EIA’s Electric Power Monthly – October 2019 Edition with data for August

283 thoughts to “EIA’s Electric Power Monthly – October 2019 Edition with data for August”

1. Good job Island Boy. Thank you.

   1. You’re welcome. I just hope other people find this work as interesting as I do.

      1. fantastic job – i always read your posts and keep my friends and family updated on trends, and they find it interesting as well. I don’t think most people know how their electricity is made.

      2. Looking forward to it every month! Thanks!
         The most interesting part of your graph is the complete absence of disruptions: no policy change whatsoever results in a change in these curves. They go their own way, steadily.

2. I love these posts, but have to admit they are depressing. If you read the news it is filled with stories of low prices for renewables and energy transitions and coal retirements, but when you look at the charts, all you have is about a 1%/year increase in the share of renewables in the total energy mix, with nuclear flat so far, but likely to fall over the next decade.

   And this is electricity – probably the easiest sector of the economy to decarbonize.

   1. I agree Some Guy. I am astounded how slowly the world is changing. We should have been to this point before 2000. Finally, wind and solar are competitive cost-wise. Still the world moves slow.
      Humans do a poor job of managing themselves, and the planet.
      Do your best to push hard on it where you can.
      There will come a time when coal use will be on the steep decline and peak oil will clearly be in the rear-view mirror. How we prepare for that time (next decade or two) will go a long way to determining whether we are impoverished, or still getting along.

      1. Hint:
         Things have slowed down– we went in 1895 to riding horses to a man on the moon in the 1960’s, antibiotics, automobiles, airplanes, etc.
         Physics has been in the doldrums from the completion of the Standard Model in the 1970’s (string theory is interesting, but—–).
         While biology has accelerated (but still using a 1953 DNA model), things ave slowed down.
         I know it doesn’t seem so.

         1. This is a really important point I think a lot of people miss. As we progress technologically, further progression becomes more difficult and costly. In a few fields the opposite is true – computing primarily. But for the most part things get more difficult as they get more complicated. This is what Joseph Trainer termed “the declining marginal utility of complexity.”

            For an interesting take on this, this blog post by Tom Murphy discussed who would see more change, a man from 1900 transported to 1950 or a man from 1950 transported to 2000: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2015/09/you-call-this-progress/

            1. Moore’s law no longer even applies in computer CPU and GPUs are closing in on their potential entropic limits.

               This is someone akin to the law of diminishing returns, i believe.

               1. Yep, the silicon is too thin.
                  And the other options have been disappointing.

               2. What Intel giveth Gates taketh away. Remember when Gates said Windows would run in 4 MB? Witch is more managable? To big to fail banks or Windoze OS?

               3. Iron Mike,

                  Progress is being made in quantum computing. If problems are solved it will be a quantum leap as it were in processing speed.

                  https://www.newscientist.com/article/2189909-ibm-unveils-its-first-commercial-quantum-computer/

                  Below is a more realistic assessment

                  https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/when-will-quantum-computing-have-real-commercial-value

                  Nobody knows when these machines will be viable, perhaps never. As we know, if humans were meant to fly they would have wings. 🙂

               4. Quantum computing scares the shit out of me to be honest. Digital totalitarianism will come out of it without a doubt for me. People who don’t understand the technology will be exploited with their data. Reminds me of 1984 really.
                  And with regards to A.I, and how they will turn out, i hope to be long dead before then.

               5. Quantum computing does not bother me at all. Digital totalitarianism is something that will never, never, never happen at all. You are tilting at windmills, Mike. It just ain’t gonna happen. Humans will always be in control. Mindless control perhaps, and they will continue to really screw things up. Nevertheless, it will be a human mess and not a digital mess.

               6. I do share Mikes concern about ‘digital totalitarianism’. Technology (such as face recognition coupled with tracking of speech/voting/spending) will enable Humans with control goals to massively step up the influence over everyone.
                  Enemies of the state will simply be disappeared.
                  ex- there will come a day when cash/coin transactions are no longer legal. It will all be digital. You will not be able to make any purchase without instantaneous tracking. The only way around it will be barter. Got goat?
                  How would that bother you? Perhaps you will have exceeded the sanctioned level of pain control medication this year. No ability to purchase more.
                  Sure it will be human directed….atleast for a while.

               7. Enemies of the state will simply be disappeared.

                  If I thought Trump would be reelected, or another Trumpite would come to power, then I would agree with you.

                  There was a time when “enemies of the state,” or “enemies of the church,” or “enemies of God” were burned at the stake. Those times are gone. Trump and other Trumpites are trying to bring those times back. I have to believe they will fail.

                  I must believe they will fail. Otherwise there is no hope.

               8. Not just this country Ron. State [and corporate] control of citizen data is in the early early phases of a big trend.

                  https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/china-surveillance/552203/

                  https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2018/rise-digital-authoritarianism

                  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/data-security-meets-diplomacy-why-estonia-storing-its-data-luxembourg-n1018171

                  Also keep in mind that while trump has a strong authoritarian tendency, he is nearly incompetent/impotent. The next time one such as he is elected, they might actually be not just mean- spirited, but also effective. It would be magnitudes more dangerous to personal freedom/democracy.

               9. I used to follow Tom Murphy’s blog, and I have zero doubt that he is professionally competent and honest, in the usual sense, and an accomplished teacher and communicator.

                  But I haven’t been able to find out what , if anything, he has to say about the rocket like growth of the wind and solar power industries, or what he thinks the future of these industries may hold.

                  I strongly suspect that he’s not talking about these things for reasons I can only guess at, but even the greatest scientist is still a human being, lol.

                  Any links to what he has had to say SPECIFICALLY for, against, or ABOUT renewable energy will be greatly appreciated, and thanks in advance!

               10. But that’s just the point, what you are calling ‘rocket like growth’ is actually incredibly feeble by historical standards. Look at the charts in the post – 1%/year – at this pace it will take generations to make a serious transition.

               11. Some Guy, I don’t know how long you’ve been around here or if you were a reader/member back in the days at theoildrum.com . If you haven’t been around long, you might not have heard of Prof. Albert Bartlett and his

                   Arithmetic, Population and Energy – a talk by Al Bartlett

                   It’s a good place to start when trying to understand why the growth of renewables and solar PV in particular is so significant although it might not appear to be.

                   If you pick out solar alone and do a graph of the growth in it’s contribution, it is actually quite spectacular up to 2018. In the graph below the EIA has no data for Estimated Total Solar before 2014 so, I took the liberty of including an estimate of one third of production coming from non-utility scale to fill in the data from 2005 to 2013.

                   

               12. If you contrast the graph above with the one below, obviously coal and NG are currently the dominant sources, making up more than 60% 0f electricity generation for the period covered by the graph. Taken individually the growth of Natural Gas and the decline of Coal are not particularly spectacular, with NG looking like it might just double it’s contribution by the end of this year (2019) and the contribution from Coal looking to fall by a half over the same period. Contrast that with the contribution from Solar growing by a factor of greater than a hundred over the same period.

                   It is particularly interesting to note the trend lines for the contribution from Coal and NG combined with the contribution from Solar and Wind combined. It is obvious to me that, a decarbonisation of the US electricity supply has started. The growth of renewables could stall but, it could also accelerate. We will just have to wait and see how this plays out.

                   

               13. islandboy, +1 for your responses above to Some Guy

               14. Solar and Wind are each growing faster than nuclear did back in the day. (1)

                   And while nuclear got ever more complex and thus ever more expensive, Wind and Solar are still getting cheaper.

                   (1)
                   I have data on that and it’s global data, not just selective countries like the nuclear folks use for their deceptive “nuclear grows faster than renewables”.

         2. >Things have slowed down

            Actually things are speeding up. People thought things were slowing down in the late 19th century as well. In 1889, Charles Duell, Commissioner of the US patent office, said “everything that can be invented has been invented”.

            That impression comes from the typical problem people have — they overestimate short term change and underestimate long term change. If you aren’t directly involved in the technology, the short term change seems like a technical detail, so you think nothing is happening.

            For example, the invention of the e-book may have seemed like just some computer stuff. It’s basically just a software protocol, ho hum. But the printing industry is getting hammered and bookstores are dying left and right.

            In the same way, the switch from 12 V to 48 V batteries in cars may seem like a technical detail, but it it will end up crushing a big part of the car industry. Cable assemblies are downsizing. Cars will switch to active suspension, shift by wire, brake by wire and steer by wire, with software and electric motors replacing hydraulics and servo-mechanisms. Four wheel steering is coming. Starter motors are already pushing vehicles in addition to turning over cold engines. The next step is electric turbochargers and the death of the cam shaft.

            These new mechanisms are cheaper and more robust than what they replace. They are coming very fast, especially to fleets.

            https://qz.com/1737145/the-economics-of-driving-seven-teslas-for-2-5-million-miles/

            The car industry is in the grip of a full scale meltdown. You may be skeptical about EVs, but technical change is tearing the industry apart as we speak. It’s pretty bizarre to hear people say we are slowing down just as the world’s biggest industry is facing a KODAK moment.

            Software is eating the world. Amazing mechanical gizmos like tape recorders and carburetors, which powered the 20th century, are dying left and right. Better materials have shrunk loudspeakers down to almost nothing. My iPhone 6 got a massive battery upgrade about a month ago — it was purely software. The phone now tracks my charging and consumption behavior better so the battery always seems full now.

   2. When I first became aware of Peak Oil, circa late 2007, the story was that solar would not work because it could not scale. After all it only contributed some 0.01%, one hundredth of one percent t global electricity generation. It’s a bit like watching a tree grow. If you just sit and stare at it you see no growth but if you give it a few months or a few years the difference can be astounding. If solar were to continue to grow at anything close to the rate it grew at between 2007 and 2017 it would be the dominant source of electricity by 2030. It is quite likely that the growth rate will slow down but, even so, I expect that within the next five years the contribution from non-hydro renewables will hold steady above 10% for the whole year and move towards 15% or maybe even 20% by mid decade. Yes, it does need to grow faster but, the deniers need to be moved out of the way for that to happen.

      1. Meanwhile, as Dr Glen Peters, senior researcher Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, says: “The rise in emissions in 2017 could be seen as a one-off, but the growth rate in 2018 was even higher, and it is becoming crystal clear the world is so far failing in its duty to steer onto a course consistent with the goals set out in the Paris Agreement in 2015.”

         1. Reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is at the heart of the world’s accelerating shift from climate-damaging fossil fuels towards clean, renewable forms of energy. The steady rise of solar photovoltaic (PV) power generation forms a vital part of this global energy transformation.

            In addition to fulfilling the Paris Agreement, renewables are crucial to reduce air pollution, improve health and well-being, and provide affordable energy access worldwide. This paper from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) presents options to speed up deployment and fully unlock the world’s vast solar PV potential over the period until 2050.

            Among the findings:

            Accelerated solar PV deployment coupled with deep electrification could deliver 21% of the CO₂ emission reductions (nearly 4.9 gigatonnes annually) by 2050.
            Solar PV could cover a quarter of global electricity needs by mid-century, becoming the second largest generation source after wind.

            Global capacity must reach 18 times current levels, or more than 8 000 gigawatts by 2050.

            Asia would continue to dominate solar PV use, with over 50% of installed capacity, followed by North America (20%) and Europe (10%).

            Solar PV project costs, already below marginal fossil-fuel costs in global terms, are set to decline further in the decades ahead.

            Mobilising finance will be key, with IRENA’s roadmap estimates implying a 68% increase in average annual solar PV investment until 2050.

            Solar PV is a fast-evolving industry, with innovations along the entire value chain driving further, rapid cost reductions. Floating PV is a prime example, with global cumulative installed capacity exceeding one gigawatt in 2018 and clear potential for rapid growth.

            Rooftop solar PV systems have spread rapidly thanks to supporting policies, such as net metering and fiscal incentives.

            Energy transformation brings socio-economic benefits. The global solar industry could employ over 18 million people by 2050.

            https://irena.org/publications/2019/Nov/Future-of-Solar-Photovoltaic

            1. The technology will not be derived, applied or managed properly, such as in the best interests of what those claim for it.

            2. You have to wonder how much the potential for efficiency and conservation is assumed in these studies. We currently waste so much energy it is relatively easy to make significant reductions before even considering replacement of generation.

               I’ve been advocating and practicing that approach for at least 40 years but the idea has never gotten much traction. As a concern, I find the idea of a new form of BAU relying on a replacement technology the most depressing of all.

               1. On behalf of all the regulars here,

                  WELCOME ABOARD JIM!

                  I’m with you. I try to mention energy efficiency as often as I mention growth in wind and solar power, and I make POINT of pointing out that we CAN save the bau economy, or at least prolong its death agonies, for many years, by adopting energy efficiency strategies.

                  Suburbia for example can continue to exist without mass transit and WITHOUT conventional automobiles if we build nice little micro cars that are the only new cars available. Such a car with only a fifty mile battery could be built and sold for a VERY reasonable price, and in dealership showrooms within a YEAR.

                  There’s nothing NEW about such a car. Building it would be a straight up design and manufacturing job. Build it out of fiberglass and aluminum and mandate that the battery and motor be built to a common set of specifications, so they can be easily repaired and replaced, and such cars would for all intents and purposes last just about forever.

                  ( You can get a dozen different brands of electric motor for just about any application because there’s a standardized specification for sizes, wires, voltage, amps, mounting hardware,RPM, rotation, cooling capacity, duty cycle, etc, and any one of the dozen or more makes can be directly substituted for any other in any particular application. )

                  The safety issue is easily dealt with by getting rid of the BUS sized cars with one person in them.

      2. Growth of something, like a cancer for instance, isn’t necessarily a good thing. Maybe runaway technology is such a cancer, on the planet.

         I have often wondered about if technology-overfocused and technology-worshipping humans have been ‘naturally-selected’ for and that, as a result, and paradoxically, the species in general have a difficult time thinking and seeing clearly where, for example, technology’s negative effects are concerned, or even what technology really is or means.

         At best, technology is a double-edged sword where many people seem unable or unwilling to see its other edge, blind as they are in a co-evolution with technology. I guess that’s why we have what some people have called, techno-optimists or techno-narcissists or whatever and those who believe, for example, in techno-fixing our way out of every problem that technology has caused, like climate-change, and why we have such ridiculous applications of it.

         Lastly, humans are not applying ‘green’ tech on an equal or level footing as fossil fuels. The planet was a lot healthier and less populated when fossil fuels got started until now. And if you have a half-dead planet, shot with the many bullets of a global fossil-fueled society, it doesn’t take as much or much more to kill it or at least injure it further with yet more technology, masquerading as some kind of savior.

         1. Caelan,

            So your solution is?

            The idea is to reduce fossil fuel use, both by using less energy by doing less and doing more work utilizing less energy and substituting more energy efficient and low carbon sources of energy for the existing energy system.

            How the social system operates could also be changed, but one might be careful about such changes as historically such change has led to more harm than good. So far a social system like those that exist in Northern Europe seem most practical, as human population peaks and declines we might see a better social structure evolve.

            1. Dennis–
               There does not have to be a solution– it is probably a predicament.
               We shall see. I know this is hard for some to grasp.

            2. Ethics.

               The ‘solution to all technological problems’, as you write, and if there is such a thing, may very well stem from our own heads, in how we relate to each other and the rest of the planet’s inhabitants. And I’m inclined to feel similar to Ron in this regard: We will likely not change and will cling to ‘everything else but’.

            3. See also here.

         2. Based on my casual observations in my neck of the woods, we basically have a binary choice. We can go all in on renewables or EVs in an effort to stave of the worst effects of FF burning or we will ride the FF pony straight into to the furnaces of hell.

            The streets of my home city are jam packed with ICE powered vehicles with a smattering of hybrids here and there. By my count there are thirteen Nissan EVs in the island and word has that three Tesla vehicles have been imported by individuals over the past month or so, making it sixteen EVs out of a possible hundred thousand newly imported vehicles over the last three years or so. I would estimate the total vehicle population at somewhere between three quarters of a million and a million vehicles so yeah, hardly a dent! I drove past the port of Kingston on Thursday last and saw a car carrier docked at the wharf, on doubt adding to the already packed car dealership lots. I’d wager that there were zero EVs on that ship.

            Nobody I know is concerned about the stuff that I’m concerned about, much less the stuff you are pushing. Good luck with getting anyone out in the wider world to give up their hopes of living the American Dream!

            1. Yup, sounds like a poster child for the ff industry. And,

               “Jamaica imports approximately 80,000 barrels of oil energy products per day, including asphalt and lubrication products. Just 20% of imported fuels are used for road transportation, the rest being used by the bauxite industry, electricity generation, and aviation. 30,000 barrels/day of crude imports are processed into various motor fuels and asphalt by the Petrojam Refinery in Kingston.” — Wiki

               Maybe you’re doing better than us at that. I’ve seen ONE EV among the vast numbers of pickup trucks and SUVs. But, the next EV might indicate an exponential increase. 😉

            2. Alan, what I am ‘pushing’ is what other inhabitants of this planet ‘are’. What works as opposed to what doesn’t/isn’t– what you or other Technohumans are pushing, rationalised by myopic, mono’ or quick-fix notions like ‘It will solve climate change.’.

               What you are pushing appears as just one or some of a myriad of examples of a fundamental flaw in the human psyche/condition; namely the capacity for our particular form of technologies that variously decouple from the immediately visceral and/or tactile.
               This decoupling creates ‘drag vortices’ (problematic feedback-loops over time and space) that progressively wear on and wear down our and nature’s systems.

               The Bolas spider, for counter-example but for inspiration, makes and uses its own biodegradable technology locally for its own needs. This is in stark contrasts with how humans currently do it. Imagine; yet another arthropod blows us away. It’s humbling.

               This is the sort of vantage-point I am commenting from when I suggest what the ‘Technohuman’, paradoxically, is missing from their understandings and perspectives on technology.

               Technology is basically an extension of ourselves, but that very fact and act of ‘extension’ decouples, in various ways and levels, our control of it, thereby often unpredictably creating drags and/or chaotic eddies on it, us and our surrounds.

               Technology can also be social, so the corporation or government are both social technologies that nevertheless have material/energy components along with the social. But that just makes them yet more complex and more decoupled from the human and their world.

               So, and by the way, with regard to one or two of Dennis’ recent previous comments to me, I would suggest that being realistic about any solutions or responses might involve in large part looking at the other creatures in the world and how they manage their lives, their technology, and in comparison with how we do it, for ideas and inspirations. That would seem about as realistic as one can get. Recall that I previously mentioned termites and their gardening.

               Basically, if you care to look and listen, the animals are already giving us the answers that we need but are not heeding, despite my and others’ best efforts. That’s why I suggest how lost the Technohuman appears.

               You want a ‘solution’ to ‘all’ problems (so to speak)? It’s right under your nose if you care to look and if you notice. But those are big ifs.

               1. Oh Please! Wake up! I drove three and a half hours across the island to a town near the western end on Tuesday night, with a couple of guys to do some work at establishment that had to be done while they were closed for business. We drove past the site of the recently commissioned, largest (37 MWac) solar farm on the island and I pointed out to the guys that it was out of sight, beyond the trees.

                  During the trip, I was asked if the EV I want to get could make the journey and explained that the 2014 model with the 24 kWh battery would need to be topped up along the way to make it to our destination and would need to get a full charge while the work was being done overnight, for the return leg. The more recent models with the 30 kWh battery would probably just make it one way on a single charge and the most recent with 40 kWh batteries could make the trip with charge to spare but, they would all still need to be charged overnight for the return leg. I explained that the local utility has announced plans to install DC fast chargers, spaced every 30 km or so along the major routes, in the first half of next year, which would make travel across the island by EV a trivial matter.

                  The takeaway is that EVs will be quite practical for islands of this size, with a relatively modest investment in charging infrastructure and with more renewable sources, carbon emissions could be reduced significantly. Our trip went through a valley, where we could see the turbines sites on the two hills bordering the valley. These two wind farms host the roughly 100 MW of wind turbines installed on the island. On our way back to Kingston, I also pointed out to the guys where the first, 20 MWac solar farm, in operation since August 2017, is located.

                  We stopped for breakfast on the way back at a location that has a gas station and a food outlet. I pointed out that it was an excellent location for a DC fast charger with a newly built strip mall adjoining the gas station. While motorists stop for a meal and/or a bathroom break their vehicles can be charging. That site happens to be the center of operations (processing plant) for a chain of “patty” outlets across the island and my “Google Satellite View” survey of PV installations shows that there is already a significant amount of PV at that location. With the amount of vacant rooftop space available, EV charging there could easily be powered by the sun during the daytime.

                  During the night time run and the morning return leg we passed lots and lots of semis (articulated trucks) and smaller trucks hauling construction materials among other goods. In the daytime we could see black smoke billowing from the twin stacks of many of larger trucks. I noticed a new looking unit with two real axles (ten wheeler) with KFC livery on the box. It was a Shacman (Chinese) truck, a brand that seems to be gaining significant traction.

                  Another thing we noticed is that along the highway bypassing the town of Mandeville in the center of the island, we counted seven lots, selling used Japanese domestic model cars, in the space of roughly a mile. Heaven knows how many such lots there must be in the town of Mandeville itself. There must be hundreds of these car lots across the island and I commented to my fellow travelers that, by now the only people on the island that don’t own a car must be those that cannot yet afford to buy one.

                  I’m not the “Technohuman” we need to be worrying about. There are 7.7 plus billion or so of them on the planet. On my recent cross island trip we saw scores of school children, in their uniforms, heading to school. One teenager we saw walking along the road was having a conversation on her smartphone. As a practical matter, how is she going to be convinced to see things in the terms of which you speak? What about all the owners and drivers of the trucks we saw? How about the operators of the multitudes of “car marts” and their prospective customers? What of the owners and/or occupants of the scores of palatial homes that are dotted across the island and the poor, who can only dream of ever living in such a nice, “big” house but, dream and desire nonetheless?

                  It’s a very long way from here to there! I’m trying to think about practical stuff that, might help to reduce CO2 emissions with the off chance that it might also encourage people to start thinking about the impact their actions have on life on the planet.

                  Below is a screenshot of a satellite view map of the route of my recent trip. Anyone who is interested can look up the renewable energy sites along the route:

                  Content Solar Farm
                  Wigton Wind Farm
                  BMR Wind Farm
                  Paradise Park Solar Farm

                  

               2. “I’m trying to think about practical stuff that, might help to reduce CO2 emissions with the off chance that it might also encourage people to start thinking about the impact their actions have on life on the planet.” ~ islandboy

                  How about learning/teaching about plants, such as what they need, how to save their seeds, grow and nurture them and use them for local food, medicine and textiles, etc.?

                  That will, at the very least, reduce C02 emissions and other forms of pollution while modulating local climates/conditions; reduce soil erosion, increase/enhance soil, decrease effects of drought, etc.; empower people and their communities; and increase biodiversity and natural beauty.

                  Humans need to live on this planet in harmony with it and their fellow creatures and learn about that, not continue to gamble on the viability of the entire planetary ecosystem with suicidal status-quo technology research experiments on it.

                  “As a practical matter, how is she going to be convinced to see things in the terms of which you speak?” ~ islandboy

                  Certainly not by selling her on yet more technology.

               3. Do you know how to make a shovel, hoe, plow, or rake using steel? How about a hammer , saw, and nails to build a structure to house those tools to keep them out of the rain? We invented tools to take the drudgery out of where you seem to be wanting to take us.

                  We do desperately need deference to what we are doing to our planet, to ourselves, and to others.

               4. Do you know how to plant a food forest?

               5. I know how to, for example, knit a sweater, build a natural building (cabin), make fermentations, and discern some of what’s edible that’s growing wild in my immediate surrounds. I could probably survive if the grocery stores went empty overnight. My knowledge might come in handy in helping others survive too and in trade.

                  With regard to plows and hoes, there’s the idea of no-till farming and how plowing soil can run some risk of harming the soil ecosystem.

                  There’s also the idea of local blacksmithing/recycling and some surplus metal lying around, such as from products that break too often, that could be adaptively re-used in various applications.

                  Lastly, there’re the ideas of real community– (you know, people helping each other and doing different things for themselves, rather than as prostitutes for corporate profit and government taxation?)– and imagination, both of which this society has made some considerable ‘progress’ in demolishing too.

      3. I tend to agree with your outlook. I’ve actually been pretty impressed with advancements in solar. I found out about peak oil close to 2003, and considering I thought peak oil was hitting around 2008 – 2012 with a probable societal collapse by 2015, I’m ecstatic. Every MegaWatt installed is another potential lifeboat for some community somewhere.

         I don’t think it will be enough to stave off calamity, and I wish the urgency were greater, but I’ve learned to accept what I’m given.

         1. There are no real advancements. Renewables are just a kludge.

   3. I too love these posts but I **DO NOT** find them depressing. I find them very very hopeful. For instance, the generation from wind and solar basically double in 5 years. In another 5 years, almost all the wind and solar electrical generation could be on par with total monthly generation at utility scale facilities (TMGUSF). I find that incredibly hopeful and awe inspiring that we could do that and be there. The ramifications for climate change and decrease use of FF is enormous.

      Just some observations.

      1) The TMGUSF curve from April to November looks exactly like my solar energy output from my roof array. The wind and solar does not, which makes me think that wind, dying down in the summer months, is drawing the overall curve downward and wind is therefore the larger of the two contributors.

      2) Honda (as well as others) are working on battery technology that have the potential of increasing energy densities of rechargeable batteries by a factor of 8 to 10. In other words, Tesla could replace its current packs with such batteries and if the volume is about the same, create cars that could travel from Key West to almost Seattle on one charge. That thought is profound and has implications for vast amounts of energy storage. Whether this will transpire in the next 10 years is another story.

      3) If in those 10 years, wind and solar doubles and then double again, the wind and solar curve could switch places on Island Boy’s graph with the TMGUSF curve. At some point along the way, would this not make the electrical utilities more distributor than generator of electrical power?

      4) Our current solar cells have an efficiency of around 15 to 18%. There is the potential, especially with 3 layered cells to boost the efficiencies up above 45%; an increase in by a factor of 3. With a second such set of panels with this high of an efficiency, I could become energy self sufficient in all of the months except for maybe January. Will this transpire? Don’t know. But all this is possible over the next 10 to 20 years AND it could happen before Exxon is predicting the peak of world liquid oil supplies.

      5) My biggest worry has shifted from energy to finance to job creation for all those displaced by these new technologies.

      Thank you Island Boy for all your time and good work!!

      

      1. Let’s get realistic about EV’s. If you use the grid for charging, a Prius has similar CO2 output per mile as a BEV in the US. Maybe in hydro heavy countries or areas it is lower for EV if one ignores the methane output from hydro reservoirs.

         If your objective is to use less oil, then fine. But you are using coal and natural gas (both climate changers ) when using the US grid. Also both natural gas and coal put out a lot of methane before reaching the power station. Once the methane output is added the BEV looks worse than a Prius.

         Anyone actually interested in reducing CO2 and methane emissions will just drive less and ride share. By driving less, going to a more efficient vehicle and ride sharing (even to the grocery store) I have cut my vehicle emissions to 10 percent of what they used to be.
         The person I ride share with just cut emissions by 28 percent through changing to a more efficient vehicle (used). Also dropped the insurance cost quite a bit too.
         Both of those moves reduce electric, natural gas and coal use too since petroleum production/refining uses all of those.
         Avoiding the building of a new car is another big plus for emissions and eco-destruction reduction.

         Now if you drive that EV mostly 35 mph or less then it beats everything except driving a lot less. So city drivers have an advantage there.

         1. Just to remark: When you calculate methan leaks to gas plants and BEV, you’ll have to do it for ICE cars, too. These millions of oil wells all produce methan as a byproduct – and this isn’t completely captured or torched (hello CO2) everywhere and everytime 100%.

            Or old wells, not sealed correctly. I don’t think the given up Venezuela wells are all sealed according to US standards…

            Electric vehicles are only a tool to go away from fossils – you need more to do, but they are an important link in the chain. Can’t drive a F150 when you plug it in, it won’t move 😉 .

            1. I am not promoting ICE cars or EV’s. I am just trying to have people look realistically at these systems and the energy transistion in general.

               If you have some numbers on the natural gas emissions from oil wells I will include them in my an analyses.
               Although that changes nothing, since reducing oil use reduces emissions and all the other fossil fuels too. I am recommending reduction in use now, not later.

               What happens when in ten years the GHG’s are still rising, faster than ever and we have a much larger amount of renewable energy?
               The transistion will lose support, no matter how much the “experts” try to explain it away.

3. This kind of electrical work needs to get done at a thousand locations-
   not just airports, hospitals, town centers, ports, rail hubs,
   https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/microgrids-take-off-among-airport-operators

4. Big Wind project on BLM land in Wyoming- enough energy to power about 1 million homes. Its about 1000 big turbines.
   https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/15/3-gigawatt-wind-power-project-in-wyoming-moves-closer-to-approval/

   1. very good article – good post Hickory. I know the overall advancement seems slow, but I still find it amazing that the US can pull off large projects like this.

5. How can anyone live through their day being in mortal fear of the carbon dioxide molecule, which allows life on earth to exist. It’s 0.04% of the gases in the air, then include water vapor, dust, pollen, smoke and God knows what else and you can place a few more zeros after the period. Every one of those 1000 turbines better have a fossil fuel backup because there will be many days when the wind will not be blowing. The quest for power by the socialists has no limits.

   1. Ervin,

      >> The quest for power by the socialists has no limits. <<

      We're not talking about Stalinist Russia. This is planet earth with extraordinary forest fires in California, Brazil, Siberia and Canada. And 50-year floods in Venice…

      Edit: add Australia to the fires list…

      1. Really??? Pretty cold summer here in Western Canada. No fires

      2. Venice floods highest since 1965 or something. When it was higher in 1965 what should that be blamed on?

   2. Ervin,

      For those with little knowledge a good starting point below:

      https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

      Start here

      https://history.aip.org/climate/summary.htm

      1. The knowledge I have is that the ONLY solution “they” have is the make me poorer and take away my freedoms because “they” know what’s best for me.

         1. The fossil fuel industry is dying because it’s too expensive to dig stuff up and set it on fire when you can get all the energy you need from the sun and wind.

            Socialists aren’t killing the coal industry — the market is.

            Nobody is taking your freedom to harvest you own electricity except the utility company.

            1. Alimbiquated, first the fossil fuel industry is not dying. Yes, some small shale companies are losing money, but the majors are still making money hand over fist. You would have a lot more credibility if you would just stop making up shit.

               you can get all the energy you need from the sun and wind.

               Yes, you just might be able to do that…. except when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. Renewable wind and solar will be between 5 and 10% of total energy production in 2040. That is what OPEC and just about everyone else estimates. And fossil fuels will then be supplying most of the world’s energy. Well, by their estimates anyway.

               Personally I think peak oil will throw a monkey wrench into those plans. But that monkey wrench will not increase the renewables percentage. That is, I am saying that renewables will not save the world after peak oil. And I am deeply sorry about that. I desperately wish that they would. But you guys, you “renewables will save the world” guys are just dreaming. They will not save our way of life. Nothing will.

               1. Here is a different take on it Ron- I’ll call it ‘wildly optimistic’.
                  According to Dennis Coyne chart of World liquids Nov 2019 URR=3200 Gb, out at 2040 there will be about 72Mbpd produced, or 82% of the peak that he projects around 2026.
                  Thats 20 years to cut around 20% of liquids consumption. Possible without collapse of the global economy, if you consider that we waste so much on non-critical consumption currently, and the possibility of replacing some of the trips with PHEV/EV’s.
                  Its about a 1%/yr cut in consumption.
                  I suspect Nat Gas will be holding up at similar productions levels as today, maybe even growing some as the price begins to climb.
                  Coal will be in clear decline by 2040.
                  Places that are heavily dependent on it better get cracking.
                  Iowa has made a big shift to wind energy. Indiana almost zero- they like coal. Thats their choice. It is not mandatory anymore.

                  To me the big factors that make the scenario ‘wildly optimistic’ are not geologic. Its human factors like poor decision making in energy policy, like poor discipline in coming up with priorities of petrol use, disruptions to smooth function of global trade-like war and tariffs and trade wars.
                  And perhaps the biggest problem-by 2030 only a few countries will much have oil for export. The uneven distribution of the petrol is going to be the great disrupter. Who beside Russia, and the Gulf region will have much to export? Importers of liquid better start making plans quick. Learn Russian, or the direction of Mecca?
                  Its not for me, that I know.
                  I’d sure as hell rather put some panels on my roof and plug in (I do already).

                  Also, I’ll bet you that by 2030 the writing will be on the wall so big that even Ervin can read it. ‘Peak oil is behind us’, and most new vehicle sales will be electric, and will not need petrol to run around, except for tires, lubrication of axles, and likely some some in the chain of manufacturing.

                  [i’ve exceeded my limits of words.., pardon.]

               2. Renewables won’t save the world. I have never claimed that. There are a lot bigger problems around than energy, which we mostly waste at an insane rate anyway.

                  Renewables will kill off a big part of the energy business however. Selling fuel is rapidly becoming less profitable thanks to zero marginal cost energy sources. In America, for example, the coal industry is dying for lack of profit, and it is being replaced by fracked gas and renewables, but the frackers are losing money too.

                  You can tell this is true because the only real objection anyone can think of is storage, which isn’t renewable at all. Different concept entirely. Fossil fuels may survive on a small scale to compete in a niche with storage, but they will be pushed out of the limelight, which renewables will dominate.

                  Although energy is obviously an important industry, in its current form it is a massively oversized parasite. It will shrink. Demand management, renewables and storage will probably take up the slack. The industry will shrink because profits will shrink. So it could be ok.

                  On the other hand, it could end up meaning poor people don’t get any electricity. The only reason they get it now in America is that the utilities have a sweet monopoly deal to provide it to them. A country that doesn’t provide health care, transportation, housing or public safety or even clean water to the poor can hardly be expected to provide electricity, unless someone is making a shitload of money off it.

                  So maybe renewables will be a disaster. I don’t claim they will save the world, no matter how often those words are put in my mouth on this forum. My claim is that is that renewables will crush the fossil fuel industry by squeezing out the profits.

                  It’s already happening. I don’t feel like I’m going very far out on a limb.

                  Addendum: I’ve been called a cornucopian here as well. To me a cornucopian is someone who assumes that renewables (or nukes or whatever) will replace the existing output of the energy industry. I doubt that will ever happen. The industry is already at peak stupid, why go further? Who will pay?

               3. Well, to be honest, all it really takes to be called the ‘C’ word in these here parts is to not be utterly devoid of all hope.

                  😉

               4. The biggest obstacles to transformation are naysayers and doomers

                  The word “can’t” is for losers and the only guarrenty in life is death.

               5. … The Power of Positive Thinking; very Oprah.
                  You should re-brand as the Deepak Chopra for Cornucopians.

               6. Isn’t she like the richest person in the world or something

               7. … and she’s completely full of shit most of the time. Although your obeisance to wealth as a metric for intellectual legitimacy is rather telling of your skewed take on the world.

                  Your shitposting is weak HB, as is your capacity for objective analysis.

                  http://peakoilbarrel.com/23480-2/#comment-689902

               8. Another point Ron — I’m thinking about the wider energy business, not just oil. I agree with you that the oil business will have plenty of demand as long as there are a billion ICE vehicles on the road.

         2. Ervin,

            What freedom has been taken from you?

   3. There’re many more technologically-derived ecological (etc.) problems and/or potential problems than just mere anthropogenic climate change, but that just seems to be how ‘Technohuman’ has evolved to think– in specializations and neat little boxes that have less and less to do with reality.

      1. Caelan,

         Yes there are many problems, climate change is but one. Your realistic solution to all problems is…?

         Fill in the blank. The question has been asked often.

         The response has always been left blank.

         1. Yes, you keep repeating that, and this time with some extra emphasis. Why is that? Is it because I’ve previously criticized elements of a lifestyle or approach that hits close to your home and offered responses (as opposed to ‘solutions’) that transcend some of it?

            Willful ignorance might go some way toward explaining your ostensible approach to some of my commentary and/or perhaps you have less time to read everyone’s responses to your questions, given how busy you might be hereon and elsewhere. If so, then perhaps we would do well not making/asking some comments/questions (that you, yourself, have not answered) in certain cases, including such as where their responses may be inconvenient.

            Many changes are inconvenient, Dennis, and certainly in this era especially. Moving out of an area, getting into (more) local farming, cutting trips by plane, or selling a car or offering it up to carpooling is inconvenient. At any rate, however you wish to ‘inconvenience’ yourself (as if) goes beyond thinking this guy, Caelan, has A solution to All problems. ‘u’

         2. Oh look, a few days later and no response from Dennis.

            Quelle surprise.

            Maybe if he didn’t insinuate unrealistic expectations in his questions, he’d not consider realistic responses to them, blank.

            1. Caelan as your response to a question was a question, that is a non-response.

               So have you done all the things you asked of me?

               1. I don’t recall responding to a question with a question only, Dennis, but even if I did, questions can, of course, contain answers.

                  As for your second sentence, which is vague/unspecific, if POB’s archives are relatively intact (and why wouldn’t they be?), then anyone suitably motivated (such as you, right?) should be able to dig up some info in that regard. (In some of it, they may find some comments that address yours.) Lastly, they can also do a search of my name, maybe coupled with the term, permaculture, and find associated info within and outside of POB.

                  BTW, Resilience.org is a pretty good site.

                  …So how about you, Dennis, and since you asked?

   4. Ervin- I ask you, in some of your own words (if you can try to pick them out)-
      “How can anyone live through their day being in mortal fear of the power of the socialists?”
      It must be hell to think that ““they” have is the make me poorer and take away my freedoms because “they” know what’s best for me”.
      So confused, it must be hard to get through each day.
      Keep trying.
      btw- how does it feel to know that your leader paid no taxes over the last ten years? You proud of how well he dodged the draft, and taxes?

   5. Now that it cost less to install new renewable sources of electricity than to operate existing FF power plants in some cases, I’m afraid it won’t be the socialists that will be driving the adoption of renewables. Quite the opposite, it will be the capitalists, looking to make/save an extra buck!

      1. That’s true.

         However once the demand for renewables go up so do the materials prices required to make them. And as demand for coal or nat gas decrease so will their price and hence appear more attractive to capitalists.
         Not as straightforward as one thinks.

         1. Iron Mike,

            Yes economics is far from straightforward. As demand for renewables increases it is far more likely that the cost decreases due to economies of scale and technological progress/innovation. The same effect likely occurs for the inputs to renewable manufacture. As to demand falling for fossil fuel and decreases in price causing an increase in demand, this only has much of an effect if the price falls to less than competing sources of energy, otherwise the price simply falls to a level where supply meets demand, this price level is likely to continually fall until the price of competing energy sources stops falling.

            The precise path of prices depends on too many factors to be predictable.

            Some uses of crude plus condensate such as for air transport and water transport may take quite a while to replace (or might never be replaced) so there will be demand from those sectors for many years (probably to at least 2070 and perhaps beyond, crystal ball gets quite cloudy that far out 🙂 )

         2. Yeah, we might run out of silicon. Oh wait silicon is the second most common element in the Earth’s crust, about 28%.

            The crust weighs about 23,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg

            So I guess that’s about 6,630,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg

            Hmm. One watt of solar needs about 0.4 grams. So a kg is enough for 25,000 W. So there is enough silicon around for maybe

            165,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 W

            Notice that the silicon doesn’t get used up in the process. We don’t have to calculation energy, just the output.

            Too lazy to do the math, but this is maybe a dozen orders of magnitude bigger than we need.

            The whole “renewable raw materials will run out” meme is a poorly thought through relic of the fossil fuel era. That’s not how it works.

            1. Maybe they think that the copper and iron will run out.

               But wait the copper and iron can be replaced by aluminum. Aluminum is at 8.3 % and iron at 5.6 % right after the silicon at 28%. See the above for the ridiculously large amounts involved.

               Aluminum is a better conductor than copper on a weight basis and cheaper.

               Aluminum for the supporting framework is roughly the same strength as iron on a volume basis but iron is cheaper and isn’t going to run out anytime soon either. However, aluminum is made mainly with electricity for the heat source instead of coal. And for both there are full electrolysis processes from the chlorides that use no coal at all when such a need arises.

               1. Aluminum for the supporting framework is roughly the same strength as iron on a volume basis

                  That cannot possibly be right. Give me an aluminum rod one-half inch in diameter and I can easily bend it. Not so for an iron rod the same diameter. Perhaps you meant “on a weight basis”?

                  High voltage lines usually have a core of steel, an iron alloy, and wrapped by aluminum wire. The steel core is for strength, the aluminum outer wire rapping is for conductivity.

               2. You are correct. I meant on a weight basis. Thank you for catching it.

            2. alimbiquated,

               Yes, silicon is 28% of Earth’s crust. It’s bound to oxygen in the silicate minerals that make up the great bulk of the rocks that are the crust, and the mantle too.

               Pick up a piece of granite or basalt or schist or gneiss and think of that silicon in there. Think of the energy required to get that silicon out.

               Home experiment: Try to melt a piece of basalt. Granite might be easier; it may be worth trying both.

               1. Yeah, so solar panels have to produce more energy than their manufacture consumes. It’s the old EROI argument.

                  The energy comes from the sun and will keep coming for eons. Silicon won’t run out either. The only hope is arguing that solar panels produce less than they consume, but that doesn’t come close.

               2. “Yeah, so solar panels have to produce more energy than their manufacture consumes. ”

                  Lets put this rest. It is not complicated-
                  I purchased a solar PV system 2 years, so have a good handle on their actual annual output now.

                  All of the costs involved in their manufacture, including the energy costs, the materials, the factory, the labor- was covered by the price I paid for them.

                  The system costs I paid also covered the inverter, the electricians and laborers, the connection to my circuit and the grid, permits, and profit for the installer and PV manufacturer.

                  Now with 2 yrs of data, I can report that the payback period for all of these components and costs is 8 years and change. By that I mean that the electricity production offsets electricity charges I would otherwise accrue to the degree that all of my system costs would be covered in about seven years. And beyond that, the next 20 years of electricity is close to free. I will likely need 1 or 2 new inverters over that time-frame.
                  Based on real-world data, the electricity output from these panels at 27 years out will be well over 80% of origin capacity.

                  bonus- In the first year I avoided purchase of 240 gallons of gas (I have a plug-in hybrid van), and accumulated a $540 credit with the utility for excess production. If you add these benefits to the equation- the payback period looks considerably better.

               3. Does 8 years include the cost of money

               4. No, it does not include the cost of money. I paid cash, but the analysis would be more accurate with that cost included.
                  Also, to be complete. there is a federal tax credit which shaves about 3 years off the payback period, in my case.

               5. The EV-PV combination is the most effective use and really hammers the FF industry from all directions.

               6. We don’t have an electrically-run civilization context, though, so the present is the context.
                  Try thinking swapping now for an imaginary then and see what deleterious effects/unforeseen consequences we might get. Do the math; run the sims.

               7. OFM brought this up further down but didn’t provide an excerpt so here goes:

                  Bill Gates’ secret energy company unveils solar breakthrough for industrial heat

                  Heliogen, an energy company which has been working in “stealth mode” with financial backing from Bill Gates and other high-profile environmental investors, has unveiled what it says is a breakthrough solar technology to provide industrial heat for the production of cement, steel and petrochemicals.

                  The company emerged from stealth mode this week after building and testing its new technology which it claims uses artificial intelligence and a large array of mirrors to reflect sunlight to a single target and generate temperatures greater than 1,000°C.

                  The basic concept of ‘concentrated solar power’ is not new, of course, but traditional CSP only generates temperatures up to 565°C.

                  Heliogen’s new patented “HelioMax” technology, on the other hand, generates temperatures in excess of 1,000°C – the levels needed the for these industrial processes.

                  Traditional industrial processes for producing cement, steel, and petrochemicals required fossil fuel energy generation to produce the higher temperatures necessary and are carbon intensive. For example, cement production currently accounts for over 7% of global CO2 emissions – a sizeable chunk of the planet’s untenable emissions.

                  However, by generating such levels of temperature generation, Heliogen’s HelioMax technology could replace fossil fuel generation in industrial processes, helping to dramatically reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions.

                  There is a local cement factory here. You have to pass it on route to the airport from the capital city and anywhere west of the city. One of the major components of the cost of cement is fuel to produce the heat for the process. Years ago they switched from oil to coal as a cost cutting measure and now they are looking at burning used tyres both as a way of dealing with the huge volume of used tyres that conitues to pile up at the local landfill and as a further cos cutting measure. Maybe Heliogen’s technology could eventually reduce costs even further.

   6. “How can anyone live through their day being in mortal fear of the carbon dioxide molecule”
      Ervin, Ervin, Ervin.
      Poor Ervin.

      I have no fear of individual molecules.
      I even dodge individual plutoniums. Have done it twice so far that I am aware of.
      I fear gravity.

      I fear not socialists, for I am not a billionaire.
      Nor do I worry for those with second houses.

      “God knows what else”
      god serves cotton candy in fairyland, she don’t know crap.

      [sorry, but you stimulate the horrible poetry from within me]

      1. Here is a great example of socialism making people poorer. Harvest thousands of acres of trees in Ga. and SC and then grind them up it on to small pieces and using high pressure, crush the wood into pellets. Put the pellets onto trucks and train cars and send the pellets to the coast to be loaded unto ships to be sent across the ocean to the UK to be placed back onto trucks or trains and then off to the Dax power plant to produce expensive electricity. This whole ridiculous process exists because of the carbon dioxide molecule. Tell me what is the cost to the people of the UK to keep 3 to 4 megawatts of coal plants operational and staffed to be used 20% to 30% a year because there is 22,000 megawatts of wind installed but the are plenty of days only 1 to 5 megawatts are coming from wind. ps. Nothing ruins wood pellets faster than getting them wet, so the aforementioned process HAS to keep the pellets completely day.

         1. Ervin, This is the problem with coal in the UK

            

            There isn’t anything left, and the wood pellets are the result. This has nothing to do with socialism, as socialism is everywhere.

            1. I can go to Home Depot and get a ton of pellets today for $230 and according to the EIA a ton of Mid Atlantic bituminous coal costs $66 a ton and the energy density of coal is 40% greater. Point being, there is a much cheaper alternative to pellets for the Dax plant also from the US, so the demise of the UK coal industry is irrelevant. The Brits are paying 2.4X more for a btu because of the molecules that make life possible on earth.

               1. Don’t blame the socialists Ervin, its the scientists!

                  “Well, perhaps all the scientists are socialist?”

                  That would be one way to justify your worldview.
                  A secret union of socialists, scientists and musicians.
                  Yeh, that covers most of it.
                  Sign me up. Sounds like good people.

               2. Socialism is only pleasant if you are a member of the freeloading loser underclass. If that happens to describe you, I would kindly request that you remove yourself to Europe or Venezuela where socialism is practiced with pride.

               3. Jack Frietag,

                  Have you heard of Medicare? You aren’t going to use it right, because you are no socialist. 🙂

               4. … a great example of shitposting.

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shitposting

               5. Says the expert

               6. what are you, 12?

               7. As if carbon dioxide was the only issue.

                  Tens of thousands of Americans die every year from old-fashioned air pollution, generated by electric power plants that burn fossil fuels. Estimates vary, but between 7,500 and 52,000 people in the United States meet early deaths because of small particles resulting from power plant emissions.

                  https://phys.org/news/2017-06-shift-coal-air-pollution-thousands.html

                  Air and water pollution kills people. Socializing the costs of fossil fuels, while privatizing the benefits, is a market failure. Why are we allowed to pollute for free?

                  That’s not a rhetorical question Ervin. Why are we allowed to pollute for free?

                  

               8. Call somebody up and see how much that ton of coal will cost you delivered and bagged, lol.

                  And then think about how easy it is to pour those nice clean wood pellets into your pellet stove,and how nasty that coal is, and how hard it is to get it into and out of your stove.

                  I have friends that are using wood pellets and they are spending considerably less than when they used oil for heat, and saving enough time harvesting and handling firewood to make the pellets their best option.

                  I continue to harvest, haul and handle my own firewood, but when I can’t any longer, I’m going to skip the pellets and go directly to a heat pump.
                  For now I use a small amount of oil as backup.

            2. Yeah those gosh darn Tories are a bunch of commies. Look at that secrete commie salute.

               

         2. Ervin, I hate to admit it but I must agree with you on something.
            That biofuel wood pellet deal is a poor response to the problems of fuel shortage and global warming, not to mention the overall global degradation of verdant lands.
            Corn ethanol taking up 40% of the prime corn acreage of the USA is another example of that.

            But just because people come up with questionable schemes, for policy or profit, doesn’t mean the problems aren’t real.
            Frankly, your ideas on carbon science sound like 2nd grade level. I know you are smarter than that. Better sources of information would do you well.

            1. How good pellets are depends on how they are sourced. The lumber industry is hugely inefficient. Sawmills produce vast amounts of sawdust that is often burned or simply dumped.

               Producing pellets from roundwood is a bad idea and should be banned, but most pellets are produced from sawdust waste.

               https://academic.oup.com/jof/article-abstract/117/5/427/5555981

               The idea that all pellets are a bad thing is the same as claiming that we live in the best of all possible worlds lumber industry is flawless, like the Princes of Serendip. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

               In fact burning or dumping sawdust should be banned, just as gas flaring should be banned. That would force the industry to use wood resources more efficiently.

         3. Ervin,

            The citizens of the UK elect representatives to pass legislation that benefits them.

            Are you from the UK? If not you have no say in their energy policy. I tend to agree that burning biofuels seems a bad policy, offshore wind backed up by natural gas and/or “wind gas” (excess power used to produce backup fuel during high wind periods) would seem like a good policy, but that’s up to citizens of the UK.

   7. Synopsis

      Collective response = socialism.
      Therefore; next stop, Stalinism.

      Dudes a total wanker

6. Narrative Shift

   “The warning sign that caught Greer’s attention was a spate of articles about ‘ecofascism’…

   Then in November there was something of a moral panic about our inability to cope with all of the solar panels and wind turbines that we will somehow have to recycle. Christina Stella at NPR for example, points out that:

   ‘While most of a turbine can be recycled or find a second life on another wind farm, researchers estimate the U.S. will have more than 720,000 tons of blade material to dispose of over the next 20 years, a figure that doesn’t include newer, taller higher-capacity versions.

   There aren’t many options to recycle or trash turbine blades, and what options do exist are expensive, partly because the U.S. wind industry is so young. It’s a waste problem that runs counter to what the industry is held up to be: a perfect solution for environmentalists looking to combat climate change, an attractive investment for companies such as Budweiser and Hormel Foods, and a job creator across the Midwest and Great Plains.’

   Taken collectively, these initial critiques of wind and solar; defenses of oil; and promotions of futuristic atomic power may turn out to be the beginning of the shift that John Michael Greer anticipated in august. Instead of the difficult and austere future promised by the proponents of supposedly ‘green’ energy, we can look forward to a narrative shift toward a mythical high-tech future powered by fusion plasma driving technologies as unimaginable to us as our oil-based technologies would be to a medieval peasant.

   And climate change?

   I wouldn’t be surprised if a new round of stories about the latest developments in hi-tech geoengineering appear in the mainstream media in the near future.”

   Sign Of The Gypsy Queen

   Shadows movin’ without a sound
   From the hold of the sleepless town
   Evil seems to be everywhere
   Heed the spirit that brought despair
   Trouble’s comin’ without control
   No-one’s stayin’ that’s got a hope
   Hurricane at the very least
   In the words of the gypsy queen…

   Hayajan – Kbirna | هيجان – كبرنا

   “We grew up and it’s gone…”

   1. 720,000 tons of blades??? That’s the equivalent weight of 360,000 – 2 ton vehicles. Doesn’t seem like much when compared to monthly vehicle production here in just the USA.

      Is the cost of electricity from wind taking into consideration the cost of blade replacement?

      How would we go about recycling these blades?

      and how much would that cost?

      What would that cost be in terms of kwhrs over the lifetime of the blades?

      1. Mule Versus Car

         What’s left after ‘blade material’? Nothing? And how degraded is the planet already?

         ‘Technohuman’, terribly lost as they appear, may be more prone to overfocus on/isolate things like ‘blade material’ or ‘something creating less pollution than something else’ on an already-degraded planet; numbers like ‘kwhrs’; or append non-living things like EV’s to their name.

         Psychic Squirt

         “Would you like to swing on a star?
         Be a mobile phone or a car?
         Or would you rather be a mule?”

         1. Caelan, I admire your persistence but people are so deeply wrapped in their comfortable delusions that they actually think that “renewables” and EV’s are making a positive change in the world. Very few step over the mental edge and look at the deep reality of the world, at least in the western and capital world.
            Anything can be justified as long as one excludes certain portions the totality of the actions.
            There are many things we can do right now that will make a difference, yet they are not money making techno solutions so are in the background, drowned by the noise.

            You might enjoy this guy: Crime Pays but Botany Doesn’t
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Amq-2Kt_nY
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMqD_l1yG1A

            1. Thanks for posting these educational/entertaining videos. I watched the second one (Australia). I see a lot of these plants around. Good to know more about them.

            2. Hey, Gonefishing, thanks. I’ll try to download and check them out soon.

         2. I was thinking that people like to eat and having the means to transport food would be a plus in the age of declining FF.

            Your point was understood but nobody likes starvation.

            1. I don’t know of any other animal that needs a car to eat, do you?

               1. They use their feet, paws, and wings. For us, we have set our food supplies all over the place and mostly in places none of us lives. We live with that consequent and have to adapt to the circumstances or go without. No one really likes to go without.

               2. So deal with technological problems with yet more technology, right?

               3. The other options are walking, horse and wagons, bicycles, trains, boats, and moving to where the food is grown. Walking requires shoes, water, food, time, possible shelters and rest rooms, the use of horse and wagons creates a lot of manure, trains have to follow the rails as boats follow the rivers and lakes. Moving to where the food is grown requires abandonment of what we already have, recycling, and refinancing of all that housing, stores, and transportation infrastructures. There are no clear cut and easy answers. Practically, I see us adapting and utilizing what we can develop, and evolving as time and resources change.

               4. “Walking requires shoes, water, food, time, possible shelters and rest rooms, the use of horse and wagons creates a lot of manure, trains have to follow the rails as boats follow the rivers and lakes.” ~ PeterEV

                  What do EV’s require and create and how do they compare and contrast with what you just wrote?

      2. From an EPA website
         How much coal ash is there?

         Coal ash is one of the largest types of industrial waste generated in the United States. According to the American Coal Ash Association’s Coal Combustion Product Production & Use Survey Report, nearly 130 million tons of coal ash was generated in 2014.

         That’s more than a hundred times as much coal ash produced in one year as the wind power industry will supposedly produce in DECADES.

         1. The other thing about coal ash are the heavy metals, radioactive elements, and other nasties that the coal industry has tried to separate unsuccessfully from the ash.

            There have been a number of projects that have tried to use the existing coal ash such as making cinder blocks out of it. None of those projects have led to anything viable.

7. Tonight (why on a Sunday night?) Ford officially revealed their line of Mustang EV’s, to be sold as early as this coming year.
   here is a writeup on it-

   “The Mustang Mach-E is clearly Ford’s first legitimate attempt to design, manufacture, and most importantly, promote and sell an electric car. That Ford has put the Mustang’s brand reputation on the line to ensure it succeeds at that last part should make it all the more obvious how much the company believes in its new EV.”

   https://www.theverge.com/transportation/2019/11/17/20967565/ford-mustang-mach-e-electric-suv-specs-price-la-auto-show-2019

   I think its going to kick Teslas butt.

   1. I think its going to kick Teslas butt.
      Not so sure—
      After all, it is Ford, and it is a Mustang.
      Disclaimer: I have owned Ford’s.

   2. Good to see other companies joining the fray, more choices is good.

   3. I don’t doubt for a minute that a lot of people will buy the Mach E simply BECAUSE it’s a Ford with a Mustang badge on it.

      But Tesla doesn’t actually build hot rod cars because Musk WANTS to market hot rods.

      It has been necessary, until NOW, and it may be necessary for some time to come, for any premium priced electric car to go faster quicker than a conventional car in order to overcome the anti electric bias in the minds of the public.

      The Mustang has ALWAYS been marketed as a sporty or sports car ( Purists laugh at people who think Mustangs are sports cars.) but Tesla vehicles are marketed as techno marvels that are quiet, clean, roomy, comfortable and cheap to run if not to buy, which INCIDENTALLY can kick Mustang ass except for the hand ful of the very priciest ones sold in extremely limited numbers.

      The MACH E may actually HELP the sale of the Tesla THREE and soon to arrive Y, by increasing the public visibility of the electric car.

      Joe and Suzy Six Pack have money enough for a forty to fifty thousand dollar car as often as not, but they’re sort of skeptical and scared of new tech that costs a LOT, so they have been holding off on even thinking about an electric car……. but once they see FORD electric cars on the road, they will be more inclined to think about an electric car of their own.

      Joe and Suzy TRUST Ford and GM, lol.

      So far as I know, there’s not a single THREE in the town nearest me, no X, and only one or two S cars.

      But I’m willing to bet a hundred to one that there will be an electric Mustang to be seen on the streets of Mayberry within a year of the time you can actually get one without waiting for it…… assuming they sell faster than they can be built at first.

   4. What Tesla has going for it are a relatively quick charge and the Supercharger network that allows a Tesla driver to go from coast to coast and from Acapulco, Mexico to Anchorage Alaska. There are very few spot in the USA where someone can’t go someplace and return to a Supercharger.

      In those other cases, there are Level 2 chargers and RV camps with Level 2 capabilities, 220 at 30 and/or 50 amps that provide 25 to 40 miles of range per hour. A 12 hour stay provides 300 to 480 miles of range.

      Ford only has their dealerships and there are 3rd party but spotty Level 3 chargers scattered around the country.

      We will have to see how Ford (and all the other car makers) are going to address this issue. Right now, Tesla is the only game in town with practical cross country vehicles and system.

8. Last GW of 2.25 GW coal-fired Navajo Generating Station expected to shut down any day now

   Dive Insight:

   Mounting closures have led some communities, including the Navajo Nation, to fight hard for alternate avenues to keep ailing plants open. But faltering economics mean most investors are not willing to put capital toward coal.

   Natural gas and renewables prices began to undercut the coal plant, and SRP now plans to replace the majority of its generation from NGS with natural gas from its Mesquite and Gila River units in Arizona, along with “some new solar.” The Department of Interior, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Arizona Public Service, NV Energy and Tucson Electric Power all own a portion of the plant as well.

   Over 90% of the 500 NGS employees are part of the Navajo Nation and the tribe first began seeking respite for the plant in April 2017, two months after its announced closure, applying for federal subsidies that would have matched the unit’s electricity prices with the prices of the natural gas units undercutting it.

   This shutdown should start to show up in the next couple issues of the EPM, with this final bit showing up in the January edition (with data for November). On related news:

   Salt River Project to install Arizona’s largest battery system, helping to replace giant coal plant

   Dive Insight:

   As operations wind down at the giant coal-fired Navajo Generating Station, SRP officials say the new resources will help replace the lost energy while meeting renewable energy targets. The utility is working to reduce its carbon emissions per megawatt-hour by more than 60% by 2035 and by 90% in 2050.

   SRP is the majority owner of the 2.25 GW Navajo plant, which is expected to shut down this week. A two-year search for a buyer was ultimately unsuccessful. The new integrated solar and storage resources will allow the utility to continue meeting its summer peak demand while also reducing carbon emissions, SRP General Manager and Chief Executive Officer Mike Hummel said in a statement.

9. islandboy, I know you prefer to avoid reality but… 😉

   WHY AUSTRALIA’S VEHICLE EMISSIONS ARE RISING

   “A study conducted by progressive thinktank the Australia Institute found vehicle emissions has risen 10% over the past decade as Australians have increasingly opted to purchase larger diesel vehicles. Report author Hugh Saddler, an energy expert and honorary associate professor with the Australian National University’s Crawford School of Public Policy, found annual carbon dioxide emissions from burning diesel increased by 21.7m tonnes between 2011 and 2018. Diesel vehicles – mostly utes – have doubled their share of the light commercial vehicle market, and from a lower base tripled their share of household passenger car sales.”

   https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/16/wrong-turn-why-australias-vehicle-emissions-are-rising

   1. And,

      FOSSIL FUEL EXPORTS MAKE AUSTRALIA ONE OF THE WORST CONTRIBUTORS TO CLIMATE CRISIS

      “Australia is responsible for 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and could be contributing as much as 17% by 2030 if the pollution from its fossil fuel exports is factored in…. Australia is now the number one exporter of both coal and gas and is scheduled to push that off the charts in the next 10 years. We are looking to become an emissions super-power.”

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

   2. I wouldn’t say I’m avoiding reality. Just because I don’t post the same type of stuff you do doesn’t mean I am not aware of it. The whole point of this series of articles (EPM) from my perspective is to keep our eyes on the needle, so hopefully we can see the needle move. It’s like watching grass grow or looking at the fuel gauge in a vehicle every five seconds. Nothing much changes from month to month but, look at the percentage contributions at the beginning of the top graph above compared to the most recent month.

      At the time of the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, I made some fairly bad investment decisions on the basis of thinking that all the doom and gloom I had been reading about on Peak Oil sites was starting to become reality. For example, I could have bought stock in Tesla but, if the collapse was starting, I didn’t think they would make it. I hoped they would but, in an environment where everything was going to hell the prospects would not have been good. As it turns out, ten years or so on, Tesla has just announced they will be building their fourth “Gigafactory” in Germany just outside Berlin, with production underway at the almost complete factory in China. Had I bought Tesla stock, I would have made a bundle! Who woulda thunk it!

      I am not about to go thinking TS has HTF or us about to any time soon this time. A lot has changed in ten years and if the powers that be can hold this house of cards up just a little longer, maybe we will begin to see the changes that will be necessary to prevent the worst forecasts from coming true. For example, at some point in the next five years I expect to start seeing stories about renewables and/or EVs driving down emissions in more places like they have only very recently in the UK and the EU. We will have to wait and see what the next decade brings. The next decade starts in 43 days on Jan 1, 2020.

10. Not good!

    BRAZIL’S AMAZON DEFORESTATION HIGHEST SINCE 2008

    “Deforestation of Brazil’s Amazon rain forest increased by 29.5% in 12 months, the highest rate since 2008, the country’s space agency reports. The rain forest lost 9,762 sq km (3,769 sq miles) of its vegetation between August 2018 and July 2019.”

    BTW In 2018, about 17% of the Amazon rain forest was already destroyed. Research suggests that upon reaching about 20–25% (hence 3–8% more), the tipping point to flip it into a non-forest ecosystems – degraded savannah – (in eastern, southern and central Amazonia) will be reached. — Wiki

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-50459602

11. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html

    This can and imo WILL be a real game changer, but I don’t think it will be commercialized for quite some time, probably at least four or five years.

    In the past, the biggest problem has apparently been to keep the mirrors properly aimed.

    AI is free, as a practical matter, once the tech is ready and the programs are written. The first machine might cost a hundred million, but the millionth one might cost only a hundred, lol. And a copy of any program can be created and passed along on the net for less money than is worth actually counting, lol again. The wrapper costs more than the disk or thumb drive these days, lol a THIRD time.

    1. Very impressive. Might be used for Hydrogen production in addition to high heat industrial application.

    2. Old news.

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

       1. Not so Joe. Read up.
          They have done an upgrade on the older system, by better focusing all the mirrors.
          If you have ever tried to start a fire with a magnifying glass- you know how important exact focusing is.
          Results will speak for themselves.

          1. The article alludes to industrial processes, materials and products that still have effects on the planet, and now in the context of many more humans.
             It’s what we do with any energy, however clean we think or claim it is, that also matters.
             Results are already speaking for themselves and we also have a dubious history to underscore that and to suggest what is likely in the future.

12. If anybody can turn up some info on how big a problem it is to run a desalinization plant intermittently, using solar and wind power, I will be greatly in their debt.

    The capital cost part of the problem is easily understood.
    The part that’s hard is to find out how big a deal it is to start and stop the plant, without causing problems with the equipment.

    Suppose the capital costs are a hypothetical one hundred percent. If you can produce fifty percent of the time, using cheap or off peak wind and solar power, you can have desalinated water for twice the current per cubic meter cost, and storing water is trivially easy, that’s what water towers and reservoirs are FOR.

    I’m not having any luck finding answers, but otoh, I’m a computer klutz, and probably looking everywhere except the right places.

    People who are anti renewable are insisting you can’t run desalinization plants intermittently, that they are designed to run continuously, which is probably true…….. but there might not be any REAL reason for this, other than to save a few bucks in the design and construction phases.

    MOST manufacturing and commercial infrastructure is used intermittently. Trucks sit, hotel rooms are vacant, schools are locked up at night, etc. My own equipment sits more than it runs by a country mile, etc.

    I need this info for a book I’m working on.

    1. According to this, the reverse osmosis membranes clog up when you shut the plant down, and have to be cleaned.

       https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011916417311104

       I think in general that a lot of designs may have to change to deal with intermittency.

       I think the solution to water shortages is probably erosion prevention. It is probably also the solution to global warming.

       1. Reverse osmosis?
          Fought and won against putting one in Marin– the placement was a environmental nightmare– and stupidly where a fairly rightwing group fished and owned property.
          So you had both sides against it.
          The victory party was interesting.
          Marin has its own water supply.

          1. Anyway, the solution is erosion prevention. If California had sensible land use, there would be plenty of water.

             Instead you get this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLCqKK0XwNQ

             That was this year’s water supply flowing by. Guess it will be another drought year.

             Marin County could do better than this:
             https://abc7news.com/weather/video-strong-storm-slams-bay-area/5157909/

             That’s a lot of water.

             Notice this isn’t just a waste of water, but that vast quantities of carbon that was sequestered in the top soil was torn loose and carried to the ocean, where it will soon be released into the atmosphere.

             Flash flooding is endemic across wide areas of the arid American west — a testament to the lack of thought put into sustainability. In other regions of the world, like the Arabian peninsula, the land has been ruined so long nobody even dreams of restoring it.

             The a a few baby steps being taken.

             https://oklahoman.com/article/3278092/carbon-is-cash-crop-for-oklahoma-farmers

    2. The Claude “Bud” Lewis Carlsbad Desalination Plant is a desalination plant that opened on December 14, 2015 in Carlsbad, California

       How it works

       Up to 100,000,000 US gallons (380,000 m3) per day of cooling water from the Encina Power Plant is taken into the desalination plant.[30] The water intake is filtered through gravel, sand, and other media to greatly reduce particulates before going through reverse osmosis filtration.[16] Half of the saltwater taken into the plant is converted into pure potable water and the rest is discharged as concentrated brine.

       The outflow of the plant is put into the discharge from the Encina Power Plant for dilution, for a final salt concentration about 20% higher than seawater. Most desalination plants discharge water with about 50% extra salt, which can lead to dead spots in the ocean, because the super-saline brine doesn’t mix well with seawater.[16] The NRG Encina Power Station is expected to go offline in 2017, and Poseidon Water will then take over dredging responsibility for the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, taking over from NRG;[32] without dredging at the mouth of the lagoon, it would revert to being a pre-1952 mudflat.

       The plant is expected to produce 50 million US gallons (190,000 m3) of water per day[36] (0.069 cubic kilometres per annum) with energy use of ~3.6[37] kWh for 1 m3 fresh water, or ~38 MW of average continuous power.[6][38] Another estimate has the plant requiring 40 MW to operate, and a cost of $49 million to $59 million a year.

       To offset environmental impacts, 66 acres (27 ha) of wetlands were built in San Diego Bay.[6] Solar panels will be installed on the roof of the plant, and carbon emission offsets will be purchased.[34]

       San Diego Coastkeeper is suing the SDCWA over environmental concerns. On July 29, 2015 it argued in a hearing before Superior Court Judge Gregory Pollack that the Authority’s long-term water plan (and specifically the Carlsbad desalination plant) violates the California Environmental Quality Act, specifically with respect to energy needs and the greenhouse gases associated with those. Coastkeeper is not opposed to desalination, but wants proper mitigation. The Authority says that these have been accounted for, and a mitigation plan has been put into place.[35]

       The plant is expected to produce 50 million US gallons (190,000 m3) of water per day[36] (0.069 cubic kilometres per annum) with energy use of ~3.6[37] kWh for 1 m3 fresh water, or ~38 MW of average continuous power.

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_%22Bud%22_Lewis_Carlsbad_Desalination_Plant

       https://www.carlsbaddesal.com/process-faqs.html

       Report on Poseidon desalination plant in Carlsbad, California shows poor performance and high costs

       The San Diego County Water Authority’s 2019 fiscal year report on the Carlsbad ocean desalination plant shows poor performance at the facility. According to the report, Poseidon paid a penalty of almost $2 million for non-delivery of water, reaffirming concerns around affordability and reliability raised by community advocates in Orange County over the company’s proposal to build a similar desalination plant in Huntington Beach.

       The report showed that water from the Carlsbad facility was far more costly than average, at a cost of $2,685 per acre foot, and is expected to increase 5 percent next year.http://www.oc-breeze.com/2019/09/26/145326_report-on-poseidon-desalination-plant-in-carlsbad-california-shows-poor-performance-and-high-costs/

       1. Report on Poseidon desalination plant in Carlsbad, California shows poor performance and high costs
          This is the norm for these ecological nightmares.
          Desal does have its place— in deep water sailing.

13. OFM, you probably know this, I certainly didn’t.

    “Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a powerful contributor to global warming. It is 265 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide and depletes our ozone layer…Human-driven N2O emissions have been growing unabated for many decades, but we may have been seriously underestimating by just how much. In a paper published today in Nature Climate Change, we found global emissions are higher and growing faster than are being reported…N2O emissions have increased over the past two decades and the fastest growth has been since 2009. China and Brazil are two countries that stand out. This is associated with a spectacular increase in the use of nitrogen fertilizers and the expansion of nitrogen-fixing crops such as soybean. REDUCING N2O EMISSIONS FROM AGRICULTURE WILL BE VERY CHALLENGING, GIVEN THE EXPECTED GLOBAL GROWTH IN POPULATION, FOOD DEMAND AND BIOMASS-BASED PRODUCTS INCLUDING ENERGY.” Caps are mine.

    https://phys.org/news/2019-11-nitrogen-fertilizers-incredibly-efficient-climate.html

14. In was colder than usual in the USA during October, but globally another hot one.
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/eye-of-the-storm/october-2019-earths-second-warmest-october-on-record/

    Stepping back from the immediate view a little, imagine the situation at year 2050.
    Thats 30 yrs. on.
    Global population is projected to be at 9.8 Billion people, up from 1.2 Billion in 1850.
    Thats over 8 Billion above and beyond the pre-fossil fuel times.
    And by 2050, a huge pulse of carbon will have been transferred from locked up underground storage accumulated over many hundreds of million years as fossil fuel, up into the atmosphere and circulating in the ocean, in just 200 years. Its an astounding chemistry experiment.
    The warming affects of this oxidized carbon, along with methane, will really be starting to ramp up by then, ironically at the same time the fossil fuel reserves will be far along the depletion curve.
    Most of those 9-10 Billion people are going to be in huge struggle, for food and energy. In a world which will have a much less stable climate than we have experienced in all of our lives.

    This all applies to the 2030’s as well, just a little less severe.

    1. More asymptotic results from slightly adjusted French climate models in preparation for the next IPCC report to tell us that less than two C rise is still possible.

       “7 Degrees C by 2100 Possible – New Science September 25, 2019 – Latest science with grim news: without action, Earth could warm 7 degrees C by the year 2100. French Senior Scientist Olivier Boucher explains. Rising seas are a sure thing now. Will we retreat in panic or plan our way out? Interview with expert Dr. A.R. Siders. ”
       https://www.ecoshock.net/downloads/ES_190925_Show.mp3

       “shoot low boys–they’re riding’ shetland ponies”

       1. Yawn. ? You’ll be dead before then, as will I, and as will likely everyone else writing here.

          1. Well, we are clear you care only about yourself.
             Glad to not know you.

             1. The future has never been predictable, especially not multiple decades into the future.

                1. Not so.
                   In 1890, there was a prediction that 73 years later,
                   it would be
                   very close to 1963. Within one year, or so.

                   They nailed it.

                2. The founding fathers didn’t write the constitution for multiple decades, but you make for good reason to review the 2nd amendment

          2. Shiloh, this is not a personal issue, this is a global issue involving trillions of life forms on this planet. Pretending ignorance is just a form of cowardice.

             1. Feeling a little spicy after that long vacation

       2. I thought you were gone for good this time. I should’ve known better, everyone who “leaves” this place always comes back.

          1. “I should’ve known better”

             Add that to your 20 page list.

          2. Yes Bradley, wrong thinking and inane comments do plague this site. But fear not, someday I will be gone for good, though since it is the internet I am not really anywhere but home right now. Never actually was in a place called Peak Oil Barrel.
             The literary and possibly actual confusion between existential space and the internet site space is a common error.
             So what is your personal interest in me that you felt the need to publically comment on my “reappearance”?

             1. Glad to see you back around, GF.
                We might not see eye to eye on everything,
                and I see that as good.
                I value this place as way to get other viewpoints that I might not have considered, especially when they are intelligent and not just opinion.
                I honor all those like you who are at-least aware enough to be deeply concerned about all these issues.
                Keep on.

15. I don’t come up with my “crazy” ideas all by myself! Maybe I’m reading too much at my favorite web sites (reneweconomy.com.au, pv-magazine, insideevs, AukeHoeksta’s Twitter page etc).

    Solar will power ahead to offer 20% more output for 25% lower module costs within 15 months

    In 2012, as publisher of pv magazine, I invited the publication to a breakfast event during the EU PVSEC show. The topic discussed was a polarizing one: A prediction 300 GW of solar generation capacity would be deployed annually in 2025 with a maximum of 200 GW of cumulative PV capacity expected in Germany. As it turned out, that estimate was too conservative for Germany but on the right path globally. At the time, many judged the high expectations absurd because they could not imagine the storming progress of PV which has been taking place for some years now.

    Much more “crazy” stuff in the linked article.

16. Energy fr0m Wind-
    good use of a governors executive order capability-
    New Jersey More Than Doubles Offshore Wind Target to 7.5GW
    https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/new-jersey-governor-more-than-doubles-offshore-wind-target-to-7-5gw

    Also on wind, this is surprising-
    When Will European Offshore Wind See Negative Bids?

    As early as next year, Germany or the Netherlands could see offshore wind developers go beyond zero-subsidy projects and start paying for contracts.

    https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/when-will-european-offshore-wind-see-negative-bids

17. Someday we actually see on of these headlines come true, and it will change the whole deal

    Nikola Pushes Deeper Into Battery Electric Vehicles With Next Generation Battery Tech

    https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/19/nikola-pushes-deeper-into-battery-electric-vehicles-with-next-generation-battery-tech/

    btw- movie ‘The Current Wars’ is a pretty good watch. Edison, Westinghouse, Tesla

18. islandboy, I know you like to keep on top of this stuff.

    CHINA COAL SURGE

    “While the rest of the world has cut coal-based electricity over the past 18 months, China has added enough to power 31 million homes. That’s according to a study that says China is now in the process of building or reviving coal equivalent to the EU’s entire generating capacity…

    “In 2015, in an attempt to curb the growth, the national government tried to clamp down on new-build coal. However, it continued to allow provincial governments the freedom to issue permits for new coal plants. That move misfired badly. Local authorities subsequently permitted up to five times more plants than in any comparable period…

    “THROUGH 2018 AND UP TO JUNE 2019, COUNTRIES OUTSIDE OF CHINA CUT THEIR COAL POWER CAPACITY BY 8.1 GIGAWATTS (GW). IN THE SAME PERIOD, CHINA ADDED 43 GW.” Caps are mine.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50474824

    1. And,

       PLANNED FOSSIL FUEL OUTPUT SWAMPS PARIS CLIMATE GOALS

       “Oil, gas and coal output already planned or in the pipeline will overwhelm efforts to cap global warming at levels consistent with a livable planet, the UN and leading research groups warned Wednesday. The world is on track to produce 50 percent more fossil fuels than could be burned without increasing Earth’s surface temperature by more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels…

       “This “production gap”—between output in the pipeline and the Paris climate goals—is largest for coal, according the report, a joint project by the UN Environment Programme and four climate change research centres. Countries plan to produce 150 percent more coal by 2030 than would be consistent with a 2C world, and 280 percent more than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5C. China is the world’s largest coal producer, accounting for more than 40 percent of global output in 2017. Domestic production doubled from 2000 to 2013, dropping briefly before resuming an upward trend…

       “For oil and gas, nations are on track to produce a 40 to 50 percent surplus in 2040. The United States generated more of both fossil fuels than any other nation last year, and is the world’s number two producer of coal.”

       https://phys.org/news/2019-11-fossil-fuel-output-swamps-paris.html

    2. I don’t think anyone expects coal to go away soon. It’s rise of one percent in 2018 is mostly electric growth driven, which is the current state of global electric power use expansion as developing countries grow richer. The more than 700 GW of wind and solar capacity added in 2018 has done little to keep coal consumption down, but natural gas (the ultimate climate changer) has done more.

       Explaining the increase in coal consumption worldwide
       The projections of EnerFuture forecasts are moderately optimistic, as by 2040 the share of coal in the world power mix is expected to decrease by only 10 percentage points in the EnerBlue scenario (in which global demand increases, but demand and CO2 emissions are contained within the objectives of the Paris Agreement)

       At world level, coal-fired power plant capacity has increased by 1,000 GW since 2000 and by 500 GW since 2010. This increase is mainly due to additions in China (+850 GW since 2000, which is 80% of the global variation) and to a lesser extent India (+150 GW since 2000). The significant decline in the United States and in the European Union (-80 GW total, or very nearly 40 GW each since 2000) was offset by increases in Japan, Korea and Turkey (+70 GW including 40 GW in Japan).
       

       http://theconversation.com/explaining-the-increase-in-coal-consumption-worldwide-111045

       Seems to me the race between renewable energy and fossil fuel is not very relevant anymore.

       1. “Seems to me the race between renewable energy and fossil fuel is not very relevant anymore.”

          So, more of a race between installation of air conditioners and production of chain saws?

          1. LOL Let’s produce electric chain saws, send them to Brazil, and pretend we’re saving the planet.

             1. ‘but they’re electric!’, with green plastic cover.

          2. In a way Hickory, in a way.

19. Australian project revealed to send solar energy via undersea transmission to Singapore. Big project, big backers.
    “Sun Cable plans to build a 10 gigawatt solar farm in Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory, a 22 gigawatt hour battery storage facility and a 4,500 km transmission network to Singapore. All three elements would be the biggest of their kind in the world.”

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/australian-solar-power-singapore/

20. BYD to supply 379 electric buses to Bogotá

    https://www.railwaygazette.com/vehicles/byd-to-supply-379-electric-buses-to-bogota/55176.article

    BYD, Toyota Partner Up For New Electric Vehicles

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastianblanco/2019/11/07/byd-toyota-partner-up-for-new-electric-vehicles/#559208d524a1

21. Climate emergency (1): “Something has shifted”

    http://www.climatecodered.org/2019/11/climate-emergency-1-something-has.html?m=1

    1. From your link,

       The UN Secretary General António Guterres: “So we are losing the race, climate change is running faster than we are, and we need to sound the alarm, this is an emergency, this is a climate crisis and we need to act now. Unfortunately in politics, there is always a huge trend to keep the status quo. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE STATUS QUO IS SUICIDE.” (emphasis added).

       1. If things get bad enough maybe HB will have to breakdown and buy a bus pass.

          1. Or Grubhub

       2. In my working career I learned an effective rule: Don’t present your product as a solution to a problem that is too horrible to contemplate in the first place. Thus filters on cigarettes aren’t there to stop you from dying from your smoking, they are there to prevent your fingers from getting stained by the tobacco. This is similar to all these climate emergencies: The more you talk about the terrible consequences, the greater the number of people who will just block it out of their minds and demand the entire climate change research industry be shut down.

          1. Well said , Rotary Cruz

             And welcome to this site on behalf of all the regulars!

             We should never forget that even the best educated people are still nevertheless just naked apes, and that therefore they don’t like to think about unpleasant things until FORCED to do so.

             This is a major failing of the environmental movement, and one I intend to deal with honestly as best I can when I eventually, hopefully, get a site of my own up and running.

          2. Rotary, your logical proposal just killed religion. Too bad, religion seems to be doing fine.
             So when your house is on fire do you ignore that too and then make demands that the fire departments be closed down?

       3. “THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE STATUS QUO IS SUICIDE”
          The status quo is a continuing global extermination event that involves much more than just humans.
          The UN Secretary General appears to be proposing a complete dismantling of our current system of civilization.

          1. When he takes office in 2021, I shall have faith in President Biden to show the leadership needed to transition too 100% renewable energy by 2050, which is what the experts say we need to prevent the climactic calamity. The UN is not to be trusted on this matter!

    2. Having an emergency today happens to be a good promo for Al Gore’s annual climate change telethon going on right now.

       1. A good emergency needs sirens, flashing lights and people scurrying about. Apparently even the most “green” are willing to wait decades for renewables to start having an effect rather than get down to the hard work of doing things now and every day that make a difference. So it’s wait and see what the market and the techno inventors can think up next while the predicaments and problems get larger by the day.

          1. A risk worth considering, IMHO, is a super El Niño occurring during the next Solar Maximum, perhaps mid 2020’s, and it’s potential impacts upon crops/harvest etc.

             https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/04/11/scientists-predict-new-solar-cycle-is-about-begin-that-it-will-be-stronger-than-last-one/

             https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/10/22/super-el-nio-events-may-become-more-frequent-climate-warms/

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

             https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o

             1. Yep, more energy in the system means bigger swings in the system. It also means a lot more stress for the many species that live on this planet.

22. And in the meantime, back at the ranch,

    https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/11/21/module-prices-continue-to-slide/

    It’s hard to say how fast wind and solar power will grow and displace coal, oil, and gas, but I’m thinking the CAPITALISTS who are investing in renewables WILL be eating the fossil fuel industry’s lunch to a very substantial extent within ten to fifteen more years.

    Let’s just hope the whole economic house of cards doesn’t collapse sooner!

    1. The coal companies are already hurting.

       https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/29/murray-energy-joins-list-of-coal-companies-to-declare-bankruptcy.html

       A lot of this is down to cheap gas, or course, but the frackers aren’t doing too well either.

    2. You know this guy OFM?

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaQ3hXkXVjY

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwG8MzUDPBw

23. Morning trivia, as fires rage across Australia. How Bad Is the Climate Feedback from Fires?

    Although the exact quantities are difficult to calculate, scientists estimate that wildfires emitted about 8 billion tons of CO2 per year for the past 20 years. In 2017, total global CO2 emissions reached 32.5 billion tons, according to the International Energy Agency. When they calculate total global CO2 output, scientists don’t include all wildfire emissions as net emissions, though, because some of the CO2 is offset by renewed forest growth in the burned areas. As a result, they estimate that wildfires make up 5 to 10 percent of annual global CO2 emissions each year.

    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23082018/extreme-wildfires-climate-change-global-warming-air-pollution-fire-management-black-carbon-co2

    1. We didn’t start the fire
       It was always burning
       Since the world’s been turning
       We didn’t start the fire
       No, we didn’t light it
       But we tried to fight it

24. This is crazy but, I like it!

    Cannon-Brookes says $20bn solar project will be “lighthouse” to world

    Australian tech billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes says the planned $20 billion project to build the world’s largest solar farm, a huge storage facility and a cable to Singapore will push the limits of human engineering, but is far from impossible.

    Cannon-Brookes on Wednesday confirmed that he and another Australian billionaire Andrew “Twiggy Forrest” – along with other investors were investing tens of millions of early stage funding for the project, which plans to build a 10GW solar farm near Tennant Creek, 22 gigawatt hours of battery storage, and a cable to deliver much of the output to Singapore.

    “It’s a huge project on a world scale, right? This is not big just on Australian scale. This is big on a world scale,” Cannon-Brookes said at an event celebrating the RE100 initiative in Sydney, which seeks to encourage the world’s largest companies to commit to sourcing all of their electricity use from renewable sources.

    “The reason that we are all involved is to serve as a lighthouse project to Australia, to the world. It is a world scale engineering project.” Cannon-Brookes said.

    “10 gigawatts of solar, which should be the largest, if not at the time it is built, definitely the largest solar farm that exists today, connected to 22 gigawatt-hours of storage.”

    Cannon-Brookes says is confident that it would be possible for storage technology to be delivered at such an unprecedented scale, despite pushing the limits of current technology and engineering.

    1. “a 4,500 km transmission network to Singapore”

       This long distance transmission of electricity (part underwater) is a huge advance in regard to viability of renewable energy sources to offset fossil combustion.
       Being able to move the electricity from that far away makes it viable for many places in the world to make a serious shot at keeping ‘the lights on’.
       Examples of places that are within 2-3000 miles of strong sources of solar or wind energy-
       Europe north of the Alps from the northern Sahara and from offshore wind
       North and coastal USA from the SW deserts, great plains, and offshore wind
       Coastal China from their sunny/windy western deserts
       Coastal Asia (Korea/Japan) from offshore wind

       Their are a many more smaller scale examples, and hydroelectric is also part of this equation.
       Offshore deep water wind will be a very big industry developing over the next 10-20 years.

    2. “This is crazy but, I like it!”

       Why have you ignored the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, the fusion reactor under construction in southern France, if you’re determined to champion a fairy tale tech fix for the climate crisis? At least fusion is being pursued by scientists and engineers rather than another billionaire determined to become a trillionaire. Meanwhile, the climate clock ticks while we all wait for that Cinderella solution that will make all the bad stuff go away. Hell, we’ve got a whole decade to play with — maybe!

       1. “Why have you ignored the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, the fusion reactor under construction in southern France,”

          Because the technological hurdles that need to be cleared for this sort of technology to work pale in comparison to those required for the commercialization of fusion. A quick internet search reveals:

          “Fusion requires temperatures about 100 million Kelvin (approximately six times hotter than the sun’s core). At these temperatures, hydrogen is a plasma, not a gas. Plasma is a high-energy state of matter in which all the electrons are stripped from atoms and move freely about.”

          These temperatures are several orders of magnitude higher than this Bill Gates backed project.

          Oh, I get it! You were being sarcastic weren’t you? Well, I like crazy but, not 100 million Kelvin crazy!

          1. Yes, apparently it is not crazy to cause vast deadly pollution, destroy large tracts of the earth and sea, amplify the global extermination of species, cause global heating and move those products millions of miles each year to consumers. Consumers who will be let down hard as the sources diminish and starved, burned or washed out to sea as climate change progresses.
             However, it is crazy when the cable is powered by solar energy that does far less of those things mentioned above.
             Go figure. There is no satisfying the terminally delusional.

             1. The way you and Doug Leighton concern troll islandboy and others who express an opinion you don’t like shows what nasty people you are and gives this place a terrible look. It would do both you guys a world of good to take a time out to be thankful for what you have. When you get angry or frustrated at your climate change thoughts and decide to lash out on people of this web site, contemplate what it means that so many people of world have much bigger concerns such as obtaining food, water or shelter. With problems like that it makes whatever is bothering you much smaller by comparison. So try being grateful as you get up every morning to your prosperity and security.

                1. Hey Islandboy, you have a new protector.
                   Too bad he/she is so thick as to not notice I was agreeing with you about that massive crazy Aussie/Singapore PV-battery plan. PV is so much better than fossil fuels, at least it will be in a couple of decades.

                   Oh well, one more undeserved defaming comment about me. They teach reading and writing but comprehension is a rare commodity these days.

                   Keep bringing on those PV and wind stories. Good to keep us abreast of their advances.

25. The Ford Mustang EV is going to be a big deal, along with the Tesla Y.

    Toyota, in the meantime, will start selling an interesting vehicle this coming year.
    The RAV4 Prime is a plug-in hybrid- ” the RAV4’s efficiency figures are still the biggest attention-grabber. The RAV4 Prime is projected to achieve 90 MPGe, and travel up to 39 miles on electric power alone”

    39 miles electric will be the best for plug-in’s yet available. This allows pure electric travel for more than half of all American driver or vehicle trips/day!
    Except for occasional long trips, most Americans could avoid going to the gas station entirely with such a vehicle, charged up at home while they sleep.

    https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/rav4-prime/
    “Hybrid battery warranty is now 10 years/150,000 miles”

    1. The now discontinued Chevrolet Volt had a 53 mile electric range, but was not an SUV like the RAV 4. The RAV4 should sell like hotcakes. The Volt was the original vehicle that made me such a believer in EV’s as being superior to ICE.

       1. The Tesla pickup will be publicly shown for the first time tonight, eleven pm Eastern on the Tesla website.

          1. Thanks, OFM, I am very excited to see what Elon has come up with. If it doesn’t look too much like Darth Vader’s helmet, I will probably let go of my Model S and get the pickup. It is a little bit hard to manage my small farm using a Model S as a farm pickup and I don’t want to own multiple vehicles due to insurance and registration costs being what they are today.

             1. Might want to wait to see what the Rivian pickup looks like in comparison to the Tesla.

                1. GM soon too
                   https://electrek.co/2019/11/21/gm-electric-pickup-truck-sale-2021/

                   and others
                   https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2019/07/02/ready-or-not-here-come-electric-pickup-trucks/#e06748d72806

                   Although, my guess is that the fan bois stick with Musk; they can’t seem to mention or take notice of any EV products but his. I don’t think any of the self described “EV analysts” here have mentioned Warren Buffett even once. Odd, it seems they perhaps have some blinders on.

                2. I don’t hear anything about Buffet building any electric cars OR trucks.

                   This is not to say he won’t swoop in and buy a company or two in the business, once he’s fairly sure which ones will succeed.

                   Come to think of it, I can’t remember hearing ANYTHING about Buffet being at the cutting edge of DEVELOPING anything in the way of new technology.

                   I don’t own a Tesla, and most likely never will, but I don’t have any trouble at all understanding the cult like loyalty of Tesla owners and admirers.

                   IF there’s any particular person in the entire world who will be viewed by future historians as the FOUNDER of the electric car industry a century down the road, my money says it will be Elon Musk.

                3. Too bad, Elon Musk did not start Tesla. Nor did he invent the first Tesla car. He did manage a takeover.

                4. Warren Buffett spotted the EV adoption megatrend coming and invested in BYD to take advantage of that. He has been correct and has so far gained somewhere north of a billion on the transaction. Buffett has also spoken positively on the coming EV transition. Did I miss anything?

             2. My concern is the size and angle of the front windshield. They don’t call a car’s windows “the greenhouse” for nothing…I do wonder how much power is eaten by the air conditioner.

          2. Perhaps my sense of style is bizarre, or the new Tesla Cybertruck is going to be an ‘Edsel’. I think it will be a flop, although I am not a video game generation kid.

             https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-cybertruck-unveiled/

             1. It’s so ugly.
                But those specs tho.

                1. Yeh.
                   Regardless of my hate for the looks,
                   I think it fair to say
                   the decade of the electric vehicle transition has arrived!

                2. I don’t think it’s ugly, but different looking more like a military vehicle or a door stop. It’s looks don’t interest me in a purchase. It also doesn’t look practible and more of a specially use vehicle.

                3. I wonder if the flat body panels and other design oddities are intended to reduce the price. I guess it could be just weirdness, but it seems unlikely to me.

                   For example, the sloping connection between the cab and the bed looks stupid and seems like a terrible idea, but it could have some meaning. It could improve the stiffness of the vehicle or maybe improve air flow.

                   Obviously I’m just speculating.

                4. Musk announced today that Tesla already has 150,000 orders booked for the pickup.

                5. 200.000 still counting…

                   Here in conservative newspapers electric cars are hated by most.

                   But this vehicle got from many there a : sick – must have!

             2. The looks do have to grow on you some. But I have always liked pickups not so much for looks as for functionality. My usual pickup in the past was in excess of 10 years old and cheap. Hauling trash, four wheeling, and other general truck type tasks never were good for the looks of a truck. So why buy a pretty one?

                Since there are not any used EV pickups on the market, I guess I will have to buy something newer. The Tesla truck fits that bill with its price point and toughness. I am, though, disappointed in the delivery date of 2021. Lots of EV pickups will be on the market by then.

             3. I was expecting some denial here about the unveiling – but you guys are pretty high on the kool-aid, and are not in any way representative of the average american. I think you can pretty much put the nail in the coffin for the cybertruck. no one, and I mean no one who uses trucks for a living, especially who has a fleet, would consider converting to this nightmare.

                my sister just bought a model 3, like 2 weeks ago, and my family is pretty cursed when it comes to “top picking”, so you’re welcome.

                1. So, my very conservative boss who drive a Silverado crew cab surprised the hell out of me today by saying he loves it, reserved one, and wants to replace all of our company trucks (construction) with the Tesla Truck.

                   “You like it?” I asked.

                   He loves that it doesn’t look like every other truck. He loves how much attention it would draw. He loves the specs of course, and the price. He’s asking me about charging and what would be required for our crew to be able to charge at home.

                   I’m utterly shocked. When I saw it, I thought there was no way this thing will appeal to the contractor demographic.

                   “It’s badass” he said, and enthused about the towing capacity, and the power and compressor outlets.

                2. I also worked in construction and can concur that we were very eager – back in 2008 for EV trucks for our sales crew. We were spending 1,000s a month on gas and the price rises at that time were devastating for our profit margins (though EV trucks wouldn’t have helped with our actual diesel construction trucks).

                   its definitely not a conservative/liberal issue – its about that cash

                3. Sorry, I should be more cautious in the use of that word. I didn’t mean conservative in the political sense, but rather “marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners”.

                   And yes, I think he’s definitely looking at the TCO. F

26. SERES Partners with Buffett-backed BYD to Develop Next-Generation Power Electronics

    https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-11-18/seres-partners-with-buffett-backed-byd-to-develop-next-generation-power-electronics

    1. I do remember reading something about Buffet going into business with BYD, come to think of it, within the last day or two. I have a news feed that covers the renewable energy industries and take a fast look at it most days.

       This exception more or less proves my point. BYD has been around for a long time already. BYD is a giant in the field, and is WAY past the point of being a startup, or a risky investment.

       Putting money into BYD as part owner or in a joint venture or whatever is not exactly a risk taking sort of investment.

       Tesla and other companies such as Panasonic have proven that electric cars, etc, are the future. Now Buffet is in, with all the major risk now associated not with the future of the INDUSTRIES involved, but rather with the risk involved in investing in any particular COMPANY.

       It turns out that Buffet put some money into B Y D years ago and has done VERY well with it, but even then, my point still holds. BYD was well past startup at that time.

       1. For the 20 years prior to BYD getting into EVs they made batteries. I’m not sure what Elon Musk was doing for the 20 years prior to his involvement in EVs, but I suspect it included too many Anthony Robbins videos.
          It seems odd to me that the cornucopian EV enthusiast crowd here is exclusively cheerleading an Elon Musk bukkake party (how’s nuking Mars and the hyper loop going?) but have not once mentioned The Oracle of Omaha. I figure it’s because they’re perhaps a bunch of weird Star Trek nerds who are not well versed in world events, and they’re easily duped by his play to human fantasy.

          1. It’s not that odd when one considers that the Oracle of Omaha has never disrupted anything as far as I know. Warren Buffet is a fairly conservative investor and is not known for taking risky bets with his money.

             Musk on the other hand is a bit of a maverick. In the years prior to his involvement in the EV business, he dropped out of college, where he had intended to do work on ultra-capacitors, to get involved in some dot com startups. His coup de grace was PayPal which he sold to eBay and used the proceeds to fund SpaceX, SolarCity and his takeover of Tesla. He is a disruptor and has been very high profile with his intent to change the auto business as demonstrated by Tesla’s mission statement, which originally was:

             “to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable transport.”

             It was later changed to:

             “to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.”

             What is BYD’s mission statement? Has Warren Buffet ever declared that he wants to change the world? Buffet and BYD are boring. Note that in my “Electric Commercial Vehicle 10 Year Update”, I acknowledged BYD’s role in advancing the the state of the art in commercial vehicles, especially buses.

             1. Sounds to me like perhaps Islandboy needs some entertainment; needs a hero, needs to follow some action- some ‘disruption’.
                Maybe Buffett and BYD should liven it up a bit eh; play more to human fantasy- talk some shit about colonizing the moon and making huge diamonds from CO2 capture? But as it is, they just make money selling lots of EVs to Chinese people (the big polluter place) at an affordable price. Not Islandboy’s style at all I’m afraid- not even worth mentioning because they’re boring and probably lack moral virtue. No fun in that.
                I figure if the best hope for humanity is an American car company equivalent of a Star Trek convention then we’re pretty much fucked.

                1. It would help if Buffet came out and declared that there is a climate emergency and that he is only going to invest in businesses that aim to address to climate emergency in one way or another. Unfortunately Buffet is just an (extra)ordinary capitalist and very good at making money from whatever is going on in the world, be it good for the climate/environment or bad. I admire Buffet for acknowledging that Peak Oil is a real thing but, do not admire him for failing to take a more aggressive stance on climate change, see:

                   Here’s what Warren Buffett thinks about climate change

                   At the 2016 Berkshire annual meeting, the eminent climate scientist and former NASA official James Hansen was among the shareholders who made an appeal to Buffett. Buffett was not dogmatic or ideological, but rejected the plea not as a matter of climate denial but his sense of current business reality.

                   “The issue before the shareholders is not how I feel about whether climate change is real. … I don’t think you and I have any difference in the fact that it’s important that climate change — you know, since it’s something where there is a point of no return — if we are on the course that you think is certain and I think is probable, that it’s a terribly important subject.”

                   So, Buffet is quite happy to continue to profit from his investment if FF and related industries. Musk on the other hand, IMO is driving a stake into the heart of the FF energy and auto industries. I prefer Musk’s approach. I guess you could say he’s my Donald Trump.

          2. Well there was Paypal and SpaceX, but I am sure you don’t find that notable.

          3. Elon Musk was involved in Paypal before he got into Tesla. Now you know.

             Paypal is an interesting example of the computer nerds are breaking things that aren’t supposed to be part of their world. Remember when banks had big solid marble edifices that radiated trust and employed armies of clerical workers? My kids don’t remember that any more than dial phones or slide rules.

             Tesla will be Chinese like most of the car industry by 2030. Wall Street hates manufacturing as much as the Taliban hates teaching girls to read, so the company has no future in America. If it fails at least the Chinese will keep the brand name.

27. A Princeton University study has discovered that average daily wind speeds across the world are picking up after three decades of gradual slowing.

    In a paper published November 18 in Nature Climate Change, they showed that while wind speeds decreased by about 2.3% per decade beginning in 1978, since 2010 wind speeds have increased at a rate that is nearly three times faster.

    The analysis showed that in each region of the globe, specific large-scale ocean-atmosphere oscillations, which are driven by many factors including the uneven heating of the Earth’s surface in different regions, were likely explanations for the observed trends in wind speeds.

    This could prove to be a boon for wind farms:

    Extending their findings to wind power generation, the researchers calculated that a typical wind turbine receiving the global average wind would have produced about 17% more energy in 2017 than in 2010. And using climate indices to project future wind speeds, they predicted a 37% increase by 2024.

    IF the winds actually do pick up this much this fast, the people that own wind farms are going to be in the “tall cotton” in terms of income earned.

    1. Hello my Trumpster friend,

       Have you or your FoxNews Republican friends seen the light yet or is it like I fear that it’s dark when one’s head in a hole ? Two and a half years ago, you called me everything but nice trying to enlighten you of the Russian connection. Our democracy is at risk. Civil war is a lot bigger possibility of American unrest than peak oil.

       1. How ya doing , HB?

          Let it hereby be known that HB was right about the Russian connection…… but also that I never said it wasn’t true, or that Trump is honest, or that I support the R’s, or the fossil fool industries, etc.

          I have pointed out Trump’s crookedness a hundred times. I have YET to see a single example of a member of this forum, myself excepted, acknowledge that HRC ran a scam known as Cattle Gate, or that she ran a bimbo squad to protect her husband, who IS a serial abuser of women, etc, or that she accepted a ton of money donated to her family foundation by people with business involving the state department, etc etc etc.

          But tens of millions of people voted against her, because of these scandals, or simply stayed home, because of them. ( Trump was new enough to the POLITICAL stage that the people who voted for him mostly actually swallowed his bullshit, because it takes the public a LONG time to get to know a politician.

          I said I would withhold judgement on it until the facts came out, and that they WOULD come out.

          I may be the ONLY person in this forum who has ever read The Gulag Archipelago,etc. I think maybe I’m the only person who has ever gone to the library and read the utter foolishness that was printed in the NYT about what a GREAT country Russia was in the thirties, lol.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/us/times-should-lose-pulitzer-from-30-s-consultant-says.html

          xxxx
          A Columbia University history professor hired by The New York Times to make an independent assessment of the coverage of one of its correspondents in the Soviet Union during the 1930’s said yesterday that the Pulitzer Prize the reporter received should be rescinded because of his ”lack of balance” in covering Stalin’s government.

          The Times had asked the professor, Mark von Hagen, to examine the coverage of the correspondent, Walter Duranty, after receiving a letter in early July from the Pulitzer Prize Board seeking its comment. In its letter to The Times, the board said it was responding to ”a new round of demands” that the prize awarded to Mr. Duranty in 1932 be revoked. The most vocal demands came from Ukrainian-Americans who contended that Mr. Duranty should be punished for failing to report on a famine that killed millions of Ukrainians in 1932 and 1933.

          In his report to The Times, Professor von Hagen described the coverage for which Mr. Duranty won the Pulitzer — his writing in 1931, a year before the onset of the famine — as a ”dull and largely uncritical recitation of Soviet sources.”

          ”That lack of balance and uncritical acceptance of the Soviet self-justification for its cruel and wasteful regime,” the professor wrote, ”was a disservice to the American readers of The New York Times and the liberal values they subscribe to and to the historical experience of the peoples of the Russian and Soviet empires and their struggle for a better life.”

          xxxx

          So you see you shouldn’t NECESSARILY trust any body in the press in the early stages of the investigation of corruption and scandals.

          I figured that out a LONG time ago, back when the liberal academic establishment spilt so much ink telling us what a ROTTEN country the USA is, while ignoring rot a hundred times worse in the REST of the world, latter day late twentieth and twenty first century Western Europe being the only usual exception.

          I don’t particularly care for hearing about my ancestors, the so called DWEM’s , being called the worst people in history, and the source of all the evil in the world, lol.

          So…….. I burnt a lot of electrons myself trying to get it across that THAT sort of talk helps the REAL trumpsters a thousand times, a MILLION times, more I could ever help the r’s by at least TRYING to get people with good educations, such as the large majority of the members of this forum, to pay attention to the most BASIC rules of human relationships.

          But that time is past now. HRC ‘s history, for all intents and purposes.

          The WORLD IS a DARWINIAN place, always has been , and most likely always will be.

          Chalk one up for HB!

          I can easily post some quotes illustrating what I’m talking about, if any body wants me to do so, lol.
          And now they have , in the most extraordinary fashion, lol, and I’ve been eating a ton of popcorn , figuratively, following the news.

          Let it also be known that I have consistently supported sound environmental law, single payer health care, and most of the modern day liberal political agenda.

          BUT HAVING SAID ALL THIS, let it also be known that I was RIGHT about HRC being the WORST POSSIBLE candidate the D’s could nominated and that I was right about here being a crook, a hypocrite, seeing herself as the ANOINTED, wooden headed in terms of actually understanding the electorate and an an old time machine type politician, the only difference being that she work pant suits rather than pants.

          She was then and remains the most disliked if not outright hated big D Democrat in the USA.

          I wish to point out also that I WAS right and REMAIN right, in that ADULTS look to their OWN failures when they lose the ball game, rather than blaming the opposition for out playing them, fair or foul, lol.

          Lets HOPE that this time around, and forever more hereafter, that the D party doesn’t make such a mistake again as to start out with the most disliked person in the ENTIRE country, as the Party nominee for president.

          Had she not been so entirely head up her ass STUPID as to have that secret email server, and to have been making secret speeches to wall streeters when she should have been CAMPAIGNING in the HEART of D country which was in play, well then, she would be president today.

          I have never supported Trump. BUT Trump has more political sense in his tiny little hands, in terms of understanding politics, that HRC has from the tip of her toes to the ends of her fingers.

          Plus of course he had the advantage of being an OUTSIDER, an outsider who HIJACKED the Republican Party, which since he won, has been so entirely lacking in the back bone needed to deal with him that the R party has pretty much gone along with him for SHORT TERM advantage that I believe the D’s are pretty much going to OWN DC for the next ten or twenty years, except for the courts.

          Plus of course Trump and the R’s are pissing off the country to the point that more D’s are being elected at the state level to such an extent that purple states are trending blue, whereas none of the purple states seem to be trending red.

          I will also add while I’m at it that I have always pretty much described Russia and the old USSR as a country and or empire run by the nastiest of nasty people, while still acknowledging that just because the people who CONTROL the country are evil, the people there are highly capable and DO have reasons to distrust the West, etc.

          The Russians helped trump, no doubt , but the D’s snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in an election they should have won by a MILE……. and would have, if they had run any candidate without a baggage train it took three locomotives to pull it.

          And JUST MAYBE I have had a positive influence on the people in this forum, by pointing out that you DO NOT win elections by badmouthing people who thru no fault of their own happen to be SOUTHERNERS, or poorly educated, or scared that immigrants are taking their jobs, or that they will no longer be able to run their business due to ( from their pov) being forced to obey laws they find morally repugnant, etc.

          THAT sort of talk was enough to have put trump across in the last three big states that put HIM in the WH. It’s true there are more poorly educated and religious conservative people in the south than there are in the industrial mid west, but anybody who THINKs a typical white guy, or his wife, who is middle aged or older, who works in a factory is a liberal, in those states, OTHER than in terms of knowing the D’s support his union status, has his OWN head up his ass so far he will never see daylight.

          I AM a working class guy, born and bred, who just happened to score rather well on some standardized tests and get some of that there free socialist money, lol, that enabled me to go off to a good university where I learned all about the OTHER half of this country, and LIVED in and with that other half, for a couple of decades, right up to marrying a Big Apple artist, lol.

          IF you are a Democrat, or an environmentalist, or simply a decent human being, with sense enough to wipe your own ass, I suggest that you should have sense enough that you should never bad mouth the CORE SUPPORTERS of your own political coalition.

          BUT we have some here who used to do that on a REGULAR basis……. some who are well qualified in the technical sciences, but know LESS about how to win friends, and there fore elections, as a typical hound dog.

          My mother and father were born in one of the poorest parts of the country, and never had any opportunity to get an education.

          FIFTY MILLION of the people that voted for Trump are in the same boat. Bad mouthing them, collectively, nation wide, probably had a hundred times, maybe a thousand times, as much to do with trump winning as the Russians had to do with it.

          1. Mac, get over Hillery, she’s history. This “What about Hillery” gets old after awhile. It’s all about Trump and nothing to do with Hillery now.

             1. True lol, Ron

                I agree with you totally, HRC is history now.

                I said so myself.

                But I pray to SKY Daddy you and all the other people here are smart enough to take what I have said SERIOUSLY, and nominate WINNERS, at least to the point that you don’t nominate the most detested member of the D party again, with the highest negatives of any prominent Democrat, lol.

                And also that even though some of us are getting old enough that our memories are failing us, that we all remember that every fucking comment knocking religious people, poor people for being poor and uneducated, etc, does more to help elect REPUBLICANS by a factor of a thousand than the things I kept pointing out about HRC, so as to get big D Democrats to get their heads out of their assses and nominate better liked candidates without super long baggage trains in the future.

                And it’s very likely I won’t mention HRC again except in some odd passing comment, unless HB twits me about her again.

                And incidentally I lost a good bit of money betting on her to win. Embarrassed the hell out of me, showing up at the local country store for a YEAR after that.

28. So how about that Tesla truck?
    I’ve never bought a new vehicle in my entire life, having been taught as a kid, and learning in econ and math classes at U. to invest my money, rather than spend it on stuff that depreciates like melting snow in the spring.

    But anyway, it’s so ugly I like it, and I would buy one in a MINUTE, if I had plenty of spare cash, which unfortunately, I don’t. I’m not hard up by any means, lol, but seventy thousand bucks is a lot of money, to me, and I WOULD want the hot rod model, lol.

    This truck is going to outperform all the trucks currently on the market the way a new conventional truck out performs a Model T, and it’s going to last just about forever, if you put some tires on it once in a while, and a new battery in it every twenty or thirty years or so.

    1. “But anyway, it’s so ugly I like it, and I would buy one in a MINUTE”

       Well, this is where we part ways. I would probably use it if someone gave one to me. But I would hate the way it looks every time.
       I think the Tesla Y looks very good, but I’m just not ready for the
       post-apocalyptic chernobyl soviet block leftover metal origami failure of imagination
       sense of aesthetics that Elon brings to the table with this truck.

       1. Things that work REALLY well have a way of growing on you.

          And I strongly suspect that the truck will look a little less angular and odd ball in it’s final production trim.

          I know a few men, and some women too, who are perfectly frank about making the biggest mistake of their lives, by marrying some body partly because they handsome or beautiful. This is perfectly normal behavior of course. We ARE programmed to want handsome and beautiful, because that means great genes and successful kids!

          But these folks eventually settled down with Plain Jane, or Average ED, eventually and are FAR happier now than they ever were previously.

          Some old country people say “lovin’ don’t last, but cooking do”.

          Does anybody here, other than yours truly, think that just MAYBE the broken windows were a publicity stunt?

          I can’t imagine that they wouldn’t have tested the experiment a number of times, and the reaction of both Musk and the pitcher seemed just a tiny bit rehearsed to me, as if they were expecting the windows to break.

          Every time Musk shoots off his mouth he gets a few million dollars worth of free publicity, and I HAVE heard it said that in some situations, there ISN’T any such thing as bad publicity. This might be such a situation.

          There must be twice as many people talking about the broken windows as there are about the super slick built in ramp,or the sixteen inch ground clearance, etc.

          1. It crossed my mind—

29. The growing role of methane in anthropogenic climate change

    Atmospheric methane (CH4) has experienced puzzling
    dynamics over the past 15 years. After a period of
    relative stagnation in the early 2000 s (+0.5±
    3.1 ppb yr−1 increase on average for 2000–2006),
    atmospheric methane concentrations have increased
    rapidly since 2007 at more than ten times this
    rate (+6.9±2.7 ppb yr−1 for 2007–2015; figure 1
    top left; Dlugokencky 2016). The atmospheric growth
    rate of methane accelerated to+12.5 ppb in 2014
    and+9.9 ppb in 2015, reaching an annual average
    concentration of 1834 ppb in 2015 (Dlugokencky
    2016). Because of this acceleration, the evolution of
    atmospheric methane over the last three years is
    inconsistent with the mitigation required in the
    Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) of 2.5,
    4 and 6Wm−2 and now most closely aligns with the
    RCP 8.5Wm−2 (figure 1 top left) (Fujino et al 2006,
    Clarke et al 2007, Riahi et al 2007, van Vuuren
    et al 2007). This emerging dynamic highlights
    methane’s growing contribution to global warming
    relative to the observed slower growth rates of
    CO2 over the past three years (Le Quéré et al 2016,
    ESSD; figure 1 top right, Jackson et al 2016) and a
    relatively constant growth rate of nitrous oxide (N2O)
    (Hartmann et al 2013).

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/120207

    I added a red X’s to the graphs for the latest concentrations of methane and CO2.

    

    1. Its hard to get a good fix on the sources of methane emissions. Global estimates differ strongly from local ones. USA estimates differs strongly from Calif ones.
       No simple target, other than massive human overpopulation (if you consider that simple).

       https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-are-the-biggest-us-methane-emitters/
       https://www.socalgas.com/stay-safe/methane-emissions/sources-of-methane-emissions

       1. If they gave a shit, the EPA and DEP could start here.
          “Leaks of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from oil and gas sites in Pennsylvania could be five times greater than industry reports to state regulators, according to a new analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund.”

          https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16022018/methane-leaks-oil-natural-gas-data-global-warming-pennsylvania-edf-study

30. Hot Off the Press

    Audi’s New China Head Confirms Battery Talks With Buffett’s BYD
    Bloomberg News
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-22/audi-s-new-china-head-confirms-battery-talks-with-buffett-s-byd

    Very interesting developments in the EV sector. Alas, not a word about Musk though, so perhaps some may find the article boring. View at your own discretion.

    1. MIT analysis finds steady declines in battery costs will stall soon.
       https://desdemonadespair.net/2019/11/why-the-electric-car-revolution-may-take-a-lot-longer-than-expected-mit-analysis-finds-steady-declines-in-battery-costs-will-stall-soon.html
       Any insight by anyone?
       I’m pretty ignorant on the issue.

31. What Would Net Zero Emissions by 2025 Look Like?

    https://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2019/11/16/what-would-net-zero-emissions-by-2025-look-like/

    1. They are not facing reality. There is no way for any high tech civilization (no matter how green) to sustainably survive on this planet with it’s current population and current societal paradigm.

       If we just got more efficient, and reduced our population to about 100 million, most of the problems would go away. Our vast technical and biological knowledge could hone down the destructive processes we use to the point where we have little harmful effect.
       Nature can grow back on it’s own, it’s much smarter than we are.
       If we don’t set limits, the limits set by nature are a million times more harsh and extreme than what we can do ourselves (except nuclear war, those bombs need to go).
       People want to be more important? Be 1 in 100 million rather than 1 in 8 billion.

       1. 100% agree with that GF.

       2. Yep, 7.7 billion people in a collapsing ecosystem is a death march.
          No one wants to mention it.
          Hey, how about a EV?

          1. But there’s a remarkable success concerning the birth rate: Globally, it’s now around 2,49 children per woman, only slightly above the global replacement rate of 2,33. Soon things will stabilize and might be manageable from thereon.

             One might also consider, that the worst ecological footprint is produced by the developed world where population growth has already stopped. So overpopulation might not be the primal problem.

             1. The world adds 83 million people a year.
                Comprende?
                Thats a little more than 1/4 of the US.
                In our 200,00 year history we ave had 1-10 million, with a neat extinction 70,000 years ago.

                1. I never knew God blesses us with 83 million of His greatest gifts every year. That is an unbelievable number for a planet unable to feed and shelter so many of the ones we already have…

                2. Gene, it was couples having intercourse. blessings optional [and entirely irrelevant]

             2. Soon things will stabilize and might be manageable from thereon.

                Not a chance. We are currently many times the long term carrying capacity of the earth. We are destroying the planet right now because we are deep, deep, into overshoot. We will continue to do what we are doing right now, destroying the planet.

             3. ” will stabilize and might be manageable from thereon”

                Its a very big longshot to think that things might be ‘manageable’.
                Maybe if we were at 2 billion instead of 7.8B.
                You are extremely optimistic on this compared to me.
                I do hope you are right, and the contraction the population can be ‘manageable’, and pick up steam quick.

             4. Population growth is now being driven by survival rates, not birth rates — it’s more and more old people instead of more and more young people. If someone finds a miracle cure for aging, we will all starve to death. If not, the rich world plus China will be a giant old folks’ home by 2050, and the world’s economic focus will be on Africa.

                1. alim, I think you are seeing the effects of a rate change in birth rates not an increase in longevity, which is about the same as it was. The birth rate has been falling so there is a large group of older people compared to young. Global birth rate has halved since the 1950s. That is why the population is “aging”.
                   Don’t fret nature has a built in way of reducing longevity, it’s called viruses.

                2. You can see a graphical demonstration of population at this site: https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/world-demographics/

                   Here is another great graphical visualization of the fantasy world of over 10 billion people in the future.
                   https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2020/

                   The current global population 65 and over is about 10 percent. Even in the fantasy world of continued growth that population would only be 20 percent or less by 2080.
                   Not an emergency, not even near a reality.

                   Considering that with healthy eating people are quite able into their 70’s, the only ones needing physical care will be those very near their end of life, a few percent.

                   The hyper-medicated, overweight, industrial food eaters will disappear in the near future. Thin is in and the science is building fast against the industrial food and animal farming industry. The medical industry is in for big changes too.

                3. Hickory & Ron, I don’t know if we will manage to feed and house ten billion people. Certainly not with the actual economic and lifestyle model. But at least population growth is coming to an end – and that’s certainly positive. The best visualization of that fact is done by Hans Rosling, I very much recommend to watch this video:

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

                   This second video you might only watch for a few minutes after 3:40 :

                   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI

                4. WTFC, I have seen both videos, the first one several times. I agree with both videos with one objection. In the second video, he says that early population growth was controlled by death. But as we approach 11 billion people the population will be controlled by life.

                   The latter is true but only in developed countries. Go here:
                   Fertility rate by country

                   For the first 40 countries on this list, those with a fertility rate from 4 to 7, the population is still controlled by death. That is, as far as it is controlled at all. Their population is still growing exponentially.

                   But all this misses the point. Every day we are lowering the human carrying capacity of the earth. We are already way past the long term carrying capacity of the earth. And as we approach 11 billion, as shown in your videos, we will be passed the short term carrying capacity of the earth.

                   The population of the earth continues to increase as the carrying capacity continues to decrease. When they cross, that will mean we passed the short term carrying capacity of the earth. At that time, death will retake control of population growth. And the population will begin to decline.

                5. Life expectancy drops for third year in a row
                   https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-life-expectancy-drops-third-year-row-reflecting-rising-drug-overdose-suicide-rates-180970942/

                6. Hightrekker, your article says the life expectancy drop is caused by drug use and suicides. That is true but there are a lot of places where malnutrition is a major cause of death, especially in children.

                   We have simply overrun the carrying capacity of the earth. The life expectancy will continue to drop as there will be less and less food for more and more people.

                7. Ron, I doubt the problem is food – the problem is meaning. People can have a relatively good life with limited consumption (theoretically, there’s enough food for 10 or 11 billion people). So Hightrekker’s article might be directly connected to the problem.

                   I do not doubt that about one to two billion people on this planet would be a fine number, and most probably sooner or later we will have some kind of cataclysm. But I doubt it will be all or nothing. I still see a margin to land this wrecked civilization on safe ground.

                8. We have simply overrun the carrying capacity of the earth.
                   Bingo!
                   We have a winner—–

32. Beware the allure of green policies

    “There are, of course, many problems with this – not least that the UK needs the rest of the world’s economies to continue burning fossil fuels if it is to have any chance of success. As I have pointed out many times, there are simply not enough recoverable resources on Earth to allow a global green new deal. As such, a British or western green new deal would be a final act of imperialism; removing the last resources from the developing world in order to provide the UK with at least some energy in a post-fossil fuel world. If – as is far more likely – all of the western economies embark on some version of a green new deal, then competition for the last of the resources will drive prices high enough to stop all in their tracks.”

    TechGuy:

    “…there will be limits to cost reduction for EV’s. The bottleneck with be the batteries, since Lithium batteries are become more widely used and production constraints originate with the raw materials (ie sourcing Cobalt). Lithium battery recycling still costs 5 times more than new mined raw materials.

    EV sales will peak with the next pending recession. Already Tesla is running into financial problems. I think Manufacturers will eventually ditch EVs and focus on Hybrids which are much easier to sell, and don’t have the same limitations & technical challenges.

    My best guess is that there will be another global recession starting between this fall and 2020. After 2022, thats when the industrialized world will begin to face the demographics wall as boomer retirement taxes Pensions, entitlements & healthcare funding. The West never funded pensions & entitlements and funding existing retirees becomes more difficult month by month. not a week goes by without an article about a failing pension fund.

    Once the recession hits, car sales will fall if not collapse. It will be much more difficult for a world wide recovery (we barely recovered from the 2008-2009 crisis).”

33. For those who are interested,
    the new v13 Lazard levelized cost of energy, and v5 levelised cost of storage analysis
    reports are out [Nov 2019]

    Energy-
    https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-130-vf.pdf

    Storage-
    https://www.lazard.com/media/451087/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-50-vf.pdf

    1. At first glance wind and solar are now deeply competitive in the energy market. However, the economists need to start to take into account the costs beyond direct capital costs and start dealing with the real world, before the real world is metamorphed into a fully diminished world.
       Accounting for destruction and harm to the resident life forms and the land base would be a start. They could also include effects on food and water (for all creatures). I know they would be too conservative at first but without a start they are just wandering around in a money machine world that only exists in their heads, if at all.

       1. How do you place a value on a species, or a stream, or silence?

          Can you teach a human to place these things in higher regard than possessions or profit?

          How do put you put numbers on that?

          1. “How much is nature worth? $125 trillion, according to this report”
             https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/this-is-why-putting-a-price-on-the-value-of-nature-could-help-the-environment/
             So I guess given $125 trillion we could replace nature with industrial products and systems.

             Silence is golden so it is worth about $1400 an ounce.

             Apparently our culture is so detached from reality it avoids it at all costs.

             “If your homeland were invaded by aliens who cut down the forests, poisoned the water and air and contaminated the food supply, would you resist?”

             — Derrick Jensen

             The answer is a resounding no, as long as the aliens gave us money and trinkets in return for our planet. Space-X doing Trade-X.

             How much is a forest worth? Nothing at all. However wood pellets and lumber are worth money. Cleared ground to grow soybeans to feed cattle to be killed and eaten is worth money. Dead swamp mush from the Carboniferous era is worth money but the living soil and forest on it is not.

             Apparently reducing CO2 emissions causes forest loss:
             https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RP-jYDgiMg

             “Can you teach a human to place these things in higher regard than possessions or profit?” Some humans must have been like that already since a large portion of the US is set aside as parks and protected forests. Something like a half million square miles. Of course they have no value since they are protected from the market by governments.
             Maybe someone should start a research project and publish papers on this tendency to protect and cherish the world versus extraction and destruction for profit.

             I think the real question to be asked is ” Do humans have any positive value in the natural system on this planet?”

             1. Do humans have any positive value in the natural system on this planet?

                I think the answer is a resounding no. Case in point; Chernobyl when humans left.

       2. So, GF based on your response to the Lazard reports, you find their work irrelevant?

          I find the results very extremely useful in support of the notion that a transition away from heavy carbon emitting energy production is a viable and affordable route to go.
          Remember, most voters and policy makers have not digested this message yet.
          I know of no other source that gives such a real world ‘levelized’ economic analysis of the various options.
          I applaud them and the effort.

          Of course it does not cure overall environmental destruction. The only real cure for that is less people (measured in billions). That aspect of the discussion they have no levelised report chapter for. That is for others- have at it please.

          1. I find the report woefully incomplete and erroneous. Economic analysis, as it is currently formed, does not deal with reality. Corporate interests do not align with the common good, often just the opposite.
             Hickory, you think vastly underestimating the total costs of fossil fuel driven systems is good? What in this report will cause a major reduction in fossil fuels within ten years or less instead of the current growth that is happening.
             .

             1. I don’t think you understand the scope of their work, at all.
                Or just don’t want to.
                Its how you prefer to roll.
                Roll on.

                1. My lack of understanding???? Maybe you could explain this great gap of knowledge you think I have. If you can, I will happily add to my knowledge. I am all ears and will not even comment further on this if you feel more comfortable that way.

34. Two stories from reneweconomy.com.au, the first of which does not quite match a lot of the articles Doug has been bringing to our attention. It appears many of the articles Doug has cited are outlining projections while these two stories deal with what is actually happening on the ground.

    Analysis: Global coal power set for record fall in 2019

    Global electricity production from coal is on track to fall by around 3% in 2019, the largest drop on record. This would amount to a reduction of around 300 terawatt hours (TWh), more than the combined total output from coal in Germany, Spain and the UK last year.

    The analysis is based on monthly electricity sector data from around the world for the first seven to 10 months of the year, depending on data availability in each country.

    The projected record is due to…

    Record falls in developed countries, including Germany, the EU overall and South Korea, which are not being matched by increases elsewhere. The largest reduction is taking place in the US, as several large coal-fired power plants close.

    A sharp turnaround in India, where coal power output is on track to fall for the first time in at least three decades.

    A flattening of generation growth in China.

    The main counteracting force is from continuing increases in coal generation in south-east Asia, but demand from these countries is still small relative to the global total.

    The global decline means an economic hit for coal plants due to reduced average running hours, which are set to reach an all-time low.

    The record drop also raises the prospect of slowing global CO2 emissions growth in 2019. Nevertheless, global coal use and emissions remain far higher than the level required to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

    Renewable generation in U.S. is set to surpass coal in 2021 for first time

    It now seems likely that annual renewable energy generation in 2021 will surpass coal-fired output in the U.S. for the first time.

    Recent trends for coal, which has been rapidly declining, and for renewables, which have been rapidly growing, indicate that by 2021 power-generation totals for both will run at least neck-and-neck, and the odds favor renewables.

    The balance, it turns out however, will be affected by unpredictable factors, such as weather and changes in public policy, but coal and renewables are rapidly headed in opposite directions in terms of market share.

    If the crossover point doesn’t occur in 2021, it will without a doubt do so by 2022.

    1. I used to think most or nearly all of us, worldwide, would die hard due to overshoot, and that civilization as we know it today would collapse.

       There’s plenty of reason to believe that the hard core doomers are right.

       But over the last few years, I’ve come to believe that there’s a reasonable possibility that some of us, maybe even a lot of us, will pull thru the overshoot crisis while still enjoying most or all of the things that make life so easy today, from food in supermarkets to grid juice to cops on the street.

       The nature of a population collapse is such that it’s almost sure to be regional in a species so widely distributed as our own. When the population crashes in any given area, this lets some steam out of the pressure cooker.

       I don’t really have any idea how low the world population can go while still leaving enough people in places such as the USA and Western Europe to maintain our existing industrial infrastructure, but I’m personally convinced that a couple of hundred million people is enough to maintain any and all the industries necessary to preserve a dignified and sustainable modern life style.

       We don’t need jets but we do need refrigerators.

       1. I believe Asia has a bit of industry. Maybe they can join the survivin’ in style club too.

          1. We don’t need a whole lot of STYLE to survive and live well.

             Collapse due to overshoot may be abrupt and world wide, and everybody who survives may be forced back into a preindustrial life style.

             But I believe collapse is far more likely to be regional than global.

             If I’m right, some people in some places have at least a fair chance of pulling thru and maintaining an industrial civilization.

    2. islandboy, please note — this is not a projection. ?

       GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS AGAIN BREAK RECORDS

       Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases once again reached new highs in 2018. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the increase in CO2 was just above the average rise recorded over the last decade. Levels of other warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have also surged by above average amounts. Since 1990 there’s been an increase of 43% in the warming effect on the climate of long lived greenhouse gases.

       And, “There is no sign of a slowdown, let alone a decline, in greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere despite all the commitments under the Paris agreement on climate change.”

       https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50504131

       1. And, islandboy, these are NOT projections. At least I don’t throw the phrase “exponential growth” around — like some people I know! ?

          In 2016-17, Australia exported over 52 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG), more than double the 25 million tonnes exported two years earlier (2014-15).

          “Producing and exporting LNG is driving dramatic growth in Australia’s greenhouse gas pollution. The growth of LNG exports has also led to rising and increasingly volatile gas prices here in Australia. There are currently seven LNG production plants in Australia. By 2020, Australia will be operating ten LNG production plants and potentially exporting more than 80 million tonnes of LNG per year.”

          https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/australia-worlds-largest-gas-exporter/

          1. Doug, thanks for showing the march of fossil fueled corporate greed across the planet. It’s now a race by the greedy to push ecosystem failures to increase profits.

             1. Indeed, even Norway won’t meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement, hammered out in 2015, even though it was viewed, even then, as shielding its oil industry. The country had committed itself to cutting 40 percent of the emissions generated in 1990, with a goal of emitting just under 31 tons in 2030. Skeptics, like myself, applauded the goals but kept wondering how such cuts could be made, and how the country could adhere to its goals, when the government continued to grant licenses for more oil exploration and production. Now the government’s own calculations indicate Norway will still be generating carbon emissions of 45 million tons in 2030 — way over the agreed amount. My niece, a Norwegian petroleum engineer (and environmentalist), insists the last drop of oil and cubic meter of gas will be extracted from the North Sea. Meanwhile, neither Labor nor the Conservatives are willing to halt oil exploration or limit oil production to significantly bring down emissions.

                1. As they said in the old West “Dang, we’ve been hornswoggled!”

                2. The only thing to hope for is a smooth glide path such that the depletion of fossil fuels limits the amount of CO2 emissions.

                   That would be some plan, if a creator existed. Give humankind *almost* enough to completely foul things up.

35. Malaysia’s last female Sumatran rhino dies marking the extinction of the species in its native homeland.

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/malaysia-s-last-female-sumatran-rhino-dies-20191125-p53dyw.html

    1. Humans value palm oil more.

       1. Join the resistance, eliminate oils from diet and purchases.

    2. I can’t even imagine how much that one’s horn is worth.

       1. They should taxidermy the last two of every species known to be the end of the line and open a museum of human folly with them.

36. New posts

    http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-november-25-2019/

    http://peakoilbarrel.com/permian-basin-bakken-three-forks-and-eagle-ford-net-volume/

Comments are closed.