabong, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council told Utility Dive.

    Xcel’s pilot includes public charging and fleet charging, and the PUC also on Monday approved the utility’s subscription EV pilot which will allow residential customers to charge their EVs off-peak for a flat monthly fee.

    “Xcel Energy is a clean energy leader and our Minnesota electric vehicle plan is the largest and most broad utility transportation electrification program in the Midwest,” an Xcel spokesperson told Utility Dive in an emailed statement. “We are pleased with the Commission’s decision and will continue to move forward with our innovative electric vehicle pilot programs.”

    And on the other side of the pond:

    https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1181955425580863502

    1. The biggest industry in Germany is auto industry and what they hear now sounds like a death judgement for them.
      Therefore Germany has vested interests in anti-EV stance, of course it does.

      How much, I will give you an example from Germany itself:
      In Braunschweig there is Landgericht (state court) which is responsible for many suits against Volkswagen due to tampering with DIesel exhausts levels. But Braunschweig is also the capital city of Volkswagen. Guess how many VW-lawsuits were won by consumers there ? Null, zero, 0. In other places situation is different, but there is no stare decisis in Germany, every court there formally is ‘independent’.

  16. Solar PV prices fall to record lows in tender for 900MW solar park in Dubai

    A consortium led by Saudi Arabia-based ACWA Power had reportedly lodged a world record low price bid of $16.953 ($A25) a megawatt hour for a 900MW solar park in Dubai.

    The bid – reported by infrastructure journal IJGlobal – is one of two record low offers made by the two consortia still competing for the right to build the fifth phase of the huge 5GW Mohammed Bin Rashid Al-Maktoum solar park in Dubai.

    According to IJGlobal, the bid offered by a rival consortium comprising Masdar, French energy giant EDF and China’s Jinko Solar, also beat all previous bids with an offer of $US17.25/MWh.

    How long before electricity from solar PV costs less than $10/MWh (a penny per kWh)?

    1. islandboy, adding some balance to your Australian solar energy nonsense 😉

      NORTHERN AUSTRALIA’S FOSSIL FUEL PLANS PUSH CLIMATE GOALS BEYOND REACH

      “Australia is the world’s biggest exporter of coal and rivals Qatar as the biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas. Coal exports have more than doubled since the turn of the century, while gas sales have grown even more rapidly from a low base this decade. The progressive think-tank, the Australia Institute, found the country had become the third-largest exporter of fossilized carbon after Saudi Arabia and Russia… proposed developments “would/will guarantee we are going way over 2 C”.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/northern-australia-fossil-fuel-climate-goals-paris-agreement

      1. Then again, maybe as Australia heats up they can use all that solar energy to fuel their “air cons”.

        AIR CONDITIONING USE EMERGES AS ONE OF THE KEY DRIVERS OF GLOBAL ELECTRICITY-DEMAND GROWTH

        “Global energy demand from air conditioners is expected to triple by 2050, requiring new electricity capacity the equivalent to the combined electricity capacity of the United States, the EU and Japan today. The global stock of air conditioners in buildings will grow to 5.6 billion by 2050, up from 1.6 billion today – which amounts to 10 new ACs sold every second for the next 30 years, according to the report.”

        https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/may/air-conditioning-use-emerges-as-one-of-the-key-drivers-of-global-electricity-dema.html

      2. “Australian solar energy nonsense”?

        Australia is the developed nation with the best solar resources bar none!
        Unfortunately, the Australian Federal Government is firmly in the pockets of the FF industries, see:

        Is Angus Taylor on a one-man mission to stop wind and solar?

        Even before he entered parliament, federal energy minister Angus Taylor was on a mission to stop the Australian wind and solar industry.

        He appeared, and was hailed a hero, at an anti-wind rally hosted by the backers of an anonymous and rather nasty website called “Stop These Things”, and after he entered parliament in 2013 he fought unsuccessfully to have the renewable energy target scrapped altogether. Instead, it was merely chopped by a third.

        As a newly appointed energy minister last year, Taylor declared there was already too much wind and solar in the Australian grid, and claimed that having too much wind and solar would lead to the “de-industrialisation” of Australia’s economy.

        And despite the Coalition repeatedly crowing about the “world-leading” amounts of wind and solar constructed in Australia – brought about, of course, under a policy it had tried to destroy, Taylor is back to saying there is too much variable renewables in the system, against all the expert advice to the contrary.

        You could also pop over to reneweconomy.com.au and read some of the articles on their home page for the perspective of an Australian renewable energy advocate on the real nonsense happening in Australia.

        For example if you click on “Load More”, under the first set of articles there’s this:

        Flogging the life out of coal plants is not the answer to Australia’s energy woes

Comments are closed.