131 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, January 4, 2024”

  1. Doomberg article: “Peak Cheap Oil is a Myth” https://doomberg.substack.com/p/peak-cheap-oil-is-a-myth
    I learnt about doomberg on one of Nate Hagen’s great simplification podcasts. (and I put this in this thread not to derail discussion on the petroleum thread)
    The article’s introduction is free, but reasons are subscriber only on substack (does anyone here subscribe?)
    Seems like a bit is explained in a podcast with Doomberg as the guest “Expect Lower Oil Prices In The New Era Of Abundant Supply” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8hZryPAc20

    Main point I took away is that the definition of oil should be widened! And then there will be plenty of hydrocarbon energy for the next 50+ years (plus that technology will save us lol).

    1. I watched the first three minutes and had to turn it off. It features Adam Taggart talking in a flattering manner to a cartoon bird.

      1. I don’t know Adam Taggart, but Nate Hagens was ok about talking to the cartoon bird too.
        So I just did some quick internet searching on Adam Taggart, and he’s not the kind of content I would normally watch. I was trying to find something of Doomberg’s reasoning without paying 🙂

  2. FAO [Global] Food Price index eased substantially in 2023 (red line)…

  3. Here are some eyes wide open views of where we are now, though I think they all underestimate how deeply into overshoot fossil fuels have allowed us to burrow, plus the non-linear acceleration in warming, both as causes and consequences of extreme events, is now probably moving too fast for anyone to keep up. I don’t see anyone in this field really understanding or addressing evolutionary psychology and what the actual individual and collective human responses are likely to be (e.g. shift to the political right, social media denial etc.):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl-iLt6KdhU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvweVNzQns8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwmygkdoGgc

    Also this (and the other lectures in the series) are really good overviews of global warming. The first twenty minutes is the simplest explanation I’ve heard of how GHGs work (and debunking of denier wave band saturation bullshit).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auq5PLKTA3M

    1. G.Kaplan

      Thank you for the links.

      Right now the Sibiran cold front has moved into the Nordics giving minus 15-20 degrees a lot of places. Some people having second homes in Spain however say that the autumn there have been the warmest in recent history. Extreme weather is something we experience more frequently up here, and it would negate any benefit of higher average temperature. To think the biggest single waste product of the enormous fossil fuel use since the industrial revolution began, would have no impact, is delutional. It is a slow moving beast.

      1. Funny enough, here in Spain the extreme weather feature we had this winter was a very high pressure, very stable anticyclone in the Atlantic that prevented any rainfall. I guess it’s better than a super hurricane, but the draught is starting to be severe here.

  4. On the other last post Hideaway made yet another irrelevant argument- “Dennis, except solar is only 20% efficient. Even the best panels are only 21-22% efficiency, which likely goes below 20% after inverter inefficiencies.
    All sun, wind, coal, gas, oil and uranium is free to humanity as a whole. We build machines to harness these free energy sources.”

    By that kind of measure the efficiency of coal in the process of collecting and storing the suns energy is something less than 1/1000 of 1%.

    Photovoltaics work well enough, and at a price that includes the cost of all energy and material inputs, to be a top three energy deployment source choice for utilities all over the world…except in the lower solar input zones like Europe north of the alps.
    https://globalsolaratlas.info/map

    Hideaway clearly is smart enough to know that his argument is like a building on quicksand. Sad to see him so far down a blind alley path, still laying bricks as if the foundations of arguments are on solid ground.

    1. Generally, you have to think about the efficiancy harnessing the energy, but out of what!
      I too think there were some holes in Hideaway´s reasoning above there, but I´ll rest my case, in this case.
      Addendum: and what you use it for matters too, to a substantial degree.

    2. Hickory, what is relevant is the energy that comes out of a power plant for human use compared to the energy and materials that were put into gathering that energy source..
      A solar panel has ~1000w/m2 go into it from sunshine, and produces electricity at around 200w/m2. That is 20% efficiency..
      A coal power station has coal go into it, for example 1 tonne of thermal coal which has around 7Mw/t of embedded energy and what we get out of that tonne of coal as electricity is around 2.45Mwh an efficiency of ~35%.
      Both sunshine and coal are free to humanity to use as we please. We know that continuing to use coal the way we have been doing is going to be disastrous for the climate, plus it’s going to eventually take more energy to collect than we can ever get out of it, as in deeper, lower grade, thinner seams etc.

      What we need in terms of renewables are devices that cost half of present, run for 50 years (ie twice as long as expected), have low maintenance and operating costs of around 2% of (now much lower!!) capital costs for the full life of the devices, placed only in the best locations, and including whatever is needed to fully overcome the intermittency issues, as that’s what industry needs. Plus the energy source to build them from raw minerals, needs to be only electricity.

      We are nowhere near such devices and systems. We need half the current capital cost, with lots added, being long distance transmission from very sunny areas (for solar), plus batteries or pumped hydro or whatever storage, half the O&M of present, including all the methods to solve intermittency, all solar needs to be in areas with at least 6hrs/d sunshine on average (compared to present world average of 11.4% for all solar 2.74hrs/d!!).
      Plus of course built to last at least twice as long as the ‘planned’ life of today’s renewables builds. ( Note that today’s average life of solar panels is around 17.5 years before being scrapped).
      Even if the above were possible, it doesn’t solve other issues, like products from fossil fuels. Adding all products, plastics, asphalt, explosives, fertilizers, synthetic fuels for unreplaceable functions like jet fuel. Combined would be millions of tonnes of ‘product’ per day!!

      As the resources we mine are getting lower grade on average every year, meaning more energy needed to produce 1 tonne of anything, the odds of being able to provide a modern type of civilization for a population of 8B plus, are effectively zero. Instead by telling ourselves fairytales like renewables are better than fossil fuels on a ‘cost’ basis and efficiency basis we are choosing to deny the reality that our current lifestyles are not possible in the long term on a finite planet.

      The Arthur Keller video that George linked to, explains the situation very well…
      “Civilization, uses energy to turn nature into waste”.

      You should watch it and perhaps understand the situation a lot better. The way we are heading is straight into collapse, because we (as in all of humanity) refuse to acknowledge the unsustainable nature of what we are doing, as in civilization itself, and make up stories to comfort ourselves, so we don’t have to confront the unpleasant reality of our situation.

      The 2 choices are massive degrowth of everything, needing to be much faster now than if we were smart and started 5 decades ago, or collapse of civilization into an overpopulated chaos at some point in the not so distant future.
      Our inaction, and failure to acknowledge the problem by inventing magical solutions, is clearly choosing the second option of collapse, by default.

      1. “The 2 choices are massive degrowth of everything,…”

        You really think that the vast majority of people are going to volunteer for economic contraction?

        1. No I don’t, which is why I think collapse is pretty much a certainty.

          What humanity has been doing as a whole, is literally tinkering at the edges of some symptoms of massive overshoot. Swapping coal powered electricity for solar is a failure to understand the real problem of overshoot, yet we have many people here who think this will provide a ‘better’ future.

          Better for whom and when?? If anyone stopped to think about 3-4 generations into the future, it wont make one iota of difference whether we ‘choose’ coal or solar power over the next 10-20 years. There wont be grid electricity by then (3-4 generations into the future), there wont be fertilizers for farms, there wont be food travelling hundreds of miles to get to cities. There certainly wont be complex items like computers and the internet. All this before we consider how chaotic the climate might be, or how little food is possible due to lack of insects, or if the ocean is going anoxic, or sea levels drowning cities.

          There is also IMHO, a very good probability that it doesn’t matter what we do from here on in as humanity has ignored all the evidence of overshoot for many decades, so we are just too deep into overshoot for there to be anything other than a complete collapse of civilization and much of the remaining ecosphere.

          What I’d like to see happen as in realistically trying to do emergency degrowth, and what I expect to happen as in collapse are 2 totally separate and different actions.

          The numbers clearly show there is zero chance of having a bright green future with everyone using electric vehicles powered by solar, wind and nuclear.. (include fusion in this dead end).

          1. ” There is also a very good probability that it doesn’t matter what we do from here on ”

            I think that sums up your position very well. Makes me wonder why you even bother to engage on these issues at all.
            I do disagree with the notion.
            For example, getting off coal globally as soon as possible does move the needle on destruction.
            They are lots of policies that move the needle, and push towards less severe or more gradual outcomes.
            No, I’m not an optimist in any sense.
            In fact I think an outcome where humanity just faded away completely would be good…a failed experiment at big brain/small wisdom.
            But I do favor a gradual path.
            That is probably wishful thinking, I acknowledge.

            1. ” There is also a very good probability that it doesn’t matter what we do from here on ”

              I think that sums up your position very well. Makes me wonder why you even bother to engage on these issues at all.

              Hickory, it’s not just Hideaway but I suspect others like Carnot, Charles, Ervin and maybe Doug L (not sure about Doug, don’t follow him anymore).

              Remember me saying these guys are just posting libertarian talking points? I still think that. I also wonder if they are being paid by the word, their volume of output is only matched by our beloved OFM. Speaking of whom, where is he? Hope you’re OK Mac!

            2. @ john norris

              I think they may be calling it the way they see it. But just my unpaid opinion.

            3. John Norris … ” I also wonder if they are being paid by the word”
              LOL, I wish!! Sorry but I’ve just been in a situation where I’ve been able to study this stuff for a long time and have plenty of time to write what I do…

              Let me explain the situation again in a slightly different way, always an attempt on my part to get others to understand what the real situation is…

              I’ll start with 2 energy producers that will provide the same quantity of ‘energy’ in the future, of 15,056,000Mwh..
              One of them ‘A’, has a total lifetime dollar cost of ~$US27M, the other ‘B’ has a total lifetime cost of ~$US544M.
              Both options might get a bit more energy out of them at the end of their lives, but will probably only do so with much greater costs.

              The dollar cost, IMHO is an energy cost. We could spend that cash today buying either energy or ‘other’ goods and services made from energy instead of the energy producer. The only way the cash is not an energy cost on our civilization is if we burnt or destroyed it. Leaving it in a bank account for the next 50 years would go a long way to destroying it’s energy value, just like anyone that left a large cash balance in a bank account over the last 50 years.

              Project A is an existing gas project in WA, it’s the type of energy production that we have built our civilization with over the last 120 years. The energy from it is cheap relative to the energy cost or dollar cost of production. (I didn’t add the condensate, just the gas component).

              Project B is Australia’s largest solar project, with the output divided by 2.4 to equal the total energy output of the gas project. I also divided the full lifetime cost by 2.4 so a direct comparison can be made.

              With project A type developments over the last 120 years, we, as in humanity as a whole, has only managed to get somewhere around 15% of all people up to the standard of modern western civilization. We would have needed much better energy returns, for much longer, to get the rest of humanity to the same level.

              Project B is a massive spend of $US540M meaning a whole lot more energy cost than Project A’s $US27M..

              Please note all above numbers have been rounded for convenience.

              We couldn’t drag the bulk of humanity up to a ‘decent’ standard of living with over 120 years of oil and gas use on top of coal, because we allowed humanity to grow exponentially as energy use grew.

              We now expect a much more energy expensive form of energy gathering to support this higher number of people, while we mine much lower grades of metals. It doesn’t go close to adding up!!

              It’s well documented that we need an energy return from our energy gathering machines in the range of between 6 and 15 to one, output to input, to support the complexity of our modern style of civilization. If energy costs are multiples of current ‘average’ energy costs, there is no chance of maintaining the complexity we currently enjoy.
              A simpler system is the result, which means we lose the ability to build complex things, like solar panels, wind turbines, electric grids, autos of any type, farm tractors, complex mining machines, computers, smart phones, the internet etc.

              At some point we will cross a barrier where the current complexity unravels very quickly, because we keep ‘believing’ it is possible to have complexity with much lower EROEI, or we straight out lie to ourselves that the EROEI of renewables is as good as oil and gas were/are.

            4. Despair is a tool of tyranny. If you can convince people that resistance is futile, you can control them.

      2. Hideaway —
        What we need in terms of renewables are devices that cost half of present

        I don’t know how closely you are monitoring the prices, but they fell by nearly half last year.
        https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/09/25/solar-module-price-falling-with-no-end-in-sight/

        Your statement is just empty talk if you don’t say what price we need, and why that price is correct.

        Anyway solar is so much cheaper than anything else that its spread seems pretty much inevitable now.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41971-7

        1. Alimbiquated, You have just highlighted what’s wrong with the thinking about renewables, thankyou for that.

          What I wrote is clearly a lot more than just cheaper panels, yet somehow you want to ignore the big picture and concentrate on one minor aspect..

          Here it is again….
          “What we need in terms of renewables are devices that cost half of present, run for 50 years (ie twice as long as expected), have low maintenance and operating costs of around 2% of (now much lower!!) capital costs for the full life of the devices, placed only in the best locations, and including whatever is needed to fully overcome the intermittency issues, as that’s what industry needs. Plus the energy source to build them from raw minerals, needs to be only electricity.”

          It’s the whole bit, it’s a system, cheaper solar panels are a minor part of the total. The rest is spelled out as well. How come you only bother to comment on one aspect and not look at the total system??

          In 2022 the price of solar installations went up because the cost of fossil fuels were higher. The following from the IEA…..
          https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-may-2022
          “Solar PV and wind costs are expected to remain higher in 2022 and 2023 than pre-pandemic levels due to elevated commodity and freight prices.”

          Guess what? The price of coal, oil and gas has come down making the products manufactured from fossil fuels cheaper, so of course solar panels came back down in price.
          More solar just means more use of fossil fuels to build them, while we continue on the merry path of destroying the ecosphere trying to be ‘green’.

          1. Hideaway, you make a good point – cheap components don’t necessarily lead to a cheap system. So let’s take German electricity as a system. With a 52% renewables mix you would expect it to be more expensive than UK’s at 34%, no? Well, for the last 3 years, German wholesale prices have been consistently less than the UK’s. And in 2023, 20% cheaper. What gives?

            1. John Norris …. “What gives?”

              What gives, is industry leaving Germany in droves, crashing the wholesale electricity price when the sun shines and wind blows. Also very obviously, they are not going to the UK, they are going to places where there is reliable cheap power.

          2. Hideaway —
            you want to ignore the big picture

            I think you totally misunderstand (or intentionally misrepresent) my position. Nobody cares about the “big picture”. Nobody willing to put his money where his mouth is anyway. This isn’t the Soviet Union and we don’t have a Five Year Plan.

            I’m not talking about what I want to happen, I am predicting what will happen. Solar is a profit killer, and it will destroy the fossil fuel industry, which has been one of the most profitable in the past 150 years or so. We’ll see what comes then. We live in Schumpeter’s world of creative capitalist destruction. Or maybe not so creative, who knows?

            IEA was total wrong about prices in your 2022 quote, as they have been so often in the past. Prices continue to fall at a rapid rate as my much newer citations document — not predict. If you are clutching straws with those already debunked predictions, then I was right that you aren’t paying any attention to what’s actually happening.

            1. Alimbiquated .. “Nobody cares about the “big picture”

              Really, so why are there subsidies and tax credits for solar and wind??

              Capitalism was great on the upslope of more energy and more resources, no-one knows what it will be like on the way down. Creative capitalist destruction went out the window with all the bail-outs, and you know it.

              The subsidised solar is a profit killer for every type of electricity generation, here in Australia future large plans of solar builds are in massive decline. The big years of additions were in 2018-9. The reason being the negative wholesale prices when the sun shines and it’s windy. It’s happening nearly every day now. The main culprit causing it, is rooftop solar that has also been massively subsidised.

              The government has just introduced new subsidies to increase solar because of the decline in new projects, this time guaranteeing revenue, up to 90% of revenue for when the wholesale price is above zero. This means companies can bid a certain ‘rate’ for the solar or wind they provide, to the government corporation, and get paid 90% of the difference, to the wholesale rates!!
              Of course as the govt is not paying for any amount below zero, and that is happening very often, I expect the bean counters will not think this is a good deal, unless the other subsidies cover most of the build cost..

              Any way, if there was any truth in solar being cheaper than fossil fuels, then no subsidies of any type would be needed, yet they still are very much needed.

              My prediction of what will happen is also very much like you suggest. I expect more and more wind and solar with subsidies making a much less stable grid. Eventually we get to the phase when the oil rate of decline accelerates to the downside year after year. At that point there will be multiple parts of the system collapsing at the same time because of multiple unpredictable feedback loops.
              The downslope of energy availability wont be creative destruction, it will just be destruction.

            2. HIDEAWAY
              Renewables subsidies are trivial compared to fossil fuel subsidies.

            3. Alimbiquated … The only subsidies, as in cash subsidies, go to renewables and batteries, none to fossil fuels. In fact fossil fuels pay royalties on production amounting to billions of dollars, then pay taxes on the profits.

              So could you spell out all these economic subsidies that fossil fuels get, and remember to include taxes and royalties paid to work out the net result. Do likewise for renewables so we can see which one is really subsidised.

              If renewables really were cheaper than fossil fuels, as often claimed here, then they should be paying massive taxes and royalties and not need subsidies at all.

        2. Alimbiquated …. “Anyway solar is so much cheaper than anything else that its spread seems pretty much inevitable now.”

          If this was accurate in any way, then can you explain why large industries and mines are not going off grid using their own solar as their sole power source?
          Industry is very economically rational, and using only solar would be cheaper plus an excellent marketing tool, win-win.
          So why would any industry stay on the current grid, as right now here in Australia the grid is 77% coal powered, which is more expensive than solar according to ‘Nature’? It doesn’t make the slightest bit of economic sense for any industry to stay on the fossil fuel powered grid, if it was more expensive, yet staying on the grid is what’s happening..

          Unless of course, the article is inaccurate, and solar is not the cheapest source of power 24/7!! Solar clearly is NOT the cheapest source of consistent power, which is why industry and mines stick to the grid instead of going off grid.
          How is reality not obvious to you??
          How is it you cannot see articles like that are total bullshit??
          Why would solar need subsidies at all if it was cheaper?

          1. You can do better than that Hideaway.
            “why large industries and mines are not going off grid using their own solar as their sole power source?”

            The grid serves as a massive multi-source battery source for a regions electricity supply. When a nuclear plant goes down for its refueling cycle (on average 2 month duration every 18 months, varying depending on reactor design and particular maintenance issues), being connected to the grid helps its regions industries get through without a blackout. Same deal with solar at night.
            Despite the lack of 100% on time for these generating sources, they help a region use less fossil fuel overall.

            Perhaps if you sold off your fossil fuel investments you could think more clearly about all of this.

            1. Hickory, the ‘Nature’ article pointed to, claimed solar with battery storage was now cheaper than coal and gas.

              Every industry would go off the mostly fossil fuel grid, if that was really the case!! None are doing that!!

              When you read articles like that, you should always go and check their assumptions, from which other sources, and the claims of those references. I did!

              It turns out the claim of solar and batteries now being cheaper than FFs, comes from one paper, that ‘modelled’ the future on batteries becoming 25.5% cheaper every year, based on ‘learnings’ between when it was written and 2030. It’s a classic case of taking a wish of the future, referencing it, and claiming it’s ‘happening’ now, without detailing what they mean by ‘happening’…

            2. This just in!

              Sangster airport operator inks $1b solar deal with energy company IEC

              MBJ Airports Limited, which manages the Sangster International Airport in Montego Bay, says it has contracted renewable energy firm Innovative Energy Company, IEC, to install a 5.7 megawatt solar power plant along with at least 4.0MW of storage, costing $1 billion.

              That’s US$6.67 million folks! This airport is run by a Mexican company out of Guadalajara and I don’t believe these guys are stupid. They have run the numbers and obviously see solar coupled with batteries as the lowest cost electricity at that location. IMO this party is just getting started. Wait till all the big local businesses pay attention and realise that it costs significantly less in the long run top go solar. A few years ago, a Spanish installation company working in the island was talking about payback periods of less than four years!

          2. HIDEAWAY
            It hasn’t already happened because it is new. It is happening now. This year about 400 GW of solar was installed. Current production capacity is double that.

            It’s totally bizarre to pretend anything else.

            As to your arguments about 24/7, those are engineer arguments, not bean counter arguments, and beans counters rule the world.

            If fossil fuels can compete with energy storage and conservation, they may survive in niches. But the days of fat profits are over. Time to short your coal stock.

            1. Alimbiquated … “It hasn’t already happened because it is new. It is happening now. ”

              Can you name one, just one aluminium smelter that plans to leave the grid and go with solar and batteries (not something else!!). If it’s happening now, this should be no trouble, but I suspect you can’t find ONE, probably because there are NONE!!

          3. “If this was accurate in any way, then can you explain why large industries and mines are not going off grid using their own solar as their sole power source?”

            Western Australian mines to be powered with solar, wind and batteries

            Australian lithium mine to be powered by biggest off-grid solar, wind and battery plant


            BHP plans 550MW of wind, solar and storage as Pilbara mines go electric

            I’m surprised you don’t know more about all of this stuff. It’s all happening right in your own backyard. Do you only consume news and opinions from Murdoch owned media outlets?

            I would suggest that you visit reneweconomy.com.au and have a look around from time to time but, doing that might just stress you out!

            2. Islandboy.. You should read the articles you provide a little more before you post them as ‘countering’ arguments. In fact I’d like everyone to read these articles to just see how ‘magic thinking’ is pervading some of the proposed future…
              https://reneweconomy.com.au/you-see-alumina-refinery-i-see-a-very-big-battery/

              The author has the magical thinking down pat, we could use the stored heat for the pots that need to run 24/7. No mention of actually turning that stored heat to electricity, some plucking of numbers, and what the hell, I’ll just quote…
              “at least it’s a break-even in my reality distortion bubble.”
              ” I say MAY be possible, to store excess process heat from the digestor and release it over night.”
              “External firming may still be required”
              “I ignore the more expensive problem of decarbonsing the calcining leg of alumina manufacturing.”

              I could go on, but instead encourage everyone to read such potential ‘answers’ and exactly how ridiculous it is. If the alternatives to what we have are so poorly thought out, which is why those in industry are NOT going to spend billions of dollars on such hare brained ideas, then it’s easy to see how much trouble we are all in, once fossil fuels production declines in earnest!!

              This one is equally good…
              https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/06/24/western-australian-mines-to-be-powered-with-solar-wind-and-batteries/

              When you go through the article, they sometimes let the reader see how little the renewables effort is….
              “Stage 1 is a new off-grid 23 MW power station incorporating 16 MW gas and 3 MW diesel generation and 4 MW photovoltaic solar, which is on track for completion in mid-2019. Stage 2 includes 18 MW wind generation, a 13 MW battery and an advanced micro-grid control system, with construction recently started and due for completion in 2020.”

              Anyone notice the 16Mw gas and 3Mw diesel? These can run 24/7 and are needed for when the sun isn’t blowing (shorthand!!). Think of all the extra resources from other mining, processing, transport, manufacturing and further transport, using fossil fuels to get that double up in machinery.
              They are clearly not going to be based just upon renewables and batteries!!
              Of course no mention of how the ore gets dug out of the ground and transported to the processing plant as that’s done with diesel..

              Diesel is expensive to transport to remote mining sites and direct solar and wind are indeed cheaper than the transported diesel run through generators for the processing plants, so many, probably most are advertising how they are going to use renewables, but none, repeat NONE, are using or planning on using just solar, wind and batteries for the entire operation..

              As I’ve previously stated, I use to be a huge believer in the renewables concept for these remote mines, to the point of discussing this with management of a company in the process of undertaking the feasibility study of a very remote mine. I could only get renewables to work part of the time, as soon as batteries and storage are introduced, beyond only an hour or two at most, the economics broke down. That was excluding the mining and transfer of ore and waste.
              For myself I have tried to get the economics of totally renewables on remote mines to work, and made assumptions of total system costs (not just solar panels) lowered by 50%. It just doesn’t work, or should i say the /price received for the commodity needs to be so high that an assumption of lower renewables cost is totally invalid. This was for the Olympic Dam mine owned by BHP which gets most revenue from copper.

              I fully expect more solar and wind as part of many mines and industries all over the world, while we still have increasing rates of fossil fuel use, but none of them going entirely off grid onto just renewables and batteries, yet renewables and batteries are claimed to be cheaper by the Nature article up thread which is what started the overall discussion.

              It’s interesting that the proponents of a bright green renewable future, when asked to show just one example of a mine or industry, and I’ve deliberately picked heavy energy users, going totally off grid using the now ‘much cheaper renewables and batteries’ (sic), always come up with a bit of wind or solar here and there, but never TOTALLY off grid.
              Mines and industry are very, very economically rational, they would go totally off grid in a heartbeat if it was cheaper, they are not doing this!!

              The reality is that renewables are nowhere near energetically good enough to replace fossil fuels to run civilization. They use nearly as much energy from fossil fuels in their creation. They are likely energy sinks when the full cost of storage, transmission and the extra mining of low grade ores are taken into account, especially when battery operated equipment will need to be used..

    3. Measuring the efficiency of coal to capture solar power seems more irrelevant to me.

  5. To me the efficiency (or lack thereof) / EROEI arguments are just not relevant except when comparing energy solutions to themselves. I’d rather have a 25% efficient panel than an 18% one assuming the same inputs. But that is about the usefulness of those concepts.
    To me the question of whether society needs one more F150 or should use those resources to build renewables is the question to ask. The more bullshit consumption is redirected to renewables – including storage solutions – the better it is.
    Rgds
    WP

    1. We need more F150’s?

      “Furious Ohio Republicans Report Widespread Incidents of Women Voting”

      I guess so—–

    2. Agree WeekendPeak.
      It brings up a big point- where (and how much) should energy related capital be spent.
      Different answers for different places, but it is going to take a lot of dough to ease down the level of fossil fuel combustion. It would take even more dough to just keep using fossil fuels til they become into prolonged state of shortage (more expensive and a guaranteed failure path), in lieu of working on replacements and energy efficiency mechanisms.

      I am a skeptic on the use of widespread hydrogen as a energy storage/transport mechanism, and on carbon sequestration. Thermodynamics (and thus cost) of these processes are not viable unless you are on a planet with lots of sustainable surplus energy at your fingertips. Thats my laymans view of these two things.
      On the other hand, I think there is a fair chance that widespread Deep Geothermal is going to be a technically and financially viable option.
      Lots of decisions to be made. If I was boss I’d start phasing in a carbon tax pronto, with proceeds going towards energy efficiency measures, for example.

      1. Governments have a large role to play in all of this. Look at the difference between gasoline prices in western Europe and the US. The actual cost of the product is quite similar, and the largest difference is caused by taxation, which undoubtedly has an impact on consumption. That tax revenue can be used to incentivize / subsidize renewables. And a side effect is that it will reduce the pressure on remaining FF resources, causing them to give society a longer runway to get off them. Same with my F150 example. No reason why we can’t increase taxes on lower MPG vehicles meant for individual use and use the revenue to encourage more efficient modes of transport. So to a fair degree transitioning from FFs to non-FFs is a political (read societal) decision.
        rgds
        WP

      2. Hickory
        I think we agree that lots of moves could be made to ease the path down, but in my opinion, unless moves are made to reduce the population in parallel, then the ultimate crash and burn will be just as bad, or worse than if we just continue with BAU.
        My real hope for a survival of some form of technological survival amongst humans is for the crash and burn to happen, and once the population is minimized, then a single hydroelectric station might be the energy nucleus for a viable ‘ advanced ‘ society. Can knowledge be preserved through the crash and burn?

          2. Hickory
            If society and ‘government’ do nothing or even encourage further population growth , the best strategy is probably concentrating on saving your own bacon.

            1. I am over the hill, into gravy territory (over 50 yrs old). Each day now is an optional bonus.
              My personal task is to prepare for an early exit, not to survive at all costs. Nonetheless I do care how it plays out for the biosphere and for the young animals of the world.
              The struggle to weather the storm is one for younger people.

    3. Weekendpeak
      I would like to appoint you as High Commissioner of Sustainability.
      You could then control the vehicles we drive and certainly you could tell Bill Gates, Al Gore and John Kerry what size homes they have and more importantly how many they can own.
      Next you can control what type of appliances the people use. Here are just a few very wasteful activities we humans engage in that you as High Commissioner could stop.
      Close all ski resorts end NASCAR racing and what could be more wasteful than 100,000 people watching 22 men running back and forth on a field.
      I do find it amazing that Ford sold 750,000 pickups last year and certainly many ended up being put to work as God intended. When I see a middle aged woman climb out of a perfectly clean and has never been off of a paved road, F250 four door 4X4 at the Kroger is something I just don’t understand.

      1. I appreciate the promotion (or is it a demotion?).
        Reality is that society has to agree on rules / parameters in order for society to function. Think of something basic as whether we should drive on the left or the right. In Libertarian Heaven every individual should have the right to decide on which side of the road to drive. Same with traffic lights. Why do we stop on red and go on green? We are individuals so we should have the right to do what we want to do, screw the lights. Or power supply – why should it be 220V /50hz in Europe? Shouldn’t individual producers be able to decide for themselves what voltage and frequency to produce?
        Same for ozone, various measures of pollution etc. etc. We need rules for a functioning society. That obviously means that there must either be some level of agreement on said rules or there has to be central authority which unilaterally sets those rules. In reality rule creation happens somewhere in between the two extremes so the question really is to what degree parameters, such as taxation / limitations on (for non-business use) of ridiculous vehicles like F-150s should take place, and on the flipside, to what degree renewable energy should be supported by various means. The issue is not a bimodal one, it is one of a matter of degree.
        Yours,
        High Commissioner of Sustainability – Formerly known as WP

        1. Well…defenders of the FF industries will say anything. They’ll say they care deeply about poor folks who need cheap energy. They’ll say that all is lost, so why inconvenience ourselves by doing without FF. They’ll say that dealing with pollution is too expensive.

          They’ll say that they are protecting our freedoms.

          They’ll say anything.

          1. Nick, John Norris and Hickory

            “Remember me saying these guys are just posting libertarian talking points? I still think that. I also wonder if they are being paid by the word”. ( I wish)

            It seems that some of us are getting you rattled. I may work in the fossil ,fuels industry but do not doubt it has a short lifespan, and I do not support wasting resources in the likes of a ghastly Ford 250. I really do not like seeing a resource, any resource, being squandered and I hate the word abundant.

            For a long time this blog has been dominated by climate change proponents/ renewable energy advocates and as a such there is a great deal of Groupthink. In the last year a few of us have challenged that view, citing the reality of renewables not being cheap or a reliable source of dispatchable power, and some of you are listening. Worse still the undeniable realization that renewable energy is devastating on the environment in more ways that one. Mining being one. Environmental destruction being another. Have you ever seen a tailings pond from metal extraction? Or thewildlife destruction from wind turbines.

            It is all very well pointing the finger at people like myself but perhaps you should look in the mirror and ask yourselves if maybe we have a point. Our main points are 9 but not limited to):
            1.BAU is not an option
            2. 8 billion population or worse still growth is not an option
            3. Renewable energy is expensive and unreliable.

            If I look at recent comments there have been talk of de-growth. Not a pleasant thought but inevitable., because there is no stomach to face the reality of our predicament. Notwithstanding is the political classes of left and right who are universally inept, along with the various religious types who believe that some higher being will gallop to the rescue.
            How long have we got. I would not like to put a number down but to get to mid century might be a challenge, especially if the population keeps growing.

            What is likely to happen. Quite simply anarchy. The rule of law will break down. Mass migration will stress every developed country, and a financial crash is all but certain. Even gold might be worthless. Platinum at least has catalytic properties, IF, we manage to retain knowledge.

            25 years ago I was bothered by this prospect. Now I am more or less resigned to what is going to happen. I have learned to live frugally; I drive a modest car, I own a small farm, I have no debt, I have no offspring (out of choice), I am a vegetarian.

            I work as a consultant. I am not paid to write for this blog- a pity. I do so in may own time in the vain hope that some of you might open your eyes and do the math. Thermodynamics and EROEI control our lives. The best analogy for EROEI is the village that burns wood. As the village grows the wood supply gets farther and farther away and the time taken to reach the wood supply and return to the village takes longer and longer. Eventually it takes all day to reach the wood and another day to return to the village. No time left to do anything else. Or you can use the swimming against a tide example. You swim for an hour and remain in exactly the same position as you started.

            I am no rabid climate change denier. The climate has always changed. I watched the Myles Allen video (twice). I suggest you read the comments. For me it was just a bit to simplistic and his formula was a little woolly. I might comment on that later.

            1. Carnot,

              “For a long time this blog has been dominated by climate change proponents/ renewable energy advocates and as a such there is a great deal of Groupthink.”

              My understanding is that the ideas that climate change is a serious risk, and that a transition away from FF to low-carbon energy (wind, solar, nuclear) is essential and urgent, are the mainstream scientific consensus in the US and around the world. It is also my understanding that both the electrical utility industry and the car industries in the US and around the world have come to a rough (and reluctant) consensus that renewables and EVs, respectively, are the future.

              Do you disagree with those statements?

            2. Nick G …. how come you always ignore the reality of the situation like this bit from Carnot’s comment….
              ” Worse still the undeniable realization that renewable energy is devastating on the environment in more ways that one. Mining being one. Environmental destruction being another. Have you ever seen a tailings pond from metal extraction? Or the wildlife destruction from wind turbines.”

              I think ‘we’, as in life on this planet, are lucky that the physics don’t work for renewables and batteries, because if they did then the overshoot would become much worse.
              Luckily for life in general humans will run too low on fossil fuels at some point in the not so distant future and civilization will collapse. Of course a lot of life will suffer in the short term as humans eat everything they can get their hands on and cut every tree, they can drag, to where they live, to keep warm. However after most have perished during the decades of collapse, the period after this will allow life to flourish once again.

              I don’t argue that fossil fuel use is good, because it’s not, it’s badly harming the environment, but building renewables means burning/using more fossil fuels, as no-one anywhere is trying to build renewables from just electricity and especially not electricity just produced by renewables only!!

            3. “The climate has always changed” This is so facile it makes you sound dumb.

              You conflate the economics of renewable energy with the science of global warming, it’s silly.

              We know you are a science denier (not the science of petrochemicals however). The videos you promote are absolute BS. That you refuse to accept basic physics makes you a crank. Despite all your talk of how experienced and knowledgable you are.

          2. Hideaway,

            I try to deal with one thing at a time, instead of a Gish gallop of miscellaneous things.

            In this case I was really talking to WeekendPeak, who seemed in danger of being distracted by the unrealistic FF industry talking point that argues that advocates for FF are “trying to protect our freedoms”. Advocates for FF are really just trying to protect their industry.

            I see no harm in investors or employees of the FF industry trying to protect themselves. I think producing FF is an honorable profession.

            But…I object to dishonesty and misinformation. I have no objection to Exxon’s business. I object to their burying the fact that their internal research confirmed the risks of Climate Change.

            I have no objection to someone saying that oil provides a nice living and is in demand from customers. I do object to silly arguments that wind and solar cause more environmental problems than FF, or that civilization will collapse without FF.

            1. Nick G, Renewables are built operated and maintained with the energy from fossil fuels. No-one anywhere is trying to do the mining, processing, transport, manufacturing, more transport and construction on site without fossil fuels. Nor has anyone anywhere demonstrated it is possible to do so.

              Nor has anyone anywhere tried to demonstrate it’s possible both energetically and economically with just electricity from any source. All the new mines and manufacturing businesses making renewables are relying on fossil fuels to do so..

              Without fossil fuels today, civilization would collapse overnight. Without fossil fuels in a year’s time, civilization will collapse then. In fact civilization will collapse long before we stop using fossil fuels, it will just take an accelerating decline to do it because of feedback loops that the complex system relies on growing, which cease to grow and start to shrink.

              It’s not a Gish gallop of miscellaneous things, it’s an interrelated complex system. More renewables means more and greater use of fossil fuels, just like we have had for the last 12-15 years.

              It’s all integrated, yet simple thinking is what assumes we can have everything without fossil fuels. Everything looks rosy if you just take one aspect, increase it multiples (renewables) and make outlandish assumptions about how nothing else is affected, and the EROEI which is what you and many others do. You have boundaries so the full energy cost of renewables are not counted, the damage to the environment of all the new mining is ignored, plus a range of cost assumptions are made that are clearly not true.

              I don’t favour fossil fuels as they are a dead end, I’m trying to wake people up that collapse is dead ahead because we keep deluding ourselves with false narratives.

            2. Nick G: Not sure why you think that i am distracted by FF industry BS – quite the opposite really. I think that we should make every effort to get off FFs ASAP but am realistic enough to know that we will need FFs to do so. And in the meanwhile free markets will need a push from regulators to make that happen as quickly as possible. Unfortunately the FF lobby has deep pockets and probably owns a good chunk of those who are are a position to push towards non-FFs. That is just being realistic and doesn’t make me a FF fanboi.
              rgds
              WP

            3. I don’t favour fossil fuels as they are a dead end

              You obviously do. You’re aggressively fighting alternatives to fossil fuels.

              “Climate scientist Michael Mann is possibly best known for the iconic “hockey stick” graph published in 1998 that showed the steep rise in planetary temperatures.

              He was also one of the targets of a massive email hack dubbed “Climategate” aimed at discrediting climate scientists.

              As a result of all this he gained an intimate knowledge of the strategies of those who are attempting to resist climate action — climate change deniers, and those trying to derail the political and social changes necessary to fight climate change.

              There are powerful vested interests who have seen it as advantageous to their agenda, to discredit science and to discredit the message of science. ”

              Take me through some of the false narratives that you’re trying to debunk about climate change.

              “So this is one important narrative: doom and gloom, despair mongering. There are climate advocates who, you know, of good intentions, of goodwill, who have come to believe that it’s too late to do anything about the problem.

              That’s very dangerous because first of all, it’s not true. The science indicates otherwise. The science indicates that if we reduce our carbon emissions dramatically, we can avert the worst impacts of climate change. For example, this idea that global warming is now unstoppable, that warming is going to release so much methane from the Arctic that it will warm the planet beyond habitable levels. There is no scientific support for that contention.
              A lot of the folks who fall victim to the doom and gloom are, again, of good intentions, of good will. But they’re being weaponized. The inactivists love that narrative because they don’t care about the path you take to inaction, whether it’s outright denial of the science or denial that there’s any possibility of doing anything about the problem. ”

              https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/jan-30-new-climate-war-tactics-lizard-burrows-are-wildlife-condos-sleep-lunacy-and-more-1.5889807/prominent-climatologist-behind-hockey-stick-graph-talks-about-the-new-climate-war-1.5889809

            4. Nick G, LOL, you are so tied up in your beliefs that you have to assume anyone against renewables must be a fossil fuel supporter and climate denier..

              Sorry to disappoint, but you cannot find anywhere, where I’ve stated anything positive about fossil fuels, nor anywhere stated anything close to denial about climate change.

              That’s because my belief and the evidence I see is clearly showing the climate is changing and all the CO2 pollution is rapidly changing our climate, along with other greenhouse gasses. Climate change is very real, and very bad, yet it is still only one of many environmental problems we have. Biodiversity loss is disastrous with 69% of all land species gone since 1970 and around the same for insects. Trees in forests are dying at an accelerating rate from factors apart from climate change that researchers have no clue about.

              It’s you that have grabbed the first simple answer that came along, solar and wind will solve our problems, because you read about it somewhere. No attention to whether the numbers actually add up. Meanwhile we rip the planet apart, destroying what little remains of the natural world to build solar, wind, batteries, nuclear and whatever else to try and solve ONE problem of CO2 in the atmosphere.
              How is this actually being done?? By burning a lot more fossil fuels in the process.

              Have you bothered to look at the keeling curve recently?? Despite decades of going towards renewables, we are burning MORE fossil fuels. The plan isn’t working, nor can it work as my numbers on EROEI are showing. You don’t like them because they don’t show what you believe in..
              Nor do you or anyone else prove my conclusions wrong. Pointing to published papers, proves nothing, do the work yourself of the EROEI, and if you are way different to my numbers, I’ll be able to show what you have missed out. Real world numbers, not theoretical BS..

              Our modern civilization can’t exist without fossil fuels. Even if we tried to go all electric, the wires need to be insulated, we use plastic for this. We use plastics for multitudes of things. Adding more biomass use as a substitute for the millions of tonnes a day of plastics just damages the environment further. We would need fertilizers, asphalt, explosives, coking coal for very high temperature smelting/melting, pesticides, herbicides etc. The only example we have of trying to make synthetic fuel from renewables is appallingly inefficient (Haru Oni).

              No Nick, it is you that is out of touch with reality. We are in massive overshoot and the only non-collapse answer was massive degrowth and population control from over 50 years ago.
              Instead humanity chose BAU (Business As Usual), and more recently pretended we can solve all the problems providing we use pixie dust and make believe in the accounting of the true energy and environment costs…

              The way we are headed, assuming we continue in exactly the same direction, is a world in a decade or so, where there will be solar and wind power for the very rich, using their EVs in the gated communities, where they allow some poor people in to run their farms, do the maintenance of their machines, and guard the boundaries, while the bulk of humanity lives in abject poverty and starvation hidden in plain sight.
              Our complex civilization is magnitudes more complex than any previous one, so when the collapse comes it will be way worse, with supply lines being cut initially hastening the downward spiral. I don’t think any of us can imagine how bad it will get when fuel, food and water stop being delivered to cities, with no aid agencies coming to anyone’s rescue, nor the slight hope of near term improvement, as farms don’t have fuel, minerals don’t make it to factories and government officials confiscate everything of ‘value’..
              It’s a shame Homo Sapiens were anything but ‘wise’. Perhaps we should rename ourselves Homo mutus.

              The real problem is that there are so many people like yourself that just want to deny reality, look for simple answers without considering the entire system, and spend so much time fighting against the overwhelming evidence of the impossibility of long term modern civilization. Entropy and dissipation by themselves, combined with lower average grades of every ore, should tell you that what we are doing is impossible in the long term. Even a recycling rate of 90%, of which we don’t do for anything, means we have less than 10% of whatever commodity left in 22 generations of use, so mining of ever lower grade ores has to go on forever, meaning exponential growth in energy just to gain access what we currently use.

              I don’t expect humanity to go extinct, but it is possible we damage the ecosphere enough that makes the planet unlivable for mammals at all. However our 10-15,000 year experiment of civilization in it’s various forms may be nearly over…

            5. Hideaway said:

              “The way we are headed, assuming we continue in exactly the same direction, is a world in a decade or so, where there will be solar and wind power for the very rich, using their EVs in the gated communities, where they allow some poor people in to run their farms, do the maintenance of their machines, and guard the boundaries, while the bulk of humanity lives in abject poverty and starvation hidden in plain sight.”

              even this seems optimistic to me given accelerating climate feedbacks and ecological collapse.

        2. The denier “climate has always changed” bullshit has always struck me as their most idiotic argument, which is saying something as it’s amongst a strong field, because it is self defeating. The long term climate has changed in the past almost entirely because green house gas concentrations have changed, mainly CO2 which is added by volcanic activity and removed by weathering. For example the Siberian Traps caused extreme warming and contributed to the biggest mass extinction so far, the formation of the Himalayas removed CO2 sufficient to start the ice ages. If the small and slow Milankovitch cycles, or the minor sun spot cycles, or the very gradual increase in the sun’s power were all that affected the average temperature we would likely be saying climate was constant over millenial time spans. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is extremely close over the last hundreds of millions of years; it has to be, CO2 is the control knob that sets the temperature.

  6. Getting off fossil fuels? We have a rather odd way of doing it up here.

    CANADA’S OIL SANDS SET FOR EXPANSION AS PIPELINE NEARS COMPLETION

    • Canadian Natural Resources and Cenovus Energy plan to increase oil production in anticipation of the pipeline’s completion.
    • The Trans Mountain Expansion project, bought by the Canadian government in 2018, has faced cost increases and delays, but construction is now over 97.8% complete.
    • The expanded pipeline is expected to triple its capacity to 890,000 bpd, significantly increasing Alberta’s oil export capabilities and narrowing the Western Canadian Select crude’s discount to WTI.

    “Producers are expected to continue drilling at a solid pace ahead of TMX coming online in the second half of 2024,” the provincial government said. “Increased takeaway capacity will help propel Alberta’s crude oil production from nearly 3.8 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2023 to over four million barrels bpd by 2026.”

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Canadas-Oil-Sands-Set-for-Expansion-as-Pipeline-Nears-Completion.html

    1. BTW we’re good on natural gas as well. According to the Canadian Natural Gas Association: as of 2022 Canada is estimated to have 1,368 trillion cubic feet of natural gas resources, an amount equal to over 200 years of current annual demand. So, no worries there folks.

  7. John Norris

    Kindly do not take my name in vane Ha.

    I believe every single problem that humaity is facing (most we have caused) are fixable.
    Humans are destroying 40 million trees per day, in Africa a man can earn 10 times as much illegally logging as he can tending crops.
    Corrupt civil servants issue logging right certificates for brown envelopes full of money.

    Scientist who have recently studied the cooling effect of plants and trees are only now understanding how much trees cool the planet.
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/forests-cool-earth-deforestation/

    and how much the planet is heating up because we are destroying over 5 million hectares per year. This could be stopped, but often poorly paid police are attacked by armed men when they try and raid illegal logging sites.
    How many armed police would it take to properly patrol The forests of Brazil (50 times the size of the U.K.) or The Democratic Republic of Congo? How much are you prepared to pay towards this?

    we can also prevent illegal fishing which is destroying the breeding areas of many fish. A system to monitor illegal fishing has to be done internationally and would cost many billions of dollars per year. Most countries do not want to contribute to the cost. How much are you prepared to pay to stop illegal fishing?

    We can also fix global soil erosion which is running at 35 billion tonnes of lost soil each year. The worst countries effected have little money to fix the issue. Countries which could pay for these things in the past, now have their own massive problems. We have waiting lists for operations running at a year and a half with 7 million effected.

    All these problems individually will destroy civilisation due to lack of food and drinking water. They have all been getting worse over the last 50 years. What makes you think they will be fixed now?

    1. Charles
      The UN general budget is 3.2 billion dollars. Taylor Swirt generated 2 billion dollars in her last tour. The US military budget is 800 billion dollars. You really think people will suddenly get their act together and fix the problems? Did they save the last tree on Easter Island? Can the adults overcome the emotional needs of teenage girls? Including the ones who consume a steady diet of professional sports.

      The only lesson that brings hope to the situation is how the rats in NYC handled the situation at the early period of COVID lockdowns when all the restaurants closed. Instead of attacking each other they organized a committee to equally distribute what final scraps of food could be found. Every rat had the moral responsibility to bring their collective hoard to a central distribution point for disbursement. It was universally understood that their collective existence required these dramatic changes and only by strict implementation could their species survive.

      That may have worked with a highly educated group of rats in NYC who understood the predicament. Unfortunately human history tends not to be so collectively attuned.

      For example when Jerusalem was surrounded by Rome in 70CE Josephus recorded that opposing religious factions in the city burned their own food supplies out of envy to starve out their rivals.

      If we could just plant a tree our problems would be solved.

  8. It’s interesting to see persistent debate about energy transitions. A primary problem is one camp is pragmatic in its approach while one is not. The result is that out of frustration because of inconvenient facts the attack becomes personal rather than defend an indefensible position attack the messenger.

    Tim Watkins describes the situation as Can and Can. What can theoretically be done and what can actually be done given our present circumstances. I think what best explains the situation is two absolutely true but opposite statements.
    Every native born American can be President of the United States.
    Every native born American cannot be President of the United States.
    Both are completely true but one takes into consideration the present circumstances. The other does not.
    As Watkins likes to demonstrate we can go to the moon, have supersonic passenger flight, a space shuttle program, etc. The technology exists however the circumstances have changed and if you want to see those items you’ll need to go to the Smithsonian. Simply put we can no longer do what we can do. And the door is closing.

    In 1975 Henry Kissinger was quoted to say “As a historian it is sobering to consider that every civilization that has ever developed eventually collapsed but as a statesman you must act as though there are solutions “

    We might say that humanity then is complicit in its own demise. Rather than face the reality of the situation they’ll find someone who will tickle their ears.

    The reality of the situation is no one has demonstrated that there is enough energy or mineral resources to ever make the proposed energy transition and even if it could be done once the replacement is ignored as well as the environmental consequences. On top of that it ignores the chemical needs and transportation needs of the present system. Add to the predicament our state of depletion and we simply can not do what can’t be done.

    However the vast majority are statesmen and as such the show must go one. After all this time is different right? There are a few but very few historians and are likely fewer in the future as inconvenient facts become the enemy of the state. We already see complete political disfunction and a growing blame game.

    “Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance “

    Basically everything would be fine if everyone just thought like I do. It’s those other people who are preventing me from attaining my goals. They must be eliminated. If you don’t embrace the Green New Deal you are an enemy of society.

    Buckle up it’s going to get ugly.

    The first victim in war is truth
    Ignorance is strength
    Stupidity is more dangerous than evil

    1. I like this comment, I think. At least parts of it resonate with me. I’ll put myself in the pragmatic camp. Why then do I torture myself by reading this forum about a human predicament that cannot be solved? Because every now and then I read a post that tickles my pragmatic side and sends me in a new direction that I didn’t think about myself. Does anything I say or do make any difference to the outcome of this predicament? Yes and no! If I over-focus on the no, I find myself struggling with nihilism. If I over-focus on the yes, I find myself in Lala land. At the end of the day, our models to predict the future are just models, not reality.

      In that spirit, I’ll share one of my current winter activities. Maybe it will inspire another, maybe not. I live in gardening zone 5 in the US, and it doesn’t warm up enough to plant pumpkin seeds until maybe June 1 where I live. This winter, for the first time in my life (mid 50s) I’m building a cold frame, 2′ x 2′ square about 6″ tall, out of leftover construction materials at my place. I’m going to use it to try to start my pumpkin seeds about a month earlier than I otherwise would, maybe late April. I’m getting the seeds from a friend who grows pumpkins and inspired me last summer to do so myself. I’ll share some pictures as I go along in the next few months. For me, this is the overlooked part of solar energy that few seem interested in discussing or “fighting over” these days. Cheers!

    3. Supersonic flight sounds sexy, as does a moon landing. In the early sixties, they were aspirational goals for engineers that caught public imagination. Neither is of much value. The space program is mostly useful for its ability to serve the Earth, not for settling new frontiers.

      We can still do them, but there is little point in it.

  9. Sustainability!!! The word has lost all grounding to reality. Volvos study on their lineup of EVs.

    https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/Market-Assets/INTL/Applications/DotCom/PDF/C40/Volvo-C40-Recharge-LCA-report.pdf

    Much more carbon intensive to build than an ICE, lifetime carbon footprint has a small breakeven given the global electric generation mix. The pathway to Sustainability is a continuum, it cannot be achieved overnight, I get that. But let’s be honest, EVs as currently configured are another pathway of BAU, infinite growth on a finite planet. We can’t even find the trailhead to the pathway to sustainability in Western Industrial civilization. We can’t even begin to agree on or define collectively what it looks like. Most likely because that would scare the crap out of us. I see this basic issue play out here on this board every time I visit here.
    I admire the work that Dennis does and follow it closely, it is informative, one facetted, biased to a soft landing, but good work none the less.

    In the final analysis we are so F#cked! We are in extreme overshoot, and our systems are locked in to what got us here. Perhaps in the next 10 years we will experience what will be an ongoing series of major crop failures, we will awaken from a dream only to find we are in a nightmare.

    1. What’s with crop failures? The farmers just finished harvesting the largest corn crop in the history of the USA.

      2. Study the Ogallala Aquifer, look at soil depletion rates. Everything is great until it isn’t. Yes, the US had a great year, Argentina 35% below 5 yr average. Australia wheat crop forecast down 34% 23/24. So no one really knows the future right? But we have long term trends that are unfavorable for Agriculture, one day there will be a reckoning. People much smarter than me predict a decline in food per capita beginning in the near future. Some regions have already experienced this. The USA is lucky and may not see it as bad. But it will probably make the USA border crisis worse I should imagine.

        1. Tom,

          Well put. Nothing to to add save that population continues to grow exponentially.

          1. Carnot,

            The rate of growth in population has been slowing since about 1965, this is likely to continue.

            2. Dennis,
              Limits to Growth predicts it will turn negative in a decade or two in the BAU scenario, for horrible reasons of course. Average Life span is beginning to fall as well in some regions, I believe for men in the USA this is the case. These are bio- indicators folks. We are on the BAU path. So far LtG has been the most prescient forecast that I am aware of. Every 10 year update only validates the wisdom of that model. So at this stage of the game I would expect to see falling rates, this is the nature of overshoot. There are other bio-indicators as well should anyone care to look. Homelessness, migrant crisis. Early days still, but….

    2. Tom,

      I admire your work as well, though no work is without bias, including yours.

      1. Amen Brother. Bias comes with the perspective gained through existence. Colors all we see, how we think, act.
        But we are not normal, you and I. If pareto holds true, 80% of the population sees the future by extrapolating the linearity of the recent past and projecting it into the future. They can live below an unsafe dam, next to an active volcano and mindlessly carry on. Well documented studies on this. Melting glaciers, rising sea levels, no worries man. 20% will carry on with a bit more analysis, they are aware that life exists in a complex system, that it is not linear, that it is governed by a myriad of factors that must be examined and at least partially understood to project probable futures. Perhaps 20% of the 20% are able to do this with any degree of capability. A few of those are able to analyze and then act on the output. It is that rare. We are often misunderstood, chastised, laughed at. But really it is the rest that are turkeys. They believe that because the farmer came out out yesterday and the day before and gave them lots of cracked corn, that it will continue today, tomorrow and forever. Until the day before Thanksgiving when they are quite surprised. It is an unfortunate fact for Cassandras that the masses will not respond until they begin missing a few meals. literally, and then they will misinterpret why this is so. Civilization to anarchy in three days. Too late then!

        1. Tom,

          Well put. I have been following the LTG for my entire adult life. Even if the population growth declines in the future than we are still well past the overshoot. Turkey for Thanksgiving/ Christmas. Great analogy.

          1. Carnot,

            Population growth rates are already falling, probably by 2050 to 2060 the rate of growth will become negative, as population falls there will be less environmental damage caused by humans.

  12. Nick G

    “My understanding is that the ideas that climate change is a serious risk, and that a transition away from FF to low-carbon energy (wind, solar, nuclear) is essential and urgent, are the mainstream scientific consensus in the US and around the world. It is also my understanding that both the electrical utility industry and the car industries in the US and around the world have come to a rough (and reluctant) consensus that renewables and EVs, respectively, are the future”.
    .
    Nice try. Try reading my earlier post and also the excellent post of JT on 8 January. So now climate a change is an “idea”, not a proof, and one of my answers is therefore yes. Climate does change, always has. The so called shift to unreliable renewables is merely a mask to cover the real issue. We have an out of control population, made only possible by fossil fuels, and a looming depletion of all natural resources including fresh water, agricultural land, soil, phosphorous, potassium, and a whole list of other critical raw materials that simply cannot be synthesised by any known process. Crude oil will be produced again in a few hundred million years time, but we will not be around then to enjoy it.

    You can believe the fairytales of EV’s and un-reliables if you wish, but this is merely the politicians not doing their job. Few people, and you are probably one of billions, just cannot get their head around the reality of what beckons. The idea of Ev’s and unreliables powering the economies of the west is tantamount to kicking the can down the road. Some are now betting on geothermal. Good luck with that one. There are some very well written papers on the subject available on the internet. Have a read . The thermodynamic efficiency is not great. It is better if you are sitting above a volcano. It is actually quite good for district heating with a heat pump.

    But the real problem with geothermal is the EROEI. This is not like drilling an oil well because it needs to be deep and into basement rock- ie. granite, and you need two wells, both of which have to be cased (flow and return). See link.

    https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/openengineering/article/doi/10.1115/1.4054038/1139681/Comparison-of-Thermodynamic-Performances-in-Three
    Water at 230 deg C and mass flow of 230 kg/s (13.8 mt/h) would give around 17.5 MW of power depending on the plant configuration. Geothermal inlet pressure of 10000 kPa (100 barg).

    This not going to be cheap power, which is maybe why we do not see too many.
    As the saying goes, ” a fool and his money are soon parted”.

    1. “The thermodynamic efficiency is not great.”

      Neither is combustion of petrol in an Internal Combustion Engine.
      And photosynthesis (the source of fossil fuel) thermodynamic efficiency is less than 1%.

      Not a relevant point Carnot.
      On a practical basis the question to be answered is-Can a tiny fraction of 1% of the massive inexhaustible energy source (hot magma) be collected at a price which is affordable for the humans being supplied with the energy?
      With PV in sunny areas…the answer is yes indeed.
      With Deep Geothermal the answer will likely be yes as well.
      The US Dept of Energy is the big investor who plans to find out the answer, and unlike all of the other potential cards on the table we will know within 10 years if the current effort path is viable for mass deployment.
      I suspect there is going to a huge demand for drilling teams.

      [no this will not save the world or replace all fossil fuels in a timely manner, so save your favorite responses for some other gullible chap].

    2. You didn’t answer the question, instead we just got talking points. And old ones at that: “climate is always changing”? Even the oil majors have given up on that. Now they’re just fighting a rearguard action with “We’ll still need oil for a long time”.

      Yeah, the scientific consensus is clear. The utilities and the car industry have joined it.

      The only question left is how long legacy industries can delay the transition.

      1. Hickory,

        You still do not get it. For geothermal you have to drill mutiple deep wells into basement rock. Then you need to pump water around the loop. The investment cost will make it unaffordable. Energy Return on Energy Invested. What do you not understand. The thermodynamic efficiency is not little better than a steam locomotive. Look what happened to them. Sure you can go down this route, just like unreliables, and loose your shirt in the process. If it worked we would already be doing it at scale. The costs SUCK.

      2. BYD Soared to Become Fourth-Largest Global Car Brand in August and Were Closely Behind Japanese Automakers in Rankings, Says TrendForce

        China likely dethroned Japan as world’s top auto exporter in 2023: China group

        And inside China:

        27% BEV Share In China!

        I’m not cheering for China. Chinese manufacturers are putting extreme pressure on manufacturers all over the world in a wide array of industries. They might just drive many of our favourite brands out of business. It just is what it is.

      3. Nick G,

        I answered your question. It was truthful. Climate change is nothing new. Where is the proof for your claims.? Oh, perhaps you mean the Cook paper.

        https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

        Not exactly a proof. Far from it. The manipulation is only beaten by Mann.

        The utilities and car industry have reluctantly being forced in EV’s and unreliables are are loosing their shirts in the process. What about all the Ford dealers in the US who have decided not to offer EV’s.
        Oh and waht about all the oil companies pulling out of wind energy in the US and EU? Try doing some proper research on unreliables. Tip -look up bearing failures and blade erosion on wind turbines. You might learn something.

        1. Your continuating conflation of the economics of renewables, and the reality of global warming, make you look dumb.

        2. Well, clearly you disagree that there is a strong scientific consensus that climate change is a very serious risk that needs to be addressed urgently.

          Wow.

          1. Nick,

            Scientific consensus doesn’t mean something is 100% factual. There was scientific consensus that the earth is flat once upon a time. Another time it was scientific consensus that the earth is the centre of the universe.

            Until climate change disrupts BAU the climate change skeptics won’t bat an eye. Until then they will continue rejecting climate change and climate science.

            1. Iron Mike,

              You are of course correct. But it will be population growth ( even if it remains linear), resource depletion and Peak OIl Supply that will trump (no pun intended) climate change. Climate change is the excuse to further a dystopian society.

              Many of those who are labelled (or libeled) as climate skeptic are decent and honest people with equal or better qualifications than some of the so called climate experts. But instead of listening to their opinions they are generally abused, denied the right of free speech and labelled as fruit cakes.

              I work in the real world not in the world of academia which has steadily deteriorated in quality of output in the last 30 years, driven by the need to acquire next years funding.

              I read lot of “scientific papers” in my job. Far too many are of very dubious value. Go back a few postings and there is the biologist who managed to see through the scam and have multiple papers withdrawn. The Jones paper is another good example.

              Today peer review means Pal review. Look the IEA. All very chummy.

            2. I work in the real world not in the world of academia which has steadily deteriorated in quality of output in the last 30 years, driven by the need to acquire next years funding.

              I read lot of “scientific papers” in my job. Far too many are of very dubious value.

              You are not an academic because allegedly academia isn’t “real,” yet you rate yourself some expert at making broad claims about academia and evaluating scientific papers.

              I’d say you were a classic case of Dunning-Kruger. Time to “ignore” Carnot.

            3. Carnot,

              Just for the record, i think the climate is changing, i have done an independent study of weather station data around Australia. And the there is an obvious trend of increase in average min and average max temperatures.

              And i do think the most likely reason is humans causing this by their activities in creating and maintaining industrial ‘civilisation’.

            4. “Climate change is the excuse to further a dystopian society.”

              Love this bit. :^D

  13. EARTH SHATTERED GLOBAL HEAT RECORD IN ’23 AND IT’S FLIRTING WITH WARMING LIMIT

    The European climate agency Copernicus said the year was 1.48 degrees Celsius (2.66 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times. That’s barely below the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit that the world hoped to stay within in the 2015 Paris climate accord to avoid the most severe effects of warming. And, January 2024 is on track to be so warm that for the first time a 12-month period will exceed the 1.5-degree threshold, Copernicus Deputy Director Samantha Burgess said. Scientists have repeatedly said that Earth would need to average 1.5 degrees of warming over two or three decades to be a technical breach of the threshold.

    https://phys.org/news/2024-01-earth-shattered-global-flirting-limit.html

  14. Another country (not) cutting back on fossil fuel work.

    NORWAY OIL AND GAS INVESTMENTS SET TO SOAR IN 2024

    “Oil and gas companies operating in Norway are expected to invest 240 billion Norwegian crowns ($21.85 billion) in 2024, up from 220.5 billion in 2023, and more than previously expected, an industry group said on Wednesday. Offshore Norway, which published the new forecast based on a survey of its members, had previously predicted 2024 oil and gas investments would amount to 194.3 billion crowns. The rise was the result of new developments, increased scope of ongoing projects as well as inflation and a weak currency.”

    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/norway-oil-gas-investments-set-soar-2024-industry-says-2023-12-13/

    1. Earlier i posted the Volvo study on their EV’s. The production of an EV requires a substantially larger carbon footprint than the production of a similar Volvo ICE. The lifetime breakeven occurs late in the vehicles lifespan and then it is favorable until the vehicle is retired. Can you please explain to me how it will be possible to build out a complete EV light vehicle fleet to replace an ICE fleet and not increase the short term carbon footprint (oil/coal) in the short run and still maintain the rest of our industrial output. Even the Pharos understood that the pyramids could only be built on surplus energy. In our case that happens to be the fossilized remains of plants. It is an unfortunate fact that the build of renewables has approximately covered the increase in energy demand to date and really Not begun to replace fossil fuels.
      I have a 3kw of solar array on my house, so I am a true believer here, just seeking clarity on the truth.

      1. Tom,
        Welcome to the real world of thermodynamics. I have a tracking PV system and battery. It will never pay out. I looked into your Volvo pdf and smiled. That is the way it is. It assumes that the car makes it to old age, which EV’s often do not. Much worse life span that ICE’s.
        In reply to your question of the EV build out, and the same applies to unreliables ( wind and solar) you cannot transition to EV’s and unreliables without vastly increasing fossil fiuel consumption and resource depletion. All unreliables and EV’s are built with fossill fuels and lots of them. We are not in any way close to producing any inputs to EV’s and unreliables using even minor amounts of unreliable energy. In the process of the transition to net zero we are steadily de-industrialising the EU and shifting carbon dioxide emissions to China and the ROW. That’s life in 2024 in the EU and to a lesser extent the US who still can emitt copious amounts of carbon dioxide.

        1. Carnot
          Yes, spot on of course. Just trying to get Doug to admit that. My PV system, where i live, has a terrible payback. But Uncle same paid 35% of it and I can run on batteries if i am careful for many days. It is a hybrid system as i am grid tied too. Better than fighting with a generator at 10 below zero. I do need a complete day of sun every 4-5 days though. Doesn’t always happen in the western mountains of Maine in deep winter. Anyhow, even some electricity is better than none and we have had outages last 6 days. Good practice. Yes, agree, Thermodynamics are a bitch!!
          I was in college studying Resource Economics when LTG came out. Big splash. I too have followed it my whole life. Then went on to an advanced degree in Environmental Science, which i taught for 20 years.

        2. If your PV system “will never pay out” then you screwed up.

          But I do agree that most of our attempted mitigation strategies will increase CO2 emissions in the short term, pushing human civilization over the edge, before the long term benefits can be realized. Because of global warming, which you wholly deny.

          1. GOT2SURF,
            I did not say it would “not pay out”. I said it had a terrible payback, I should have been clearer so we could understand each other better, as you are not a careful reader. It has perhaps a 30 year return on investment. That is mainly due to the battery bank, not the PV panels. Have you ever bought anything for its convenience? Most of us have, I live in a very remote location and can’t always run to town for gas or get a propane delivery for a generator. There are many things to consider when making such an investment other than future cash flow. I am not sure how you are under the impression I don’t believe in Climate change, You are incorrect there as I have not made statements to that effect. In fact I believe the exact opposite. Let me share a little story of what happened in Western Maine a few weeks ago. We had a 100+ year rain event that melted the snow pack and destroyed many roads and bridges where I live. The temperature was 53 degrees and held there for a prolonged period of time. Fiddlehead ferns actually began to sprout in the river bottoms. No one in living memory has ever seen this occur, as it usually happens in April, they are a great delicacy that we love to harvest and eat. This is a bio indicator of a climate system out of balance with the evolutionary characteristics of this ecosystem. Of course the fiddleheads all froze a week later and are probably dead. I have stated on this board that weather is an expression of the climate system and when more heat energy is put into a system then the system will react with either an increased frequency or amplitude response (or both). Have a good day.

  15. Just wondering if any of the promoters of the renewable future like Nick G could give an example of any solar, or wind power provider that is making good large profits as evidence that such a future is possible and worth the investment.

    Surely if the rhetoric of renewables being cheaper than fossil fuels was true, there would be plenty examples of the huge profits of such companies or plants.

    I can’t find any when I look, so I’m probably not using the correct terms in the searches. What I am finding, is profits in solar companies selling panels and the concept of how cheap solar businesses ‘will be’, but no actual examples of those selling power.
    I’m sure that you all must be familiar with a few examples, so please give us some, not theoretical ones, real ones that exist…

    1. Hideaway – ” …could give an example of any solar, or wind power provider that is making good large profits as evidence that such a future is possible and worth the investment.”

      Now we get a clearer understanding of the motivation your vehement claims that solar is no good…you don’t see it as good replacement for your fossil fuel investments [vested interest clouds your perspective].

      As far as I have been able to ascertain, these big PV utility scale projects in the US make something like a 5-8%/yr return on investment for the utilities. This is roughly in line with the utilities overall returns. Like a bond fund, but with much more stable results since the power purchase contract prices for the electricity produced are long term ( 20-30 years) and the costs are close to being fixed.

      So, utility scale PV or utility stocks in general may not fulfill your investment objectives since they are low risk and relatively low return. High investment return is not the mission of utilities.
      The goal is to produce electricity, which PV deployments in sunny areas supply at a price they find very feasible. And that is why utilities across the world in sunny areas are concentrating much of their new generating deployments on PV.

      Their goal is not to satisfy your investment goals. If you want something more risky, try offshore oil drilling companies.

      1. I didn’t think you would be able to find any, because I couldn’t either. I already stated there is a lot of examples of how there should be good returns from solar/wind farms, but no actual examples. Please keep looking and don’t fall for the rhetoric that it exists, if there are no examples.

        Here in Australia the wholesale price of electricity is often negative, like it has been today since about 7.00am when the sun is shining and wind blowing in Victoria. Many large ones are now turned off during this time. Plans for new large solar have dried up as they can’t make money, yet the generating facilities continue to depreciate, entropy is a bitch…
        I expect the same result elsewhere, when other places catch up to the level of renewables in Eastern Australia.

      2. Hickory …. “Now we get a clearer understanding of the motivation your vehement claims that solar is no good…you don’t see it as good replacement for your fossil fuel investments [vested interest clouds your perspective].”

        You cannot quote me anywhere as saying “solar is no good”, that’s just your own mind at work.
        I have consistently stated that solar is nowhere near the EROEI that is claimed, plus given the figures for Australia’s largest solar farm of a EROEI of about 1.74. I have also previously stated how solar works for households that pay retail prices for energy, especially when the solar installation is subsidised by government. I already have had 3 separate solar systems in my life with the first battery backed up system, off grid in 1985..

        I’m currently putting together the pieces for a fourth solar installation to turn our property into off-grid. I still have a 5Kw grid connect system and a separate off grid 6Kw system.
        My work shows solar is fine to run things at subsidised rates, but the problem is we need to mine, manufacture and build things in a modern civilization, not just run them. The former industrial side of the equation pays wholesale prices for their energy, not retail like me. I can afford to pay for all the embedded energy in solar and batteries up front to avoid retail prices over time, plus our grid goes out 20-30 times a year minimum!!

        the numbers do not add up to run an entire civilization off solar from the energy equation. We need an EROEI of around 6-15, depending on the source, and solar only returns 1.5-2 at best, before we take the intermittency into consideration.

        Adjusting for the intermittency by having some type of back-up, plus long transmission lines of appropriate size to deliver solar from vast areas, would mean an EROEI a lot lower. I agree with Carnot that the EROEI is likely to be less than one after taking these into account, which is useless for running a civilization on.
        I’ve already stated how much better solar needs to get to have the type of EROEI needed, including much cheaper, much longer life, much lower maintenance to get close to what’s needed.

        However, let’s assume solar does get to the levels where it shows high EROEI, say lasting 100 years, costing a quarter of present, and almost no maintenance (self cleaning panels, better materials that don’t degrade etc), we would still be no better off as we also get products from fossil fuels, so would still need them!! It’s a system we have, renewables do not solve the system issues, realistically it’s tinkering at the edges of the overall problem of overshoot, yet takes so many people’s eyes off the real problems of biodiversity loss, resource depletion, pollution (all types)..

      3. Hickory
        “Now we get a clearer understanding of the motivation your vehement claims that solar is no good…you don’t see it as good replacement for your fossil fuel investments [vested interest clouds your perspective].“

        That is a meaningless personal attack that is speculative at best and is caused by an inability to actually argue the issue at hand. Maybe you have read Sal Alinsky’s work.

        Carnot Tom and Hideaway know from first hand experience what works and they’re smart enough not to believe mainstream media hype which is a corporate propaganda machine that’s in bed with the political class to enrich themselves.

        Is global warming an issue yes! But is it caused solely by CO2 no! The myopic fixation on CO2 is like a dog with a ball. The basic problem is the entire system is unsustainable. There are many things affecting warming including warming itself creating a feedback loop with higher humidity. One of the most obvious things that should be immediately banned is air travel. It’s highly polluting and introduces water vapor into the stratosphere where it normally never reaches and is completely unnecessary. Try to explain that to Al Gore or Boeing, or the average American who has planned a trip to Bali.

        My point is all this rhetoric about climate change by even the greatest proponents is an ignorant waste of time. The more immediate problem is fossil fuels are leaving us we’re not leaving them. When that happens this industrial way of life ends. When that happens the earth will rebalance by expelling excess heat.

        Could it happen simultaneously yes! We might consume the last of our fossil fuel inheritance trying to clean up natural disasters. Maybe that’s poetic justice.

    2. Surely if the rhetoric of renewables being cheaper than fossil fuels was true, there would be plenty examples of the huge profits of such companies or plants.

      No, renewables are profit killers. The glory days of sheiks driving around in golden Rolls-Royce motorcars is over.

      Profits in the energy business have always come from the fact that most people don’t have access to adequate energy sources, and some have vast quantities. But the sun and wind are much more evenly distributed, so the profits are disappearing.

      The other problem that anyone selling fuel has is the zero marginal cost production model of renewables, especially solar. If I have a solar farm, there is never an incentive to stop producing electricity, as long as prices are non negative, so I push fuel based electricity out of the market.

      This is true even if I’m losing money or bankrupt, because I remain cashflow positive. If I have a gas plant that is losing money, either I’ll shut it down or my creditors will, but that never makes sense for a solar plant, because solar generates electricity without cash inputs.

      The question of whether solar is cheaper doesn’t even matter in the last consideration. The question is not how high the costs are, but how they are structured. We live in a market economy (more or less) and market prices are set by cash flow considerations, not the balance sheet. No matter how horrible the balance sheet looks, solar keeps producing for the cash flow.

      1. Alimbiquated … “because solar generates electricity without cash inputs.”

        That shows how little you know about the electricity market. There are ongoing costs of operation and maintenance, plus grid access fees, whether generating or not. BTW the current wholesale price for electricity in Victoria is currently negative $A51.75/Mwh… It’s negative most of the time when the combined solar and wind are over around 20-30% of grid capacity. The official stats from the AEMO webpage doesn’t give rooftop inclusion numbers, so overall solar is much higher.

        The govt are still subsidising new solar and wind, both rooftops and utility scale. Private residents and businesses are still taking up the subsidies, but new large scale project numbers have fallen off a cliff. A new round of subsidies, costing billions, was recently announced, to once again try and increase large scale renewables and batteries, because of the reduction of new investment. I don’t think it will work very well, as it doesn’t cover negative prices and as this is now a great deal of the time when the sun shines, there really is no point of having more investment.
        Our grid will fall to pieces over the next decade or so, as it’s becoming too expensive for consumers and too cheap for producers.

        I agree with your thinking that the subsidised solar and wind is destroying the profitability of all electricity generators. A greater percentage of cash from consumers is going to transmission, because much more transmission is needed from dispersed sources of generation compared to the centralised old coal producers.
        The extra transmission lines are a cost of renewables, but not counted as a cost against renewables, because that would make them look less competitive. In the latest AEMO documentation the extra transmission costs are just ignored to make renewables look cheaper to society. They actually excluded the real costs looking forward…
        https://youtu.be/mFcaZ0fgWzk

        1. Hideaway,

          Sometimes I wonder why we bother. We are governed by clueless clowns who do not know their ass form their elbow. Fine, build out a PV system and produce your so called “free “electricity. How are you going to get it to a consumer and make money? Ah, you need a transmission system and a means of providing dispatchable power. Guess what it’s not free. In fact it might cost much, much more than your investment because your location might be far away from the consumer.

          Then we have all those like myself, who are on a feed in tariff that is paid for by the consumer, at inflated prices. Even with my subsidy on my PV the installed cost will not payout. Why did I do this you might ask. There is nothing better than practising what you preach. I have a complex tracking solar array. It works fine but the actuators wear out, and they are expensive,and I mean expensive. The cabling cost in excess of $2500 and it sits above 10 tonnes of concrete. I did all the civil engineering myself.
          Yes it works but it is not cheap. Add in the 13.5 kW battery and you have a big black hole.

          I now have 10 years of data and a lesson in the economics of PV at a small scale. In my case, even with a feed in tariif( a subsidy) It will never pay out because if you have to pay for the panel washing, the wear and tear, and the depreciation then it is a bust, even an energy sink.

          So once again I will ask all the internet experts on this site, please provide a realistic costing for an unrelaible power generator- solar or wind, that can provide affordable and competitive dispatchable power vs a fossil fueled plant. I guess I will be waiting a long time. Meanwhile China will absolutely destroy our manufacturing base utilising coal with reliable dispatchable power.
          To date no-one has come up with a credible plan to answer Hideaway’s question. How are we going to power a modern complex economy with unreliables. A fine bottle of artisan mead to the most plausible answer.

        2. HIDEAWAY
          There are ongoing costs of operation and maintenance, plus grid access fees, whether generating or not.
          That is precisely my point. A power plant pays these fees whether it produces electricity or not. A solar plant pays zero to produce an additional KWh of electricity, but an fuel based plant pays for the fuel. So the marginal cost (that is, the additional cost of producing another unit compared to not producing it) is zero for a solar plant. That is not to say the plant has zero operating costs.

          Marginal cost is a somewhat obscure and un-intuitive accounting term, but it drives the decision making in companies. Read more here if you are unfamiliar with it:

          https://www.accountingcoach.com/blog/what-is-marginal-cost

          It will never pay out because if you have to pay for the panel washing, the wear and tear, and the depreciation then it is a bust, even an energy sink.

          These are all costs that affect a company’s balance sheet,and it it is good that you realize their significant, but but are not immediately cash flow relevant.

          Again, market prices are set by cash flow, not by balance sheets. That may be counter-intuitive or seem irrational to you, but that’s how markets work.

          I agree that the grid is probably doomed, or partly doomed. Claims that it exists to help poor people in states that refuse Obamacare and even free school lunch ring hollow. America is the land of vast armies of homeless but unlimited free parking mandated by law. Why? Because rich people own cars and have houses already. Land is allocated by law to free storage for the haves, not housing for the have nots.

          The grid exists to make money for fossil fuel interests, period. But with profits set to fall, those days are behind us.

          The idea that the grid will be maintained to support industry is also doubtful considering the industry was allowed to move to Asia in recent decades.

          1. Alimbiquated … I’m not sure which bit to pick apart…

            “Again, market prices are set by cash flow, not by balance sheets”

            OK so your solar farm runs at a loss over time, because of the negative power prices happening during the day, which is what’s happening in this state.
            How much are you going to invest in a new future solar farm??
            What’s your cashflow if you have to pay to send the electricity into the grid??
            What if you have loans to repay for the existing farm??
            New large scale solar has dried up for future projects because it is not economic, despite the subsidies, grants and tax breaks given. The negative prices, get it NEGATIVE prices are stopping existing solar farms from sending power into the grid.
            Negative prices totally destroy anything you think you know about the marginal producer.

            What is happening right now, is that whenever the wind dies down and wholesale prices poke their heads into positive territory during the day, someone turns on the solar plant and the price goes negative again. Of course the solar farm has to have someone sitting watching the wholesale prices to be able to make the decision to turn the plant back on. Do you think that person or people sitting around waiting come free??
            Old style coal plants were sitting next to the coal pit, with the rights to the coal, they didn’t ‘pay’ for the coal.
            As a person that’s been in my own businesses for best part of 40 years, responsible for all sales, I have a bit of an idea how markets work. I also understand how investment works.

            Approximately 12.5 years ago I invested in our grid connected system, the government were offering ridiculous incentives for people to do so. I still get paid $A66c/Kwh for energy I send into the system, even when the wholesale price is very negative, because it was in the contract. The government tried to get out of these contracts about 8 years ago when they realised how stupid they were. They were warned off this by ‘ratings agencies’ as it would negatively affect government loans interest rates, ie welshing on a contract.
            I bought the largest system possible with those subsidies.

            People tend to equate what happens with their subsidised solar and how good it is, with solar overall. It clouds judgement. Solar is a dead end because the energy cost of building it is too expensive for the return, and then negative if taking extra transmission and storage into account. Certainly games can be played to make it look good to those that don’t want to understand what’s really going on…

            Negative wholesale pricing makes it look good for anyone that wants to invest in batteries, what’s not to like about being paid to take electricity, then send it back to the grid at night? Simple no-one will write a contract for long term negative prices, they would be stupid to do so. If enough build battery banks, then the night time price might also go negative for a period of time.
            The rules of the the system wont allow long term contracts to buy or sell power unless it’s from solar and wind. The market is not a pure market, otherwise the aluminium smelter in this state would write a long term contract with a coal plant (like they did when they built the smelter decades ago). Solar and wind could not survive in a pure market, so governments change the rules of access. It seems to be something you don’t know about…

            1. OK so your solar farm runs at a loss over time, because of the negative power prices happening during the day, which is what’s happening in this state.

              Fuel burners are losing more. And batteries eliminate negative prices — that’s sort of the point.

              I am perfectly aware that the electricity market is highly regulated. I have already discussed this point above. You seem to imagine it is for the greater good or something.

              When fuel prices are high solar wins market share and gets investment. But when pries are low, it is still able to (and have an incentive to) undercut fuel based competitors, because of its zero marginal costs.So its market share will continue to grow. Solar may not be a good investment, but it also makes any electricity generation with non-zero marginal costs a bad investment.

              You can think of it as a sort of ratchet. Every time solar market share goes up a notch, that market share is pretty much lost to any competition.

              And solar definitely cause solar problems too, driving prices down to zero. You see something similar in the chip business. Chip foundries are extremely expensive to build, and chips are extremely expensive to design, but once you’re past that chips a very cheap to make. So chip prices tend to crash as soon as there are a few competitors of whatever the next generation is.

              If you don’t agree fine. Just wait a few years and we’ll see.

  19. Most are oblivious to peak oil. This blog site is trying to figure it out with a skeptical geoscientist.
    This is interesting:
    I recall being very unimpressed by the so-called biomarkers in petroleum that supposedly pointed to it’s thermogenic origins. Yet, these “markers” were quite weak! If the oil/gas had been ALL biologically derived, why weren’t these signals stronger? Well, now that answer is clearer – it’s most likely a mixing of both, or all, types.

    https://sagehana.substack.com/p/peak-oil-or-how-i-learned-to-stop

    Ok the Origin is interesting but
    I don’t understand how a geoscientist doesn’t address why it always gets harder to find & produce oil. And an insatiable appetite of 8B people.

    But I was also surprised how Ken Defeyyes? In his good book ‘Hubbert’s peak ‘ missed fracking.

  20. I find it interesting how people can’t recognize that we’re already in severe energy decline. If you just look at the last few decades it’s easy to see. Take the US for the primary example since it is the most energy dependent country on the planet.

    If you were raised in the 30s and 40s you saved everything. Times were hard and you had to work hard to make it. But resources were plentiful and it was possible.

    If you were raised in the 50s or 60s you could pretty much be a bungling idiot and still make it. Just look at the two presidential candidates. And think about all the other delinquents who eventually cleaned up there act and still were able to owns homes start a business and go on vacation.

    If you however were raised in the 70s or 80s you didn’t have that luxury. If you were smarter and faster you could get ahead. But the unskilled workers had few opportunities. Maybe a parent or relative could find them a union job. But that’s was what it took.

    If you were raised in the 90s and 2000s you’re pretty much toast. If you’re 30 today and aren’t in your own home you probably never will until possibly your parents die and leave you there house. Even if you earn an advanced degree there is no guarantee of employment.

    What is the common denominator? Energy per capita. That is the bedrock of the real economy. Oil peaked in 1970 which capped the US led economic boom. However we have been living off that pulse now for 50years. Much of our infrastructure was designed and built during that period. By offshoring our manufacturing to China we could use it for residential development. Debt was introduced into the economy in the 70s and 80s allowing us to pretend we were still growing. But now it no longer works.

    Fundamentally we’re not at the beginning of the road or the middle of the road. We’re at the end of the road. Global energy consumption has never been higher. Just as we peak in production and fall into decline. Unrealized bank losses will be the new normal. Not just bonds but everything. Business projections will all fail and with them businesses debt. And investments. Pensions will fail. City’s will declare bankruptcy. Bank lending will decline as it already has. The money supply will shrink causing international debt defaults. It’s already happening. Trade will slow eventually causing infrastructure to collapse because the replacement parts are in China.

    The reaction to this predicament will be to turn to government which really we already have 34trillion government and growing. The economy is no longer distributed throughout the country as it was in the 20s-60s then consolidated by Wall Street in the 70s-2000s it lives now in Washington DC. Congress and the FED are the economy what they fund is what will be done. Sound familiar? Basically it’s Soviet style command economy.

    “We command unreliables and EVs be manufactured and distributed “ And so it was said and so it was done and the people were happy.

    1. JT

      Just brilliant. You nailed it. The last paragraph is priceless.

      I am one of those born in the late 50’s. By hard work and thrifty living I was debt free at 40. I paid for my fist house at the age of 27, and my third house by 40. I hate debt. But I am an oddball.

  21. As the world moves rapidly away from fossil fuels.

    WOODMAC: GLOBAL OIL DEMAND TO RISE BY 2 MILLION BPD IN 2024

    “Oil demand will continue to set records this year, with global demand growth expected at nearly 2 million barrels per day (bpd) compared to 2023, Wood Mackenzie said in a report on Thursday. China will account for around 25% of the worldwide growth in oil demand, according to the energy consultancy. Total global oil demand will average 103.5 million bpd for 2024, WoodMac said.”

    https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/WoodMac-Global-Oil-Demand-to-Rise-by-2-Million-Bpd-in-2024.html

    1. Meanwhile,

      WORLD’S TWO LARGEST COAL CONSUMERS WON’T BE WEANING OFF THE FOSSIL FUEL ANYTIME SOON

      • Both countries are the world’s largest consumers of the dirtiest fossil fuel, and continued modernization puts their energy consumption on a rapid growth trajectory.
      • Global coal use in 2023 has hit a record high, surpassing 8.5 billion tons for the first time, on the back of strong demand in countries like India and China, said IEA.

      Global coal usage in 2023 hit a record high, surpassing 8.5 billion tons for the first time, on the back of strong demand in emerging and developing countries such as India and China, IEA said in a recent report. There are no signs of a slowdown, with the IEA saying coal consumption in India and Southeast Asia is projected to “grow significantly.” India’s coal production rose to 893 million tons during the financial year ending March 2023, jumping nearly 15% from a year earlier. China’s raw coal production from January to November in 2023 went up by 2.9% compared with the same period in 2022.

      https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/11/china-and-india-cant-wean-themselves-off-coal-anytime-soon.html

    2. ‘No, This Is Not a Parody’: Florida School District Bans Dictionaries Under DeSantis Law

  23. CHASING THE LIGHT: STUDY FINDS NEW CLUES ABOUT WARMING IN THE ARCTIC

    The Arctic, Earth’s icy crown, is experiencing a climate crisis like no other. It’s heating up at a furious pace—four times faster than the rest of our planet. Sandia researchers are pulling back the curtain on the reduction of sunlight reflectivity, or albedo, which is supercharging the Arctic’s warming.

    “There have been numerous local measurements and theoretical discussions regarding the effects of water puddling on ice albedo. This study represents one of the first comprehensive examinations of year-to-year effects in the Arctic region,” Kaczmarowski said. “Sandia’s data analysis revealed a 20% to 35% decrease in total reflectivity over the Arctic summer. According to microwave sea-ice extent measurements collected during the same period, one-third of this loss of reflectivity is attributed to fully melted ice.” The other two-thirds of the loss in reflectivity is likely caused by the weathering of the remaining sea ice. “The key discovery here is just how much the weathered ice is reducing reflectivity,” Kaczmarowski added. Weathered ice refers to the remaining sea ice, which can be thinner and may contain melt ponds.

    https://phys.org/news/2024-01-clues-arctic.html

Comments are closed.