181 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum December 16”

  1. Interesting to see power stats from the sales side in addition to other aspects that get discussed here regularly.

    US Demand for Electricity Declined in 2019 & Stagnated for a Decade, but 2020 Capacity Additions Are Wild
    by Wolf Richter • Jan 15, 2020 • 92 Comments

    Electricity sales in the US isn’t exactly a high-growth business. In 2019, total electricity sales (in gigawatt hours) to ultimate customers are estimated to have fallen; through the first 10 months, according to the EIA’s latest Electricity Monthly, total electricity sales declined 2.9% from the same period in 2018. The only sector to which electricity sales increased – and just by 0.6% – was transportation, a tiny sector covering subways and other electric mass-transit systems. Sales to the other sectors fell, in order of magnitude of the sector: residential (-2.4%), commercial (-2.0%), and industrial (-4.8%).

    In terms of annual sales of electricity to ultimate customers from 2008 through 2019, an image of stagnation emerges. Based on the full-year 2019 estimate, electricity sales in gigawatt hours over the 11 years from 2008 through 2019 ticked up only 0.6%, interrupted by some bigger increases and declines in between
    https://wolfstreet.com/2020/01/15/us-demand-for-electricity-declined-in-2019-stagnated-for-a-decade-but-2020-capacity-additions-are-wild/

    1. Capacity is growing and capacity factor is falling. Coal used to be sold as 24×7 “base load”, but the actual output is now under 60% of capacity in the US.

    2. If we are smart, both total energy and electric generation will decrease going forward.

  2. Some people advocate , either overtly or through inaction, sticking with the current sources of energy.
    The story goes that as the coal and oil deplete, we (7.8 billion on a trend to 9-10 B) will just use less.
    Whether or not we are ready for it.
    And that is exactly what will happen.
    Check back in 30 years. Mark my words.
    And the forests that still stand today, will largely been have been cut bare for their btu’s over that timeframe. People will say- ‘this is where the Congo used to be’, just as Europe used to be a grand forest.
    And by 30 years the CO2 concentration will be over 480 ppm, likely closer to 500.

    I don’t know if being extremely proactive has any strong chance of slowing this train.
    Depletion eventually will. It will take decades to play out.
    ‘Play’ is the wrong terminology.

    Please feel free to say nothing in response. Meant as food for thought only (as always).

    1. I think you are correct. If you search on social media such as Twitter for the hashtag #RCP85 this is exactly the discussion that is going on between climate scientists and energy analysts. The climate scientists created a projection of FF usage that appears to be on the high side (in retrospect) and called it RCP 8.5 (for representative concentration pathway). The energy analysts are saying that this amount of FF consumption is not likely under the BAU situation, mainly because of what I think are depletion constraints but others think has to do with a general trend toward more competitive renewables.

      For some reason many climate scientists are peeved by others pointing this out, even though it will have the same consequences in terms of forcing people to move off of FF.

      But maybe not in cutting down all the forests.

      Example of a climate scientist getting peeved:

      JFC. Is RCP85 back? Everyone talking about this: get a life. Everyone — and I mean EVERYONE — understands the limitations of any particular emissions scenario exercise.— Andrew Dessler (@AndrewDessler) November 29, 2019

      1. Paul, at what level of GHG emissions does the planetary temperature start to get lower?

        1. Another question is whether ocean and the land ecosystems will continue removing roughly half of the CO2 emitted by human activities. Because, without these sinks, the atmospheric CO2 increase would already be above 500 ppm. All models seem to agree that climate change will reduce carbon storage, primarily owing to enhanced organic decomposition in soils. Further, a warmer ocean will dissolve progressively less CO2, thus leaving more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere.

          THE OCEAN CANNOT ABSORB MUCH MORE CO2

          https://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/the-ocean-cannot-absorb-much-more-co2-4990

          1. Yes, warm waters do not hold as much gas as cold waters. The surface (where the exchange occurs) temperature is generally much warmer than the temperature at depth.
            Another key factor is water vapor increase in the Arctic regions which cause greater downwelling long wave radiation all year.

            Jennifer Francis, A New Arctic Feedback
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_EzF4k9_QY

            1. In our published analysis, the roughly half of CO2 that gets absorbed is a consequence of diffusional movement of CO2 into the ocean. This value of 1/2 is well-known from studies of one-dimensional diffusion across a plane. Since diffusion is nothing more than a random walk, what happens is that 1/2 of the CO2 molecules will walk deeper into the ocean while the other 1/2 will walk toward the surface (and thus back into the atmosphere), so that the bulk of the CO2 is held in a kind of half&half suspended animation and no-man’s land of wandering back and forth between the ocean and atmosphere.

              Since the ocean is a huge potential sink for CO2, this value of 1/2 will likely continue for thousands of years and it explains why the earth’s temperature will not change for awhile even if FF emissions are turned off tomorrow.

              Bottomline is that this is the physics and chemistry of a gas that does not easily condense or permanently sequester.

            2. Are you attempting to describe an equilibrium state or a half-life process?

            3. With diffusion, the concept of a half-life does not exist. Half-life only has a meaning in the concept of an exponential decline, whereas diffusion has a non-exponential fat-tail.

              It’s a very slow process toward equilibrium. The math is exactly the same as used for characterizing planar doping profiles in manufacturing silicon chips. Don’t predict that dopant diffusion precisely right and the circuits won’t work.

            4. That is nice, but the equilibrium is shifted toward the atmosphere with increasing ocean temperature, thus providing less of a sink.

            7. Yes, warm waters do not hold as much gas as cold waters.

              CO2+H2O↔H2CO3↔ H++HCO3-

              So, why the oceans cannot absorb much more CO2 ?

      2. Hi Paul.
        My comment about the residual forests being cut,
        is what I think will happen as a fall back source of energy once fossil fuels become unaffordable to the average person, in the period before populations begin to decline, ie the next 50 years.
        The only stop gap to this scenario will be renewable energy sources,
        if they can be deployed rapidly and widely.
        Otherwise its coal and wood.

        1. Currently biomass is providing about 65% of the global renewable energy. Most of the rest is hydropower.

          1. Good point.
            Many people and agencies project much higher biomass energy production over the next three decades.
            To me, this appears to a great tragedy already,
            essentially sterilizing huge tracts of fertile and verdant forests and mixed grasslands, to produce a single species at factory like monoculture operations, that can be processed and oxidized for a portion of the suns energy that the vegetation collected.
            [this relates to my comment about the congo earlier]

            1. The importance of simple, cheap highly efficient technology such as rocket stoves and old style wind driven well pumps should not be dismissed. High tech might work in high tech regions but most people cannot afford it and have no parts and maintenance availability in their area.

              Here are some low and higher tech solutions for the couple billions of people that think 10 dollars a day is good money.
              71 percent of people make less than that.
              3 billion live on less than $2.50 per day.

              https://mashable.com/2016/10/17/poverty-innovations/
              Once in a while high tech can be much cheaper and better, but that is rare and often not produced.
              https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution

            2. “The importance of simple, cheap highly efficient technology such as rocket stoves and old style wind driven well pumps should not be dismissed.”

              Indeed! The ones that work well should receive great attention, and funding.
              Rocket stoves are awesome-
              https://homesthetics.net/rocket-stove-plans/

              And my favorite- bicycles.

  7. Abstract. Global surface temperature in 2019 was the 2nd highest in the period of instrumental measurements in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. The rate of global warming has accelerated in the past decade. The 2019 global temperature was +1.2°C (~2.2°F) warmer than in the 1880-1920 base period; global temperature in that base period is a reasonable estimate of ‘pre-industrial’ temperature. The five warmest years in the GISS record all occur in the past five years, and the 10 warmest years are all in the 21st century. Growth rates of the greenhouse gases driving global warming are increasing, not declining.

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2020/20200115_Temperature2019.pdf

      1. 51 percent of the “Not sure” “Don’t know”

        Who would have guessed?

    1. From your (depressingly heart-rending) link:

      “Global warming and its disastrous consequences are now truly with us since the second part of 2019. At the moment a change in the weather has given parts of the country respite from raging fires, some of which are still burning or smoldering, waiting for another warm spell to flare up. The danger zones include the Australian Capital Territory, from where these lines are written. To date, 18.6 million hectares (186,000 square kilometers) were burnt, including native forests, native animals, homesteads and towns, and 24 people died. The firestorms betray harbingers of a planetary future, or a lack of such, under ever rising temperatures and extreme weather events inherent in fossil fuel driven global warming.”

      1. Add to that the annual deliberate and “accidental” poisoning plus other means of eradication of trillions of plants and animals each year.

      1. ‘the revolution will not be televised’
        but the extinction will…

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnJFhuOWgXg
        “You will not be able to stay home, brother
        You will not be able to plug in, turn on and drop out
        You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip
        Skip out for beer during commercials…”

        1. I saw Gil Scott-Heron perform this is a small club in Hollywood in the 1980’s.

          1. Ah, life with Hightrekker… 😀

            So what of that electric bike, BTW? Any news?

            (Listened to Gil while typing that. Sometimes you have to put something on, get into a flow, then then type something.)

            FWIW, next in YT’s sequence is ‘We almost Lost Detroit’– listening to this as I type…

            I think Detroit has gotten kind of lost but maybe is slowly being found again.

  9. The (almost) totally taboo topic that is rarely discussed:

    THE BURNING ISSUE OF POPULATION CONTROL

    “The human population has doubled since 1960 and currently stands at 7.7 billion. The United Nations estimates that it will continue to 9.8 billion by 2050. While the world’s resources are certainly limited, highlighting the link between climate change and fertility rates in poor countries fails to confront the deep systemic issues that have driven mass ecological damage, says Distinguished Professor of Public Health and Medical Anthropology at Wits University, Lenore Manderson.”

    https://phys.org/news/2020-01-issue-population.html

    2. Interesting that Limits to Growth shows increasing fertility rates as energy and resources fall. Seems to delay the population fall.

    3. Once fossil fuels dry up medicine will decline and chronic disease and infectous deaths will rise.

      1. No, there will always be some oil left in the ground. Only a very tiny percentage of oil goes to make medicine. There will be that tiny amount left for hundreds of years. At a price of course.

      2. info,

        It is like Ron wrote. And because of that, also a rather small percentage of future algae oil production would be sufficient.
        The increase of diseases and (infectious) deaths could be the consequence of declining crude oil production for other reasons.
        For example an economic depression.

    1. The Paris Agreement is now impossible to achieve no matter how much the global left continues to push it. Adaptation is required instead. Humans will always adapt to changing conditions but the issue here will be money. Who will fund about 100 poorer countries in efforts to provide green technology and repair property and economic damage related to climate change? High-ranked people at the UN, the EU, and international bodies will discuss nebulous concepts of climate justice, emissions and global inequality but there will be no international agreement on anything. For there is little profit to be gained in sending unlimited cash to the UN or directly to developing countries.

      2. People aren’t going to like hearing it SBB, but a betting man might put a lot of chips on the scenario you portrayed.

        “Adaptation is required instead. Humans will always adapt to changing conditions but the issue here will be money. Who will fund about 100 poorer countries”

        I ask you two questions
        First, adaptation means making some real hard and expensive decisions, such as withdrawing from huge tracts of coastal and river valley lowlands, for example. Everything in the FEMA designated floodzones will be at much higher risk. That includes a lot of critical infrastructure. Davenport Iowa, Newport Naval Station, Houston ship channel industries. All of it has be moved uphill 10-20 feet. Question- will people be ready to accept your idea about ‘adapting’ before 7 trillion bucks in losses. or just after?

        Secondly, it seems to me we should be asking where will the money for “efforts to provide green technology and repair property and economic damage related to climate change?” come from, not just for ‘poor’ countries, but for ‘unpoor’ ones like the USA. [USA debt over $22Trillion now]? Are on the brink of a vast hidden bipartisan green infrastructure bill that I have not heard of?

    1. For the record- I am not on board with these schemes, from E. Musk or anyone.
      Although if he could commit to offloading about 7 Billion people to Mars in short order,
      it would perk my interest.

      1. Yeah, a million would be 0.01% of the population.

        Also, it’s hard for for me to see how this makes any sense. If living space is the problem, settling Antarctica or the Sahara Desert would make more sense, because those places are much more appropriate for human habitation. If space isn’t the problem, what problem is he trying to solve?

        Maybe we could send all the billionaires to Mars to set up a Libertarian paradise. But who would patch the leaks in the dome? They might tax cut themselves out of existence.

        1. Elon is trying to solve the problem of a yet-to-be-seen big rock hitting Earth and taking out anyone who’s NOT off-planet. As a two-planet species, our odds of survival are higher, and it would be nice if we could get off to a head start on that.

          1. Why not just detect and divert large asteroids rather than allowing them to hit?
            Oh, forgot that the First Extermination Event is in progess.

          2. Were we supposed to have condos and cottages on Mars and taking, by fusion propulsion, casual trips there on the weekends by now? What’s the Two-Planet holdup?

          3. Mars fails to solve that problem for 99.99% of the population, even by Musk’s ambitious plan.

            Pure elitism, with the lucky few on Mars.

            Or maybe it’s some sort of Fascism where the fate of the race is more important than the fate of individuals.

            Or maybe it’s just sophmoric bullshit, engineers solving non-existent problems. Kinda like the Linux Desktop or something.

            1. “…, with the lucky few on Mars.”

              If living on Mars would be considered lucky,
              well, its game over.
              No more words warranted.
              No prayer, no songbird.
              No cosmic wind rustling dead leaves.
              Silence.

            2. “They might tax cut themselves out of existence.” ~ alimbiquated

              Martian tax haven.

  13. An interesting stat that I was not aware of, but I did suspect it.

    Democrats ‘far outnumber’ Republicans in social sciences

    Findings may not be surprising for some, but study of US universities has raised questions about whether there is political bias among academics

    October 3, 2016

    By Colleen Flaherty for Inside Higher Ed

    In any US election cycle, there are bound to be references – some of them disdainful – to “liberal academia”. A new study is sure to elicit a least a few more such references, finding that social scientists who are registered to vote skew overwhelmingly as Democrats – 11.5 for every one Republican at top universities, to be exact.

    The study, published online by Econ Journal Watch, considered voter registration data for faculty members at 40 leading US institutions in economics, history, communications, law and psychology. Of 7,243 professors in total, about half are registered. Some 3,623 are Democrats while just 314 are Republicans.

    Economists are the most mixed group, with a ratio of 4.5 Democrats for every Republican. Historians as a group are the most lopsided, at 33.5 to one; the paper attributes this to the rise of specialisations such as gender, culture, race and the environment. (Some classify history as one of the humanities disciplines.) Lawyers are 8.6 to one and psychologists are 17.4 to one, while communications scholars, including journalism professors, are 20 to one.

      1. People who are drawn towards the search for truth,

        and willing to use their mind as free-thinking people
        and who are brave enough to challenge the edicts of fundamentalism,
        tend to identify with the policies of the democratic party in much greater numbers than republican.

        Freedom is wasted, if you don’t use the opportunity to get out of the box they have put you in.

      2. “Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water.”
        — Albert Einstein

  14. Nice to see a country with all those shiny new EVs, EVs powered by hydro no less, moving away from fossil fuels. There’s just one small problem…

    HUGE NEW FIELD SENDS NORWAY’S OIL PRODUCTION TO 9-YEAR-HIGH

    “The start-up of the massive Johan Sverdrup oilfield sent Norway’s oil production rising to a nine-year high in December 2019, beating the authorities’ forecast by 12.7 percent. In December 2019, the third month of operation of Equinor’s Johan Sverdrup oilfield in the North Sea, Norway’s oil production averaged 1.759 million barrels per day (bpd), the highest oil production offshore Norway since January 2011.”

    https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Huge-New-Field-Sends-Norways-Oil-Production-To-9-Year-High.html

    1. Is there going to be a repeat of this “I HATE NORWAY!!!” every thread? How is it relevant to anything?

      Its just one of these Breitbart memes which dodges logical discussion in favor of finger pointing. It’s very typical on the right wing of the political spectrum to eschew system analysis and search for solutions in favor of looking for a guilty party. Right wingers see the world in terms of human conflict, and don’t really understand economics, ecology etc. See Ron’s remarks about the preponderance of Democrats in social sciences.

      For example, when AIDS came up in the late seventies, Democrats started talking about epidemiology, and Republicans loudly claimed that gays were the “bad guys” (to borrow a Pentagon phrase) and that the were being punished by Jesus.

      1. “Is there going to be a repeat of this “I HATE NORWAY!!!” every thread? How is it relevant to anything?”

        What the fuck are you talking about? I love Norway, it’s my home away from home. I’m merely pointing out what Norwegians themselves refer to as the Norway Paradox, being green on one level and living rich off the avails of fossil fuels on the other. If I repeat it, it’s because it’s an ongoing dichotomy that applies to most First World countries, something you clearly don’t understand.

        Spurred by subsidies, the Norwegian oil company Equinor is currently chasing new oil and gas fields in the Arctic. Nearly all supply is destined for export — and to show up in the carbon emissions of countries that burn Norwegian oil and gas. Peter Erickson, a senior scientist with the Stockholm Environment Institute, a research organization, found that emissions from Norway’s oil exports this year will be 10 times as much as Norway’s domestic carbon emissions. “Norway has set out to be a global leader in climate action, yet continued expansion of oil and gas production could eclipse the benefits of Norway’s domestic emission reduction efforts.”

        What part of this don’t you understand? BTW, half my family is composed of Norwegians so don’t accuse me of hating them, or Norway itself, which I consider one of the most advanced and civilized countries in the world, a country with an advanced education system.

        1. Lots of people hate their own families and their ways. Untold millions have turned their backs on their homeland forever.

          For example, you’d be amazed how many Bulgarians, Ukrainians and Russians there are in Western Europe who have nothing good to say about their home countries. I also know Russians from Tajikistan and Germans from Kazakhstan who absolutely will never go back, except maybe to a family funeral.

          In short, your connection to Norway proves nothing.

          The fact is that, apropos to nothing, you are accusing all Norwegians of being hypocrites.

          1. Another relevant thought: production is less important than consumption. Norway is leading the way in reducing their FF consumption, which cleans up their environment, helps the rest of the world’s environment, and helps develop and reduce costs for low-carbon tech which helps adoption in the rest of the world.

            I don’t care of tobacco farmers produce – I just care if tobacco sellers lie to their consumers about addiction and health effects. I don’t care if pharma sells opioids – I just care if they lie about addiction. I don’t care if oil companies and oil exporters produce – I just care that if they lie about climate change, pollution, etc.

            So, that’s the difference between Norway and other producers, like the US, Australia, KSA, etc: Norway taxes domestic oil consumption, incentivizes EVs, saves it’s profits in a fund, and joins international efforts to reduce FF consumption. The rest: not so much.

    3. Doug, is Norway expanding it’s hydropower to compensate for all the EV’s or are they going for efficiencies elsewhere to compensate?

      1. Excellent question and one I haven’t seen asked before. Personally, I doubt it. I do know nearly all that country’s 80 plus terawatt-hours of hydro storage was used by Norwegians rather than there being much sent to the EU. Further, Norway’s 5 million citizens use a LOT of electricity, roughly three times as much per head as their counterparts in Germany. The reason for this is Norwegian heating systems more often than not tend to be electric-powered and the winters in the Nordic country are obviously long. Also, Europe wants Norway to get into the pumped storage business but Norwegians are against this for several reasons so it probably won’t happen. I’ve e-mailed your question to my Niece who might be able to find out though don’t hold your breath for an answer because she is currently on a platform in the North Sea, no doubt working her butt off. BTW some of Norway’s hydro-power plants are very old so upgrading these would no doubt result in a bit more production.

        1. Norwegian heating systems more often than not tend to be electric-powered

          Are these typically simple resistance heat, or are heat pumps common?

          1. My understanding is that over a quarter of households in
            Norway are currently using some form of heat pump.

        2. Norway is involved in the https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/ electric exchange that transfers electricity between countries. Our house uses electricity priced on this (Finland area) and e.g. Last summer’s prices were relatively high due to Norway getting less rain than usually, so price followed… so Norway seems to sell electricity abroad. If I have understood the system properly…

  15. The new Humless LFP battery for the residential market is stackable up to 14 units to 70 kWh.

    “Two million California power customers were affected in 2019 by PG&E cutting electricity supply during high wind blackout periods,” Jakins said. “Electrical utilities in other states are following suit, negatively affecting the U.S. power grid’s reliability record. Our energy storage empowers consumers by reducing the threat of blackouts, helping the public take charge of their relationship with the utility.”

    https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2020/01/humless-introduces-its-own-5-kwh-lfp-battery/

    1. I can tell you from a customers perspective- I have rarely seen an industry so far behind in its ability to meet demand,
      as the energy storage solution providers are here in Calif.
      Its open season for installers/electricians, and those companies who have battery products ready to go.

      ex- Semper Solaris
      offering 120K for electricians , as you can see on their job page
      https://www.sempersolaris.com/careers/

    1. yes, great read,
      especially if you like reality based disaster stories.
      “As it turns out, a big chunk of ice melts fairly slowly – but it can fracture very, very fast.”

  17. Peak vehicle?
    ‘The world’s fossil fuel vehicle sales have continued to freefall in 2019, dropping by around 4.35 million, or some 4.7%, compared to 2018,’ [global]

    And I point out that this is not due to a recession, or some other ‘event’ such as war.

    Could this be the early manifestations of the Osbourne effect on the auto industry?
    If you have not digested this idea, here is a great article laying it out-
    https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/25/the-osborne-effect-on-the-auto-industry/

    1. I don’t see this graph playing out just this way.
      The recovery of global sales after the mid-late 2020’s are unlikely
      to come anywhere close to the current level (about 90 million vehicles/yr).
      60K might be a stretch.

      1. I think that powered bicycles and motorcycles will be the big winners over the next 5 years. There are about one passenger car for every seven people, while about one third of that number in two wheeled motorized vehicles. However the motorized two wheelers are on a growth cycle. 57 million sold in 2017, projected to be 74 million by 2025. Powered mobility is still on the increase.
        On the other hand, according to “World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision” the global population is likely to exceed 8 billion by 2030, about 90% of which is dominated by newly emerging countries. Whereas four-wheel automobiles are difficult to be well accepted in expanding population in newly emerging countries due to too large expenses for purchase, maintenance, and management, two-wheel vehicles have more potential to expand as a new transportation method in those countries because of relatively lower expenses needed.

        https://www.yanoresearch.com/en/press-release/show/press_id/2072

    2. I think the Osborne effect is real in the luxury car market. Combustion engine “supercars” are like $20,000 dollar mechanical watches these days. They are just curiosities, thanks to Tesla.

      Worldwide, China has been responsible for more than all growth in new car sales since about 2005, and the market tanked this year. Also the government is having doubts about overcrowding. Meanwhile Europeans, Americans and Japanese are getting too old to drive.

      Meanwhile the used car market, which is twice the size of the new car market in the US, is getting more and more sophisticated.

      https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/used-cars-new-platforms-accelerating-sales-in-a-digitally-disrupted-market

      Car makers dream of a booming market in the developing world, but much of it is already supplied with used cars. Used European cars flood Eastern Europe, The Middle East and North Africa. Japan exports nearly two million used vehicles a year. The Chinese market is just getting started. It will probably start with used cars from rich Eastern China flowing west to Chinese Central Asia and then to Central Asia.

      Electrification is already making cars mechanically simpler and longer lasting. For example, electronic fuel injection is much more robust than a carburetor. Electronically controlled straight shift transmissions will outlast automatic transmissions. True EVs will last much longer than ICEs. All this adds to the used car market.

      So even without the autonomy thing, a lot of car companies are worried about peak vehicle.

      1. “So even without the autonomy thing, a lot of car companies are worried about peak vehicle.”
        Yes, and rightfully so.
        And the industrialized countries such as S.Korea, Japan,Germany, and to a slighter lesser extent USA, have economies that are heavily dependent on the automobile sector for GDP and jobs. [respectively – 39, 27, 32, and 20% of industrial GDP]
        “If auto manufacturing were a country, it would be the sixth largest economy.”

        1. Industrial GDP is only 19% of US overall GDP, and manufacturing is only 11%. So 20% of 19% is only 4% of overall GDP.

          It’s always valuable to see the larger context.

      2. We are sliding over the net energy cliff. Either vehicles get far more efficient or they will become scarce.

    3. Dennis- any feedback you can offer on the validity of this economic concept would be surely welcome.

        1. Sorry for the vague question.
          I am curious about your take on the idea that global vehicles sales will decline in this decade in part due to customers behavior pattern of delaying purchase while they await a pending newer/better technology- affordable electric cars/trucks in this case.

          The idea is expounded upon in this article-
          https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/25/the-osborne-effect-on-the-auto-industry/

          As noted above, global vehicle sales declined about 4 % last year despite lack of recession. Is the beginning of the trend?
          Thanks.

          1. You’re talking about a familiar economic phenomenon, in which new products cannot be produced quickly enough to replace obsolete products, causing:

            Structural unemployment

            “Structural unemployment is a direct result of shifts in the economy including changes in technology”

            https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/050115/what-difference-between-frictional-unemployment-and-structural-unemployment.asp

            A similar thing happened during the Great Recession/Peak Oil Lite when inefficient and expensive vehicle sales crashed, and efficient smaller vehicles couldn’t be produced fast enough.

            I think the unique thing about the Osborne Company experience is that Osborne announced their new product too soon, and destroyed existing sales unnecessarily. Timing for new tech product announcements is always a big problem for planners. In the other direction, often they announce “vaporware” (non-existent products) to keep people interested when their existing products aren’t competitive.

            This relates to what’s going on with Tesla: larger companies could have squashed Tesla long ago, but they’re afraid of cannibalizing their existing product lines, which are cash cows. Right now almost all EVs are Compliance Vehicles or Halo Vehicles, intended to distract consumers. But in the meanwhile, Tesla is gaining a growing an threatening lead. The big question: how long will they wait to abandon ICEs and really market competitive EVs?

          2. Hickory,

            It might work as you have described, consumer behavior is difficult to predict, in the US perhaps some may be waiting for the Tesla Model Y or the Ford Mustang E. It may also be due to the aging of the OECD population leading to less need for new cars as fewer miles are driven and perhaps the fleet turnover times might increase. Lots of potential variables, a model would require an even greater number of dubious assumptions than I typically make. :).

            Also keep in mind that an EV might last considerably longer than an ICE Vehicle which might also increase the average age of the vehicle fleet over time (if a typical car is used for 20 years instead of 15).

            1. It will be very interesting to see if the global auto sales decline again this year.
              If so, we might call it the beginning of a trend.
              The ramifications will be strong for economies, oil demand, and the whole vehicle industry.

  18. Anybody else notice what’s not correct about the title of this open-thread? :))

  19. Here it is folks. As we fall down the net energy cliff, decisions on how much and what we use become ever more critical. Efficiency and avoidance will are ever more important going from a 100:1 down to a 10:1 (and less) energy world. How we think, then act, will make a huge difference.

    However, the largest energy consumer
    among the process stages is the cost associated with
    electricity production, and our model assumes 43 % power
    plant efficiency, accounting for nearly 94 % of the total
    energy costs of producing electricity from natural gas.
    Defined by process stage, our analysis calculated an
    EROIP&P of 39.7, a EROIP,P&T of 24.9, and an EROIGRID
    of 10.7. The EROIGRID value of 10 is the same as that
    calculated for photovoltaic systems, indicating that shale
    gas, when burned for electricity, provides similar net
    energy benefits to society as an average PV system.
    https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Marcellus-Shale.pdf

    Apparently we should not be using natural gas for power generation at all, or severely limit it’s use. The more efficient uses such as heating will be retained for a while. Domestic and building heating can mostly be curtailed by insulation, better design and use of solar input. Industrial heating is another matter that needs careful examination. Residential and commercial food preparation also needs a careful examination. Pumping energy is already being reduced and as the need for pumping water and fossil fuels diminishes, it will reduce even faster.

      1. Lakrystal Lasha,

        The report of record atmospheric pressure in London comes from Heathrow airport in London. It can be accepted as accurate.

        The company in Hightrekker’s link is not the organization the Wikipedia article you link to is about, Lakrystal. Shall the rest of us assume you’re joking? I’m honestly curious.

  21. Wow, ‘December 16’. Awesome…

    A 97-Year-Old Philosopher Ponders Life and Death: ‘What Is the Point?’
    (video 18:12)

    “In his 1996 book about death, Herbert Fingarette argued that fearing one’s own demise was irrational. When you die, he wrote, ‘there is nothing’. Why should we fear the absence of being when we won’t be there ourselves to suffer it?

    Twenty years later, facing his own mortality, the philosopher realized that he’d been wrong. Death began to frighten him, and he couldn’t think himself out of it. Fingarette, who for 40 years taught philosophy at the University of California at Santa Barbara, had also written extensively on self-deception. Now, at 97, he wondered whether he’d been deceiving himself about the meaning of life and death.”

    My own hypothesis:
    The point of life is about experience/consciousness and where death is its counterpoint, its juxtaposition– at least at an individual level. But then, perhaps the universe can, in a sense, be considered alive (and we are its ‘self-similars’, like little fractal buds).

    This makes me recall Ron’s (Patterson) words something to the effect of the universe being ‘tuned to life’, and also my response that that seemed kind of circular, such as if the universe, itself, is alive– you know; all that material and those forces coming out of nowhere?

    So then maybe let it be so: Let the universe be tuned to itself.

    And seize the day…
    But if you don’t, maybe it will somehow be repeated. ‘u^

    1. Hi Caelan,

      I would have a HIGH opinion of you if you were to stick to philosophy, and leave technical issues to others.

      1. Perhaps you feel that a concern for your opinion and a kind of clamouring for the garnering of a high one, should be top priority on anyone’s list of existential preoccupations, since you are the most worthiest of the worthy for that kind of priority and its resulting bestowal.

  22. SunChips’ Failed Noisy Compostable Packaging Gets The Last Laugh

    Complaints about a compostable chip bag were comical 10 years ago. Now, not so

    Ad campaigns boasted that it could decompose within 14 weeks of being tossed in an active compost pile — lifetimes short of the expected 400 years it would take to break down a similar package made from petroleum-based plastic.

    “I think when that SunChips bag came out, it probably hit the market too soon and the consumers and the industry weren’t ready for it,” said Tony Walker, a biologist and assistant professor at Dalhousie University’s school for resource and environmental studies.

    “I think now people would be more accepting of the noise because public awareness about the impact of traditional plastics is so negative … People are pushing back.”

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sun-chips-compostable-bag_n_5e25f7b6c5b674e44b9c5aab

    1. The problem here isn’t with plastic, for plastics are a net positive for humanity and always will be. The real problem we have is a “people aren’t properly recycling plastic” problem and “people just toss plastic bags and other trash onto the streets” problem.

      1. “plastics are a net positive for humanity and always will be”
        Its hard for me to digest this.
        Perhaps good for people (in many ways), but horrific for the nature on/in which we live.
        Eventually that kind of poison will catch up to any living system, and those within.

  23. https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-documentary/index.html

    Some people, including HB in particular, seem convinced I hate HRC. Not so.Got better things to spend my emotional energy on.

    I have CONTEMPT for her, because she’s always come across as wooden, and has obviously always thought she was ENTITLED, like a princess expecting due to the divine right of kings ( and queens ) to INHERIT the fucking throne.

    The reason Obama came out of NOWHERE, and I do mean NOWHERE, in terms of name recognition and national reputation is that millions and millions of life long Democrats were EAGER to vote for ANYBODY BUT HRC in the D primaries.

    And if she hadn’t had such an old time machine politician’s grip on the levers of power of the D party, she would have had competition for the nomination next time around. Sanders, even being so far left, would have beaten her, in my honest opinion, if he had gotten started earlier and the people on her team had not done just about everything possible to rig the game for her.

    The real core of the D party wanted anybody BUT her again, that core being the best educated of the younger people and the WORKING classes of people who were absolutely fucking SICK of both the D and the R establishment, the D’s taking them for granted and the R’s fucking them over, with the result being that the younger better educated people went for Sanders, and the working people fell for the orangutan outsider propaganda campaign.

    It was all summed up in the end with the remark,”I’m with her, I guess.”

    She lit the fires of some old women, but she didn’t light anybody else’s fire.

    Now she’s showing her true selfish entitlement troubles, believing if Sanders had simply dropped to his knee and tugged his forelock like a good little peasant, she would be president today.

    What other possible explanation could there be for pissing on Sanders the way she is?

    A CYNIC might even come to the conclusion that she would rather see the orangutan in the WH than see Sanders win the nomination and the WH.

    None of this would be to say she wouldn’t have been a fair or even decent president. It’s perfectly obvious she’s a Girl Scout compared to the orangutan.

    1. “None of this would be to say she wouldn’t have been a fair or even decent president.”
      I agree, and that is why I supported her election, despite the shortcomings. Bottom line.

      Beyond that and moving forward, can Bernie win? I need whole a lot of convincing.
      I really like many of the concepts he has supported over the years,
      but do not see that as presidential qualification.

    2. Bernie Sanders is a 1960’s Socialist loser. Who uses the Democratic party for his own personal gain to become president. Then goes back to being an Independent after he loses. Only to change again to run in 2020. Bernie lost to HRC in March of 2016 on Super Tuesday. He than continued to divide the Democratic party for 4 more months running a losing campaign until June. Bernie Sanders is the single largest reason Trump is President today. Bernie is to far left to win the center against Trump and would lose in the general election in November.

      https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-criticizes-bernie-sanders-documentary_n_5e26f2e0c5b674e44b9e2aa2

      “Hillary Clinton gives an unvarnished view of her 2016 Democratic presidential primary opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in a Hulu documentary airing in March, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

      “He was in Congress for years,” she says of Sanders in the documentary, per an interview with THR published Tuesday. “He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”

      She also took aim at Sanders allegedly telling Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) during a 2018 meeting that he didn’t believe a woman could defeat President Donald Trump in 2020. Sanders has denied the exchange ever happened.

      “Well, number one, I think [that sentiment] is untrue, which we should all say loudly. I mean, I did get more votes both in the primary, by about 4 million, and in the general election, by about 3 million,” Clinton said, calling the alleged comments “a very personal attack on [Warren].””

      1. kakistocracy (plural kakistocracies)

        Government under the control of a nation’s worst or least-qualified citizens.
        Hint:
        Clinton is closer to Trump than Sanders.

        1. I mean, I did get more votes both in the primary, by about 4 million, and in the general election, by about 3 million,” Clinton said

          1. Yep, she did get at least 3 million more votes than Trump.
            Hint:
            She did win California by 3 million votes.

            1. Hint: Republicans aren’t interested in democracy and are a religious, racist, gun loving and homophobic cult.

              Don’t understand your point about California. Are you saying it shouldn’t be counted and isn’t part of the United States? Or the electoral college is gerrymandered? Or you believe Trumps nonsense about California illegal voting? Just make your point.

            2. No- I was born in LA in 1948.
              Not really into reformist politics, as it is much too late, if you are paying even minor attention.
              I was just pointing out, if one illuminates CA vote, Trump is very competitive (which points to the political illiteracy in the US).

      2. I would not like Sanders to win the Democratic nomination because he is not a Democrat. If he wants to start his own party, fine, but I would not vote for a presidential candidate without at least several senators and congressmen.

      3. “Bernie is to far left to win the center against Trump and would lose in the general election in November. ”
        Yes that is my reading of the situation as well, taking into to account the status of the voting public/media. That will be the mantra, and they will say it a thousand times.

        Bernie has a lot of strong enthusiasm among the young in many states.
        The older folks are more pragmatic, as always.
        Its a risky game to play, with so much (Ruth) on the line.

        1. Why should Susan Collins go down for Trump. She could most likely get re-elected if she slayed the dragon.

          1. No, no, no. You simply don’t understand the process. Yes, defying Trump would mean she could probably beat her Democratic opponent in the general election. But to get to the general election she must first defeat any Republican opponent that might challenge her in the primary election. And if she dared oppose Trump that means she would be trounced in the primary, where only Republicans can vote, by her Republican opponent.

            That is why you see so many Republicans kissing Trump’s ass. They know they will get primaried if they don’t. So it’s dammed if they do, (in the primary), and dammed if they don’t, (in the general election).

            1. And dammed if she gets re-elected to the Senate cowing to Trump. The house managers have done an excellent presentation the last two days. Claire McCaskill today predicted Schumer will lead the Senate next year.

            2. Ron,

              Collins will easily win the primary even of she opposes Trump, Trump is not nearly as popular as Collins is in Maine. She is a 4 term Senator, so far nobody even running against her in the Republican primary.

            3. Then what’s her logic for kissing Trump”s ass?

              Remember, only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primary. If she dumped Trump then any Republican could announce his/her candidacy. Trump would come in and call Collins scum, then all the Trumpites would vote for her opponent.

              I think you are grossly underestimating the power Trump holds over his base. They would vote for him, and for anyone that kisses his ass, even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue.

              You are correct, Trump is not that popular in Maine. But he still has that hypnotic effect over his Republican base.

              See my post below. I posted it down there so it would be wide enough to post the chart.

    3. I have CONTEMPT for her, because she’s always come across as wooden, and has obviously always thought she was ENTITLED, like a princess expecting due to the divine right of kings ( and queens ) to INHERIT the fucking throne

      Nice to see good old fashioned Russian brainwashing is still working. The KGB (now rebranded as the GRU) knows its business. And modern Big Data and social media methods make it so much better.

      You can tell it’s brainwashing because nobody really cares about your feelings for HRC, but you have a deep seated urge to tell us all. Reading your stuff is like being buttonholed by a Jesus freak who needs to spread the “Good News”.

      1. It’s annoyingly funny to read you radical-centrists (plus TSLA holders?) grumble about Bernie. He’s polling high and has a good shot at getting the nomination. You can always vote biden/butigieg, or write in Hillary, again, if it will make you feel better and ‘pragmatic’ (boomers).

        1. Hey Lying Troll.
          Your statement did nothing to sell the idea of Bernie being able to get elected in the purple-ish zones.
          Getting the nomination is not getting elected.
          You been around for long?
          I’m guessing not.

      2. alimbiquated,

        Now, now–it’s important to keep these guys straight. “The KGB (now rebranded as the GRU)…” The GRU has been there right along. It’s the military intelligence agency and the largest of them all. The KGB was the State intelligence arm and now exists with some of the same top personnel in two agencies: the SVR (foreign intelligence) and the FSB which is the domestic arm, with both intelligence and counterintelligence duties. They’d correspond roughly to CIA and FBI. The actual picture is as sloppy in Russia as it is here in the US but this outline is correct as far as it goes.

        Time for a little Port.

  24. The big Navajo Coal generating station is being retired.
    The existing transmission line infrastructure will be used for a new proposed big project-
    Pumped hydro storage/generation off-peak 2.2GW
    “The Navajo Energy Storage Station (NESS), as proposed, will rely on solar and wind energy to pump water from Lake Powell into an upper reservoir, and then allow the water to fall over turbines to generate around 10 hours of renewable energy on a daily basis, according to Daybreak. The power will be routed to California, Arizona and Nevada to manage evening and night-time peaks in demand.

    https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200117005017/en/Massive-Battery-Proposed-Retired-Navajo-Coal-Plant

        1. That is $163 per kWh of storage, similar to battery storage.

          I think he really meant $.163 per kWh. that would be 16.3 cents per kWh. That would be about 3.5 cents above the national average.

          October 2019 data, the latest available, show that the average U.S. price of 12.84 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) decreased 2.5 percent compared with a year ago. If you live in Washington, you paid the lowest average residential electricity rates of any state in the country – 9.67 cents per kWh. The next lowest rate is 9.70 cents/kWh in Idaho.

          1. “I think he really meant $.163 per kWh”
            Nope, at that price a Tesla battery would cost about $17 to build. I said “per kWh of storage” not kWh of peak daily production.

          2. Yes “.. really meant $.163 per kWh.” Ron
            this is right in line with the pumped projects range of LCOE that are reported on.
            For comparison, USA average electrical price at retail is 11 cents/kwh,
            and in Calif is roughly 20-27 cents depending on time of use pricing schemes.

        2. I calculated the cost of storage by dividing the cost of build by total storage capacity (from the article) thus dollars per kWh storage.
          You can get into operating costs and replacement costs over time, I just looked at the initial cost.

          1. Here’s a back of the envelope calculation of the amortized capital cost per kWh: divide the $163/kWh by 365 cycles per per year by 10 years per cost-out period: about 4.4 cents per kWh-cycle.

            That includes time-value of money by limiting the cost-out period to 10 years.

            So, you’re shifting power from either the day-time peak solar production period or night time peak wind power production to the evening peak consumption period. If the arbitrage is worth substantially more than 4.4 cents per kWh, you’re gold.

            1. That explains why they are going ahead with it.
              I suspect the Navajo will get a significant slice of the jobs, and feed-in energy production contracts.
              They had a pretty big stake in the coal plant.
              They dominate the population in those parts.

  25. Why are all Republican Senate and House candidates kissing up to Trump? Because they are scared stiff of him. Any Republican that opposes him, he will trash them with his filthy mouth, the way he trashes all Democrats. It’s all about the primary election.

    All voters must register their party affiliation. Only Republicans can vote in the Republican primary, only Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary, and registered Independents can vote in neither primary.

    There is a very good reason that almost every state now has this law. Back in the 60s, anyone, regardless of party affiliation, could vote in either primary. But a very famous case happened in Georgia. Lester Maddox, a restaurant owner, and loud-mouthed segregationists ran for the Democratic nomination for Governor. Many Republicans crossed over and voted for Maddox in the Democratic primary because they thought he would be the easiest one for the Republican to beat. Lester won the primary and later beat the Republican in the general election.

    So most states vowed that would never happen in their state, and passed laws against it. So now only Republicans can vote in the Republican primary. And the vast majority of them are Trumpites.

    Below is a chart of Trump supporters among Republican voters. That is why McSally in Arizona and Collins in Maine are still kissing Trump’s ass. He will have them “primaried” if they don’t.

    Go here to get the chart below as well as a state by state by state historical chart of Trump’s approval rating. Just select the state and get t three year chart for that state.
    Tracking Trump

    The blue is the percentage of Trumpites among all GOP voters.

    1. The support for him baffles me.

      I was raised in a religious and politically conservative household, and although I don’t subscribe to my parents politics or theology, they would have been utterly appalled that a man so obviously devoid of moral character is president.

      They would have taken this scripture seriously, because they were honest adherents of their religion, not hypocrites:

      KJV Bible, Matthew 7:17-18
      17 Even so every good tree bringeth :forth good
      fruit; but a corrupt :tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
      18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither
      can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

        1. Hey man. You callin’ my folks cabbages?

          Them’s fighting words.

          They were kinda more like sun dried tomatoes, with a dash of habanero.

          May they rest in pizza.

      2. “The support for him (Trump) baffles me.”
        I think that republican voters accept trumps extremely poor character and behavior, simply because of a small number of key issues they are hell bent on-
        abortion
        anything that has the word socialism or tax
        anything that talks about ‘regulations’
        anything that talks about immigrants

        damn everything else.
        who cares about a thousand super rich while 80% scrape by maybe, who cares about antipoverty aid to poor mothers and children, who cares about cancer causing agents dumped in to drinking water, who cares about hate crimes and other forms of discrimination, who cares about international treaties and diplomacy, who cares about economic stability on main street more than wall street, who cares abut sustainable domestic energy supplies, for example.
        they are called Democrats, by and large.

        1. The shirts tell it like it is…

          (This is the one I see most frequently when I’m out shopping and in public places.)

          1. Trump said in 2016: I love the poorly educated.

            Those he loved were those that were too dumb to get an education. And they wore stupid tee shirts that advertised their ignorance.

            1. So Ron, your telling me the guys above are the reason Susan Collins can’t do the right thing ?

            2. When I saw how much independent merchandise Trump was generating in 2016, that’s when I knew he would win. Obama generated a lot of merchandise, too, especially in 2008–whereas McCain, Romney, and Hillary Clinton had virtually nothing aside from the traditional signs, buttons, and bumper stickers the campaigns give out. The only 2020 Dem who seems able to generate independent merchandise is Bernie.

          2. Pro life and pro gun on the same T shirt would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad. The country has completely lost its way.

            1. Pro God and Pro Trump on the same shirt seems cognitively dissonant also.

              But maybe not. Guess it depends on which god.

        3. “who cares” – Sen. Susan Collins

          Sen. Susan Collins was “stunned” by Rep. Jerry Nadler’s late-night diatribe this week against what he deemed a “cover-up” by Senate Republicans for President Donald Trump — so much so that she wrote a note to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Collins said she believed the back and forth between House Judiciary Chairman Nadler (D-N.Y.) and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone violated Senate rules and felt compelled to point that out, even though senators are required to stay at their desks and not speak during the trial.

          https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/23/susan-collins-impeachment-note-john-roberts-102826

      3. As best I can tell, it’s the flood of misinformation (aka propaganda) on Fox, Murdoch newspapers, and talk radio.

        Sit almost anyone in front of Fox news for several years, and they’ll be repeating back all sorts of unreal things as gospel.

        1. Yes, the Republican base are actually the victims here. Heavy brainwashing since the 70s has gotten them to vote against their own best interests.

          The Party is screwing them like something out of Animal Farm too. All animals are equal, but pigs are more equal.

          Orwell thought it would take violence, but controlling the media works better. The same phenomenon is spreading all over the world. Berlusconi was a pioneer. Hungary, Poland, Czechia, Turkey, the UK, the US, Brazil and Russia are all following his example.

        2. “As best I can tell, it’s the flood of misinformation (aka propaganda) on Fox, Murdoch newspapers, and talk radio.”
          And a very big one- their church!.

  26. 41 Inconvenient Truths on the “New Energy Economy”

    A few highlights:
    When the world’s four billion poor people increase energy use to just one-third of Europe’s per capita level, global demand rises by an amount equal to twice America’s total consumption

    The small two-percentage-point decline in the hydrocarbon share of world energy use entailed over $2 trillion in cumulative global spending on alternatives over that period; solar and wind today supply less than two percent of the global energy.

    A 100x growth in the number of electric vehicles to 400 million on the roads by 2040 would displace five percent of global oil demand

    Every $1 billion spent on data centers leads to $7 billion in electricity consumed over two decades. Global spending on data centers is more than $100 billion a year—and rising.

    It takes the energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of batteries that can store the energy equivalent of a single barrel of oil.

    A battery-centric grid and car world means mining gigatons more of the earth to access lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, cobalt, etc.—and using millions of tons of oil and coal both in mining and to fabricate metals and concrete.

    https://fee.org/articles/41-inconvenient-truths-on-the-new-energy-economy/

    .

      1. I wouldn’t read too much into that. The amount of liquidity the Fed is pumping into the stock market (every second day, it is hitting new highs) + companies using cheap money for stock buy backs is ridiculous. The amount of market distortion and manipulation is historically off the scale.

        1. Its late stage capitalism—-
          Almost everything is suspect, and created.
          Creative fiction is the business model.

          1. How is late stage capitalism different from early stage capitalism?

            How is John D Rockefeller different from Koch? How is Murdoch different from Hearst?

            1. How is John D Rockefeller different from Koch? How is Murdoch different from Hearst?

              Koch(s) and Hearst are old guys, still resource based.
              Hint:
              automation, globalization, and wage stagnation
              “incidents that capture the tragicomic inanity and inequity of contemporary capitalism. Nordstrom selling jeans with fake mud on them for $425. Prisoners’ phone calls costing $14 a minute. Starbucks forcing baristas to write “Come Together” on cups due to the fiscal-cliff showdown.”

            2. In 1974, I was fascinated with my $20 hand held 4 function calculator and making $2.35 an hour. Today, Costco has Kirkland jeans for $12.99 a pair and $699- 75″ flat screens with a billion channels. High speed internet and gym memberships for exercise.

              Really ?

              BTW, how do you know how much a prison call costs ?

            3. Today, Costco has Kirkland jeans for $12.99 a pair and $699- 75″ flat screens with a billion channels.

              12.99 jeans were made by questionable labor, and I have never had owned a TV, but its the same labor practiced.
              As a rep, I did have an account at Costco that was 80% of sales.
              Prison phone calls? We live in different social worlds—-

            4. Maybe if Nordstrom’s labor didn’t have to pay $14 per minute for a call. They wouldn’t have to charge $425 for jeans.

    3. By 2050, data processing will be the biggest consumer of energy by far. Everything else is shrinking, data processing is growing in leaps and bounds.

    4. GF-
      Is that FEE (your info source on that article)
      a right wing mouthpiece in disguise?
      I ask you in all honesty to examine that.
      I get that sense when I look at it,
      but I could be wrong.

      ex- one of the lead political articles they currently post-
      Reflections on the Failure of Socialism-
      ‘People who read these reflections may wonder how I arrived at the understanding that socialism has failed.’

      I get the impression every one of their articles is a veiled attempt to ease the reader in to republican talking points, such as ‘we better drill drill drill since wind mill noise will give you cancer’

      by the way- I think we all do know that there is ‘no free lunch’, except perhaps for dropping consumption.

      1. Hickory, I fully understand and respect your reluctance to discuss any points that might show renewables as less than the golden child of climate change action. Facts are not political unless one has an agenda. Whether or not other articles from FEE are left or right leaning is not the point. Does this article bring up some valid points to be further investigated or discussed? I really could care less about the political leanings nor does reality.

        Of course maybe a little skepticism is in order. One will never get anything but rose-colored favoritism from the renewable energy zealots who are depending on these systems for huge future profits and for a “quick fix” to carbon emissions.
        Personally, I like to examine things from many “sides” to try and get a realistic picture. It’s nice to fantasize exponential graphs of growth and enough power to run all the air cons, EV’s and coffee makers forever. But is that real and what does it take to get there if it is? What are the ramifications of just pushing a new form of BAU? (spoiler -really bad).

        We are on an energy cliff, going down, yet cannot even have a conversation about how to approach that situation realistically and prepare for it. Global warming will only suck more net energy from society in general just to give us a further challenge. Meanwhile, as people are trying to figure out how to keep the technical system intact, the biosphere is dying.

        Assessment of FEE Overall, we rate The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) Right-Center biased based on left leaning views regarding social issues and far right views pertaining to economics. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting based on not supporting the consensus of science regarding climate change.
        https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foundation-for-economic-education/

        Nope, it’s not a perfect left wing, love the New Energy Deal publication.

        Of course Greentech Media is given a left center bias. VOX is moderate to strongly left biased. And the list goes on.
        So choose what one wants to hear and makes one happy. Or dig down and try to find some reality.

        Meanwhile, I keep pushing things like insulation (80:1), efficiency, life style/system changes and realization that the future is going to be a very different place from now.

        1. GF. You have a point that is certainly true, and well acknowledged in public since the 1970’s. I’ll say it again
          ‘There is no free lunch’.
          Maybe it would useful if you explained it detail for those who might have missed the point. I don’t know if there is anyone like that who reads here.

          Think back about what you focus on so much in your posts- how negative ‘renewable’ energy sources are for the world.
          Over and over.
          Got it.
          Its lesser of various evils in most cases, no miracle.

          2. I find that analyzing arguments from right wing propaganda sources is usually…just not worth the time.

            There are plenty of reputable sources that will provide both sides of the story – there’s no need to go mining for useful information in the garbage heap of right wing sources.

          3. Your cliché philosophy:

            “‘There is no free lunch’ = entitled justification for continued destruction of the living world

            “Its lesser of various evils in most cases” = mentally lazy justification for continued destruction of the living world

            It is a sad life that sees only various evils and does not know how to do good.

  27. From pv magazine.com
    Qatar’s 800 MW tender draws world record solar power price of $0.01567/kWh

    The Qatar General Electricity and Water Corp (Kahramaa) has revealed the 800 MW solar tender concluded last week delivered a final price of QAR0.0571/kWh ($0.016/kWh) – the lowest winning bid ever registered in an auction for large scale renewable energy.

    The utility said the winning consortium, formed by French oil giant Total and Japanese conglomerate Marubeni Corp, had initially submitted a bid of QAR0.0636/kWh.

    Solving seasonal storage with aluminum cycling

    The process, described in the paper Seasonal energy storage in aluminium for 100 percent solar heat and electricity supply, published in Energy Conversion and Management, ‘charges’ by using electricity to convert aluminum oxide or aluminum hydroxide into elemental aluminum. The aluminum, which can be stored safely for any period of time, is discharged by oxidizing it to release hydrogen, heat and aluminum oxide.

    The researchers note the reaction can produce as much as 0.11kg of hydrogen and 4.3 kWh of heat per kilogram of aluminum, ensuring it outperforms the energy density of hydrogen. “With this process, a solid material (Al) is obtained directly and can be stored without losses as long as desired,” reads the paper, “with much less safety concerns than for hydrogen or hydrocarbons.”

    2. What is the round trip efficiency of the aluminum oxide to aluminum process?

      1. It looks like about 30%, which is more than enough for seasonal storage: about 50% for conversion from electricity to aluminum, and about 60% for al to el and heat.

        You want to minimize capex – exorbitant capex is the problem with batteries. This is an asymmetrical problem, where PV power capture happens throughout the year, and is only needed briefly in winter. Most power is used directly or stored briefly in batteries, and only a relatively small portion needs to go through the seasonal storage: so inefficiency is unimportant.

        The same logic applies to Wind-Gas.

          1. That’s a residential system. They have a lot of seasonal problems that don’t apply to larger systems, either industrial/commercial rooftop systems, or utility-scale systems.

            Those problems include maintenance (for instance, larger systems build in access for snow removal), source redundancy (wind and solar are inversely correlated both seasonally and diurnally), system design (both orientation and tracking can be customized to maximize winter production), etc.

            1. Tracking? Optimization? Snow removal?
              The commercial solar farms around have no tracking, are optimized for summer sun input thus get little input during winter and don’t seem to bother with snow removal. Solar farms are optimized for profit.

              Both residential and commercial PV are subject to the same atmospherics, same seasonal solar insolation variations. Steeper roofs are better for winter here in the north and less steep roofs are optimized for summer solar insolation. Commercial ventures (solar farms) use angles closer to the horizontal.
              The insolation variation is more than an order of magnitude greater than gains made by tracking (which causes greater expense, maintenance and lower collector area per area of land).

              As far as wind goes, let’s hear from the Windy City about strength of wind in the winter.
              Winter (December, January, February) and spring (March, April, May) are Chicago’s windiest seasons, with spring being slightly windier. Spring’s average wind speed is 11.7 mph; winter’s average is 11.5 mph. You are correct that it usually feels windier in the winter because it is much colder. Temperature makes all the difference. Summer (June, July, August) averages 9.0 mph and fall (September, October, November) is 10.2 mph.
              http://www.chicagotribune.com/weather/ct-wea-0119-asktom-20160118-column.html
              The spring and summer(high solar insolation) wind speed average is not much different than the fall and winter average (low solar insolation).
              Again the solar insolation variation is the controlling factor in energy not the seasonal wind speed differential.

              In windy regions, wind turbines would proliferate if allowed while in less windy regions PV will have to be the major power source. Moving operations to peak solar time is one way to get around both variability and storage. Blending them together is like conducting a concert as depicted in this video.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k9id6euk94&t=1558s

Comments are closed.