Comments not related to oil or natural gas production in this thread please. Thank you.
74 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum May 10, 2025”
EVEN AS EMISSIONS LEVEL OFF, CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS GROWING FASTER THAN EVER.
Over the last decade, humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) have stabilized after a period of huge growth. Average growth is now down to just 0.6% per year, compared to 2% per year in the previous decade. But leveling off isn’t the same as declining—and we’ve leveled off at a very high rate of emissions. The Global Carbon Project estimates human activities released a record high of 10.2 gigatons of carbon (GtC) in 2024.
Last year, the atmosphere’s concentration of CO₂ rose at the fastest rate on record. Over the last decade, atmospheric CO₂ increased an average of 2.4 parts per million (ppm) a year. But last year, concentrations jumped by 3.5 ppm, reaching 424 ppm in the atmosphere. These concentrations are more than 50% higher than the pre-industrial period.
Take a look at the Mauna Loa CO2 graph. Now consider the reduction of energy consumed in 2020 due to Covid. Now go back to the Mauna Loa graph and find the corresponding drop in CO2 in the atmosphere. Oh that’s right, there isn’t any. It is complicated.
May I post my latest article here? It is ostensibly about the emerald ash borer “invasion” in the US, but I use this as a platform to discuss persons and issues many here hold dear: Malthus, Darwin, Catton, population, agriculture, and — of course — the fossil fuels.
Nick,
You seem to be an advocate of a Jetson’s future, but mostly from the perspective of qualitative arguments. Your last post on the other side cited some world-in-data information about sustainability of fisheries. This is more like it.
How many people does the earth sustain in your FF free technotopia future? How long does it take to get there? And, can you point to some solid analysis which backs you up across the range of systems required for life and a modern society (not just the questionable Stanford analysis of energy transition to renewables you pointed to recently).
Regarding agrarian societies, do you have a deep expertise in ag and ecological systems? Sincere question, not a pointed barb. I do not myself, but have taken a few baby steps in that direction. For example, A. Duncan Brown wrote ‘Feed or Feedback : Agriculture, Population Dynamics and the State of the Planet’. One particular quote from Chapter 5 of this work gives me some hope:
“A large uniformly distributed agrarian population can farm ‘for ever’ (climate permiting) if it farms well”.
Mr Duncan argues from ecological first principles as well as a historical review spanning thousands of years of human efforts. Our current system is a blip on the scale of the human story.
It seems like the onus is on proving the current ‘modern’ standard of living can be expanded and sustained globally with high incomes, clean water, health care, relative safety and food that is both plentiful and relatively cheap. Can you prove it?
the onus is on proving the current ‘modern’ standard of living can be expanded and sustained globally
I would disagree.
It seems to me that the most important argument on PeakOilBarrel is whether we should push as hard as possible, as fast as possible, for a transition away from fossil fuels. The rest of the arguments seem to me to be a sideshow: FF is at the root of most of our ills. Just look at the GFN footprint analysis: the majority of our “footprint” comes directly from FF.
FF advocates have made many different arguments for the FF status quo – one of the latest is that we’re heading for The End Of The World As We Know It, so there’s no point in disrupting the status quo. What’s the point, if everything is going away anyway? I know people who live in rural areas who can’t get anyone to listen to ideas about conservation, or improving our treatment of the environment, or use of FF, or, well, anything, because they believe the end of the world is nigh. 40%(!) of the US population agrees with this idea, and many more have it lurking in their subconscious, fed by Mad Max movies, etc., etc. It seems to me useful to combat these unrealistic ideas about TEOTWAWKI. But, still, they’re mostly a distraction, a red herring. Just one of many distracting, irrelevant arguments.
So…
Do you agree that we should transition away from FF as soon as possible (however you define ASAP)?
Yes, I agree that we should transition away from FF as soon as possible.
The need has been painfully obvious for decades.
I would define ASAP as equivalent to the 40% of GDP peak that the US spent at the height of world war 2.
Not happening now and not going to happen ASAP if at all this century.
Too many entrenched interests, too many stranded assets, too many people earning high salaries in the industry, too many politicians on board, too much propaganda, too little understanding of math and science.
too many people earning high salaries in the industry,
That is what I find revolutionary about solar: Not so much that it is a replacement for FF, but that it is a profit killer.
I don’t think anyone knows whether the current profligate energy consumption is caused by a real need for energy. The entire structure of modern economies is partially driven by the profitability of the FF industry.
This never happened when Germany produced most of its electricity from coal.
Now it has one of the highest percentage of wind and solar in the world and company executives are saying they are being crippled by the cost of electricity. These are people losing their jobs.
China on the other hand produces 50% from coal and it has one of the cheapest electricity prices in the world.
So like for like a factory in Uk or Germany pays £1 million for energy in China they pay £200,000. That is why we buy so much from China because our factories have shut down.
It seems that this argument ignores the vast externalities associated with our dependence on fossil fuels.
Why did Germany decide to stop using coal?
Is electricity cost the only ore even primary reason we buy so much from China?
Is fossil fuel burning harmful to the ecosystem humans need to survive?
Are FFS a diminishing resource?
Unless we can agree on these issues we can hardly have a productive conversation about electricity cost or the diminution of American manufacturing.
Jj
When dedicated factory owners say electricity prices have forced them to close then they should be believe if you don’t then just p off.
Loads of..
I acknowledge that electricity in Germany is expensive…..
You’ve cited a citation of a citation on the subject from a news source in a major FF producing country and have accepted that as words out of the mouths of the “dedicated factory owners” in Germany and that that is the only or primary reason we are buying so much from China? OK, but no need to be cranky.
The two main drivers of the high cost of electricity in Germany are the taxes on electricity and the 20 year contracts for solar when it was expensive.
The electricity tax is set to be removed starting in July 2025. The long term contracts will take longer to get past, but because the price of solar fell faster than the number of contracts rose, the cost is already declining.
The additional charges by local governments aren’t likely to go away soon, but the problem is more political than technological. Also the VAT (19%) is likely to stay.
Meanwhile negative prices are getting more and more common. It has happened every day this week.
Transition away from fossil fuels is certainly something to aim for. As fast as possible?; maybe as sensible as possible due to the long lead times and costs involved in getting sizable renewable capacity online (and not at least grid capacity).
The main sub plot of this aim is to make electricity based on renewables anywhere from 50% up to 100% of the total, dependent on the natural environment. The natural given prospects for renewables varies very much for every region. But to include primary heavy industry into the overall aim is questionable. What we will end up with is a declining industrial sector and a vital electric grid capacity wise trying to be “the last man standing” based on renewables (in my humble opinion). And it is actually great if we can get more efficient at utilising electricity and “play” with how supply/demand can be served in a grid (or more grids, microgrids?).
to include primary heavy industry into the overall aim is questionable. What we will end up with is a declining industrial sector
The problem here is competitiveness. If every country were to levy a fairly stiff carbon tax, heavy industry would be just fine: they’d build the new cost into their cost structure for the short term, and in the long term they’d reduce their power costs with efficiency and optimal sourcing. It would make very little difference to these industries overall.
But, if one country increases power costs to heavy industry unilaterally, then domestic industry will be at a disadvantage and it may move to places with cheaper power.
Germany has several things going on: IIRC one is that natural gas prices have jumped due to the Ukraine war. How much of increased industrial power pricing is due to this?
The industrial clusters all around the world have several things going for them as long as they have maritime access and surplus of skilled labour. So the question is more how to transport energy to the clusters in a cost competitive way. Coal is a major problem over long distances, gas in the form of LNG lesser so. Oil is as we know – is the king of being a flexible and energy dense resource in the puzzle. Electricity based on renewables is a long term solution if the cost structure and application is good enough. Even if fossil fuel access declines or prices increase, the clusters will likely stay the same. The main important assets being maritime access, infrastructure available and surplus skilled labour pool. I am not holding my hopes too high when it comes to industrial and other efficiency gains will keep prices down for a very long time. For now we are fine in the western world.
The beauty of the energy transition is that it so slow moving that it is possible to live your life without seeing the consequences. Correction; true in 1970s, and partly in 1990s, not so much in the 2010, true still in the 2020s but not if you intend to live for a long time.
Gas prices would not have mattered had idiot governments under pressure from minority green coalition forced FORCED closure of coal and nuclear.
Shutting down power plants that had paid for themselves years before. Producing the cheapest electricity.
Loadsofoil
said at 05/14/2025 at 3:02 am:
“While India and China are booming we go bankrupt, they are laughing at us.”
That’s not laughing…its coughing from all the coal dust and various other pollutants in their air.
NICK G
Gas isn’t used much for electricity in Germany, despite ill-informed claims to the contrary you’ll see on the internet (including here).
Gas IS used for industrial heating however. Coal nuclear and renewables are not usually considered to be good alternatives for this market. This causes a lot of confusion and plenty of fuel for populist rants.
Gas is also widely used for heating homes as well. There is a big shift to heat pumps, but that won’t shift the absolute numbers very quickly. Something similar is going on in industry, but again, don’t hold your breath.
Energy is cheap in China thanks to massive subsidies. Chinese subsidies to fossil fuels are over $2 trillion a year.
China also provides massive subsidies to nuclear and renewables.
Alimbiquated,
Thanks, good to know.
Looks like the majority of the subsidies are implicit, for pollution, etc. These are real costs, though many people are unwilling to recognize or internalize them.
I suppose the rate of action that is warranted on the energy transition (+others) depends to a great degree on your personal circumstances and personal discount rate even assuming you’re starting with a similar understanding of likely future consequences.
40 years old, profiting from the current system and not concerned about the future? Fuggedaboutit, let the good times roll.
Maybe put a few spiritual leaders or those already at the pointy end of consequences at the other end of the spectrum with a much different perspective.
uhmmmm, well, the personal circumstances are important: I’d say that people in the O&G industry, and allied industries like cars, really dread the transition. For instance, car dealers really hate the loss of maintenance and repair income that will be caused by the move to EVs.
Most people will be better off. Cars will be much better, and have cheaper TCO. Passive houses are much more comfortable, and quieter and cleaner to boot.
And, of course reducing climate change, oil wars, pollution induced illness, and oil-induced corruption (e.g., Russia becomes much more aggressive when it’s oil income is up, and KSA has been subsidizing religious extremism to hide it’s kleptocracy) makes almost everyone’s lives better.
T Hill,
I agree with all of that. I’m glad to hear it.
Now, I’m not sure what you have in mind when you refer to my point. My largest argument is the one we’ve just agreed on: that a transition from FF is essential, and a good thing. Feasible and necessary.
Now, there are other things we can talk about, like agrarian lifestyles vs industrial ones. That’s kind of interesting, but very abstract, given that we’re nowhere near a point where that might possible be needed. I’m mostly interested in the public policies we should be fighting for right now.
I have 2 questions: what would we do if we were king? And, given that we’re not king, how do we create social and political changes to support good public policy?
As a start on the 1st question: I’m thinking that a good policy might be adding 5 cents per gallon to fuel taxes each month until we get to about $8.00 per gallon (and the equivalent carbon tax on coal and gas). Seems like that would incentivize change pretty fast, while minimizing disruption. The revenue would go 10% to R&D and other costs of the transition, and 90% to rebates to individuals as a progressive reverse-tax to counter any regressivity and macroeconomic impact, and political resistance to carbon taxes.
I have taken your prior posts as focused on the energy transition from FF to 100% electric as nearly the sole challenge to sustainability facing the world. I disagree with this perspective. Your comments have seemed dismissive of other aspects of what is sometimes described as a polycrisis. Many of these other issues remain critical aspects of the overshoot situation that Ron and others have pointed to. A globally pervasive Jetsons future is exceedingly unlikely on the facts. I’m also skeptical about the feasibility of an energy transition at the scale required to support current or future population peak at current levels of consumption. I had asked for you to make a stronger, quantitative argument in support of that technotopia future.
I pointed to data indicating an agrarian lifestyle as more likely to be sustainable because of your negative comments to others on this topic. Nowhere near a point where that may possibly be needed? Really? Let’s look at a source you’ve pointed to elsewhere. Our-world-in-data suggests that 1/3 of the worlds food comes from roughly 480M agrarian, smallholder farms. Seems pretty necessary right now.
I don’t see your policy suggestions as having any practical chance of global adoption. FFs are relatively inexpensive for the huge energy density that they provide. Globally we’re going to keep burning them and the associated impacts will continue.
FFs are relatively inexpensive for the huge energy density that they provide. Globally we’re going to keep burning them and the associated impacts will continue.
Well, I see a part of the problem: you’re still thinking about stuff that’s unrealistic. This idea that FFs are relatively inexpensive is incorrect: solar is cheaper than other sources – so much so that it’s not just less expensive to install than other forms of generation, the operating costs of most generation is more expensive than solar in most of the world.
Imagine: it’s worth replacing existing FF generation with solar because FF generation operating costs can’t compete with the TCO of solar.
That’s per Bloomberg New Energy (a very mainstream, credible source). Note that this article is 4 years old: solar has gotten even cheaper relative to FF since then.
Nick G…. “This idea that FFs are relatively inexpensive is incorrect”.
To humanity as a whole fossil fuels are just as free as solar and wind. We humans have to make machines to take advantage of any of these sources of energy.
We started down the mining of energy route 250 years ago as it gave us a lot more dense energy than the renewable energy forms of mostly wood, wind and solar at the time.
The continued approach to place prices on fossil fuels for human use but consider that solar and wind are free is just a man made construct people use for whatever argument.
Nick G …. ” it’s worth replacing existing FF generation with solar because FF generation operating costs can’t compete with the TCO of solar.”
You keep repeating this misconception ad nauseum, yet cannot ever provide any evidence of where heavy industry is choosing to go totally off grid (to avoid grid fees), to use just solar, wind and batteries for their heavy industry.
Economics of the operation would clearly have many heavy industries choosing to do so if your above claim was correct. Why do you keep avoiding this elephant in the room to all the stated rhetoric??
Nick,
Nope. Outside of an ivory tower lab, the reality is that FF consumption keeps growing and a large part of that remains driven by ground truth cost, regardless of ongoing transitions or what might be theoretically possible in the future. How many EV tractors plowing a field today? Electric chainsaws running all day? Petrochemical plants using your theoretical alternatives? This stuff might as well be magic in comparison to tilling that ground by hand or working a two-man crosscut saw.
Also, looks like you aren’t interested in all of the other systems issues that would be required to support your Jetsons technotopia. Disappointed.
I disagree with folks like Hideway on some things, but it is clear that he/she has done a lot of homework and dug deep into aspects of the field. Please cite some solid research, critique specific research or show some math.
fossil fuels are just as free as solar and wind. We humans have to make machines to take advantage of any of these sources of energy.
Of course. You’re mistaken that this has created any errors in analysis – I don’t know where this idea comes from – some silly FF blogger, I guess. Everyone knows that energy must be captured, converted and transported to where it’s needed. Solar means one needs to manufacture PV panels, mounts, inverters and site wiring, buy or lease land, transport them to the site, install them, wire them and transport the power to the grid. Coal must be mined, cleaned up, moved to a power plant, burned, and the waste stored, etc. NG must be drilled for, piped, burned, etc. When people say that wind and solar are cheaper, they mean that it’s cheaper to do all that stuff for solar than to do all that stuff for coal. In fact, all that stuff for solar is cheaper than just maintaining most coal plants.
Did you look at the article I provided? You asked for such sources- here’s one. Now, this is just a popular article, but Bloomberg NEF is a serious, credible, mainstream organization and it shouldn’t be hard to find more reports directly from them, or new summaries. Or tell me and I’ll find more (but it really isn’t hard to find good info on the relative costs of different power sources.
evidence of where heavy industry is choosing to go totally off grid (to avoid grid fees), to use just solar, wind and batteries for their heavy industry. Economics of the operation would clearly have many heavy industries choosing to do so
Well, no. Hideaway has repeated this ad nauseum, and it makes absolutely no sense. First, heavy industry doesn’t particularly want to be in the utility business – they have enough to do dealing with their core competencies. Most heavy industry is very happy to negotiate low prices from utilities, perhaps move to be in the territory of those utilities that have cheap hydro (or other cheap sources, like Icelandic geothermal). Secondly, it makes very little sense to go off grid – grids provide a lot of services, which make special sense for wind and solar. Wind and solar are obviously best in combination with themselves and other things (hydro, nuclear, utility size batteries, microgrids using EVs, etc). Such services are far cheaper from a large grid than in the service of smaller, isolated operations.
This idea that solar or wind should prove themselves by off-grid use by smelters or miners is an unrealistic McGuffin from a FF defender.
Nevertheless, there are some large mining and smelting operations that are integrating large amounts of solar especially into their operation, without of course going off-grid. This gets ignored, or waved away because it’s not fully off-grid.
So….once again: have you tried doing any research yourself on the relative costs of renewables? It’s a very important topic, and you’re really missing something if you don’t.
Nick G … I see you continue to ignore reality that Aluminium smelters like the new one from Adaro are indeed building the smelter and associated power plant (coal) as a captive plant, meaning it’s own new grid, or effectively ‘off grid’..
Why is it so possible to do this with coal while no-one is doing it with solar, wind and batteries??
Very obvious your sleight of hand claiming solar and wind are cheapest, then referring to smelters that have gone to geothermal and hydro sources of power.
Do you realise that if we exclude ‘traditional biomass’ from energy equations to look at what powers the modern world, fossil fuels still provide 92% of all energy content that includes huge gobs of essential products, while of the exclusive electricity providers, which have zero of the important products, are only 8% of all energy, with hydro and nuclear being the majority of this and solar and wind still only providing 2.7% of the overall energy used.
BTW you don’t seem to understand my position at all. I’m not a fossil fuel defender at all. I’m a reality defender, from what actually exists and is happening in our world. Fossil fuels are dirty, environment damaging sources of energy and products that will be rapidly leaving us, oil initially, due to humanities stupid compulsion to keep growing into terminal overshoot, by ignoring reality of depleting resources and environment damage.
Every cornucopian view of a bright green future based upon solar, wind, batteries and/or nuclear fission/fusion is just as delusional as anyone thinking modernity will continue based on polluting/depleting fossil fuels.
We can only maintain any of our current civilization by continuing high and growing use of energy to make up for the lower grades of everything we mine (energy, metals, minerals and materials), as due to entropy and dissipation 97-99% of all energy goes to just maintenance, not growth of anything ‘new’.
We will leave most of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground once past peak production of oil, as the overall energy decline will, via feedback loops throughout the world economy, crush the complexity of the modern world in chaotic ways. We only do all the mining via high levels of complexity in our modern world and this complexity is required because of the low grades of everything. The falling complexity will make a lot of oil and gas unobtainable, just like it will make a lot of copper and every other mined resources unobtainable as well.
The human march forward of technical ability/modernity over the last 250 years has only come at the cost to the environment of a growing human population/market size that allows for growing complexity, which required growing energy and materials use as well, in a self supporting upward spiral until something major fails.
As overall EROEI of all energy has been falling, manifesting as debt increases and lower standards of living and greater inequality already, once actual energy production starts falling, most likely led by oil production falls, the upward spiral of growth will collapse, taking complexity of our modern world with it…
The more I research it, the more I realise it’s most likely just the way it was always going to happen as the self adapting complex system of civilization reaches the end of it’s time, just like every other complex self adapting growth system ends..
T HILL How many EV tractors plowing a field today? Electric chainsaws running all day?
I’ve said this before but…
When a new tech is introduced, there are always some people saying it’s growing exponentially against some people saying it isn’t there now so it will never come. How can you tell who’s right?
The answer is that new tech doesn’t enter the mainstream with a bang. It comes in by filling niches and finding early adopters. Each time a niche is filled, sales volumes increase and the tech moves closer to mass production and adoption.
There is no question that renewables fill some niches. The same applies to batteries. The real question is not how fast the tech is growing but how many niches it is filling and can fill.
However, finding niches you are sure can’t be filled isn’t a good counterargument. Even the most widespread tech doesn’t fill every niche. Coal, for example, is rarely used on small islands. But that doesn’t mean it is rare.
Alimbiquated,
Your point is valid. My few examples were limited in number and not representative of the larger picture.
Examples of more comprehensive views on the FF transition can be found in recent work by Vaclav Smil (2024) and David Hughes (2024). Are you familiar with these two?
Do you have experience working at anything approaching the implied scale of physical infrastructure necessary for a transition to 100% electrification? I believe that the challenge can be hard to internalize unless you do. Examples like the distributed PV buildout in Pakistan this past year are great and encouraging demonstrations of what is possible. For all the complexity involved in such an energy transition, this issue remains one slice of the many challenges facing us.
This recent discussion thread that I was continuing with Nick kicked off with Ron’s post a few days back asking for input on an article that listed 10 issues as contributing to the likely collapse of civilization. Nick had commented on the overall conclusion, but then focused largely on the narrow aspect associated with an energy transition. With little quantifiable support other than opinion.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no FF fan. From a personal perspective, we built our house more than 25 years ago here in the NE US with no FF, only electric and some wood heat. GHSP for space conditioning. 7kW PV array. Went back to school on the side and added a BS in EE more than a decade ago to better understand the energy transition.
NickG, given that the FedFuel tax has been 18.4 cents unchanged for 32 yrs the idea that you could increase it $.60 a year and not cause major disruption is right up there with Donald starting a trade war and think it won’t cause major disruption.
Disruption is in the cards.
At one time I thought changing the fuel tax policy and getting rid of the schedule 179 tax incentive for light trucks would be a worthwhile start but we’re too far down the road attempting to maintain unsustainable levels of consumption that we’re defaulting to crisis and collapse.
the FedFuel tax has been 18.4 cents unchanged for 32 yrs
Well, see, the first step is identifying what you would do if you were king. You’ve identified a change that has been prevented by the oil industry, through it’s control of the Republican party. That belongs to the 2nd step: actually doing the political work to implement change.
Disruption is in the cards.
I dunno. Trading in your SUV for a hybrid or an EV doesn’t seem that difficult…
“Do you agree that we should transition away from FF as soon as possible (however you define ASAP)?”
Whenever someone challenges Nick’s thesis, Nick challenges their values. It’s getting kinda pathetic.
While rabid Green lobbies in UK have destroyed the U K coal, steel heavy industries.
We are heading towards the most pessimistic climate scenarios. And now we don’t have the money to protect ourselves from the floods and drought that are already happening.
Loads of Oil knows full well that it was not “rabid Green lobbies in UK have destroyed the U K coal, steel heavy industries”. It was rabid blue right wing Tory Margaret Thatcher who financialised the British economy and demoted the UK down the league table of manufacturing nations from number 5 to currently 13 or lower. Or perhaps Loads of Oil is too young to have lived through the Blessed Margaret’s creation of the British rust belt in South Wales, the Midlands and North of England, and in Scotland during the eighties, and to have seen the massed mounted or truncheoned charges of police against the working class miners defending their communities from her assaults. But to do her justice, it was she who was perhaps the first leader of any developed country in the world to warn of the threat of climate change resulting from burning of fossil fuels. And what L of O says is true about the fact that currently, the country in Europe that with Ireland and Norway has the highest rates of rainfall is seeing diminishing stocks of water in reservoirs and prolonged drought and probable crop failures.
You are quite right. But it is impossible to Vigo through the entire history of the decline of British industry in every post.
Thatcher was an extreme libertarian capitalist, only knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
If you can get cheap coal from South Africa, then why pay our miner more. The result was billions of pounds leaving this country every year. Communities fell into utter despair, billions paid in unemployment benefits and precious gas wasted producing electricity.
However in the last 30 years green pressure groups have had great influence on preventing new coal mines opening. I have talked to these people, and they have no sense of moderation at all.
Germany closed all it’s nuclear power plants under pressure from a few mps and the hysteria they spread.
In the U.K. they launched legal action against every nuclear power plants under proposals and new mines.
The result is massive build of wind and solar but no storage, so electricity is discharged into the earth or wind turbines turned off and we pay for it.
Indonesia has one of the cheapest electricity supplies and it’s building smelting plants all over.
We are bankrupting ourselves and achieving nothing.
To prevent the worsening global climate change, droughts, flooding and fires China the worst offender needed to decrease coal consumption starting 2015 and burn less than 2 billion tonnes by 2030.
All other coal consuming countries would have had to make the same percentage cuts.
Margret Thatcher killed UK coal. She is very much a child of the North Sea oil boom. She thought it would last forever, so she used the cash to deliver tax cuts to the rich and the fuel to kill the union-heavy coal industry.
As it turned out, the oil boom didn’t last forever. Now the state is bankrupt and there is no coal industry, for better or worse.
There is no such thing as “The British Economy”. It died in the last century. All there is remaining is “Heritage”. So the best thing is to dismantle Buckingham Palace and put up the bits for sale to rebuild it somewhere in Florida near Disneyland; likewise send over the Atlantic the Tower of London, Stonehenge and Westminster Abbey, then have King Charles abdicate and get sell the monarchy to Trump – he’s found he can’t be Pope, so the next best thing is dressing up as King of England.
I would say it’s an example of the Dutch disease. Access to easy money (often from fossil fuel) makes governments think they can do no wrong. That’s why so many fossil fuel rich countries have terrible governments.
METHANE: WHERE IT COMES FROM AND WHY WE’RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME
“Emissions and atmospheric concentrations of methane continue to increase, making it the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing after carbon dioxide. In fact, methane concentrations have risen faster over the past five-year period than in any period since record-keeping began, and yet research suggests that reducing methane emissions may be cheaper than carbon dioxide mitigation for a comparable climate benefit.”
One of the biggest feedbacks is the monetary system.
When you have a debt based currency you’re always vulnerable to overshoot if your primary energy source can’t expand.
1927 peak coal coal based economy
1970 peak oil US oil based economy
2005 peak conventional oil global
2018 peak oil all forms
Keep this in mind and the fact that diesel production has been declining since 2008 and watch this video on the Eurodollar
That video was an overview of the Eurodollar market from 10,000 feet. He basically just described it without the details. He knows the details but for that audience, that podcast wasn’t meant to breakdown what actually takes place in the Eurodollar market.
One thing about Jeff Snyder is he never connects how energy or lack there of energy translates into deflationary money.
As oil exports vanish from the market over the next 10-20 years. The Eurodollar market will say no thanks to places that import a lot of oil. Singapore, Japan, Italy are a few that come to mind that import not only oil but coal and natural gas as well.
There are certain countries that will be cutoff from Eurodollar lending first as the transition to less energy plays out.
I’ll add one additional facet that any store of wealth that anyone has is simply a claim on someone else’s debt. Without continuous energy growth whoever that someone is will be insolvent.
Prov 18:11 The wealth of the rich is his fortified city; It is like a protective wall in his imagination.
The whole idea of making a profit requires energy growth. Doesn’t matter if it’s a bank lending out money with interest attached. Or if banks are charging fees instead of interest. More money has to be repaid than was lent out in the first place.
It simply doesn’t matter if solar and wind are a thing. Because not only does solar and wind have to be able to repay the debts incurred building them. They also have to be able to retire all the legacy debt.
Which is exactly why solar and wind don’t matter. You’d have to believe everyone within a economy would continue on without a profit in order to believe solar and wind matter.
GLOBAL RECYCLING RATES HAVE FALLEN FOR EIGHTH YEAR RUNNING
“Global recycling rates are failing to keep pace with a culture focused on infinite economic growth and consumerism, with the proportion of recycled materials re-entering supply chains falling for the eighth year running, according to a new report. Only 6.9% of the 106bn tonnes of materials used annually by the global economy came from recycled sources, a 2.2 percentage point drop since 2015, researchers from the Circle Economy thinktank found.”
The thing about infinite growth is that it would take an infinite length of time to get to infinity, no matter how fast growth is.
It’s not a real thing.
Or are you claiming that growth needs to be infinitely fast? That can’t be right. If the monetary system required infinite growth rates, then either the economy would already be infinitely large, or money would not exist.
The world has a monetary system which requires infinite growth of either material goods or personal services both of which require ever growing supplies of energy and other finite physical resources. On this finite physical planet that cannot happen, and no amount of renewable energy is going to make a large difference to when the collapse comes.
One day, very soon, the financial system is going to collapse, globally, and very suddenly, Global trade is going to largely stop overnight, almost all of the wealthy people in the world (and many of the poor) are going to suddenly realise that money in the bank, stocks, or bitcoin are nothing more than sunshine and rainbows. Global debt will be reset to zero.
Then what? There will still be a planet, people, remaining resources, governments, armies. The internet may or may not get switched off. A lot of people will get hungry very quickly and very angry. But the physical world will not have measurably changed from the day before.
The human species will re-organise. This might be social, feudal, tribal, gang, military or even national. It will be ugly and violent in places, but it will not be the end of the world or even the human species. Trade will resume, as new trust structures are created or military realities are enforced. There is nothing fundamental about money. It is purely a representation of debt that needs to be repaid in the future.
In that world, people in a physical area that is relatively wealthy in renewable energy infrastructure will be in a better position to survive the transition than those that are not.
“One day, very soon, the financial system is going to collapse, globally, and very suddenly, Global trade is going to largely stop overnight, almost all of the wealthy people in the world (and many of the poor) are going to suddenly realise that money in the bank, stocks, or bitcoin are nothing more than sunshine and rainbows. Global debt will be reset to zero.”
Well, that would reveal just how grossly overextended the world is on an immediate basis. Without paper/digital assets on their ledger ask yourself who could get food, get heat, get products of daily living? Your utility would grind to a halt, store shelves would go empty and stay empty, gas stations would be drained, hardware stores would be paneled shut, farmers couldn’t get credit to plant to till to fertilize to harvest, your cell and cable service would go static, as just a few examples.
You are talking a scenario with complete breakdown in social order in most the modern world. Would lock down due to martial law or conditions of anarchy be your worst threat?…perhaps both.
I am sorry to say that the unwinding of the economic and energy system won’t be survivable for most.
What bothers me a lot right now is the number of species going extinct. No swallows here this year. A hour long drive in a rural area last week and we came home with one insect splat on our windsheild. One.
I am right there with you on that. Each day that 8 billion people live on earth is one more day of crushing impact on the natural world. In 12 years it will be 9 billion.
If only we could hear the 24 hour air raid sirens at 200 decibels signaling the catastrophe, we might pay a little attention.
Or maybe not.
The first sentence of your linked paper includes a reference to Hansen’s work from February. I recommend that work, as it provides a great public overview including a good deal of commentary on this same issue.
Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?
EVEN AS EMISSIONS LEVEL OFF, CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS GROWING FASTER THAN EVER.
Over the last decade, humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) have stabilized after a period of huge growth. Average growth is now down to just 0.6% per year, compared to 2% per year in the previous decade. But leveling off isn’t the same as declining—and we’ve leveled off at a very high rate of emissions. The Global Carbon Project estimates human activities released a record high of 10.2 gigatons of carbon (GtC) in 2024.
Last year, the atmosphere’s concentration of CO₂ rose at the fastest rate on record. Over the last decade, atmospheric CO₂ increased an average of 2.4 parts per million (ppm) a year. But last year, concentrations jumped by 3.5 ppm, reaching 424 ppm in the atmosphere. These concentrations are more than 50% higher than the pre-industrial period.
https://phys.org/news/2025-05-emissions-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-faster.html
I thought the giga-tonnage was closer to 40 than 10.2, or is this a different measure:
https://climatechangetracker.org/co2/human-induced-yearly-co2-emissions
Mike —
Gigatonnes of carbon; one GtC is equal to 109 tonnes of carbon or 1012 kg. 3.7 Gt carbon dioxide will give one GtC.
Ah–I should have paid closer attention!
Take a look at the Mauna Loa CO2 graph. Now consider the reduction of energy consumed in 2020 due to Covid. Now go back to the Mauna Loa graph and find the corresponding drop in CO2 in the atmosphere. Oh that’s right, there isn’t any. It is complicated.
Almost twice as many bikes as private cars on the streets of London now.
https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/assets/Services-Environment/City-Streets-2025-Summary-Report.pdf
(Page 11)
May I post my latest article here? It is ostensibly about the emerald ash borer “invasion” in the US, but I use this as a platform to discuss persons and issues many here hold dear: Malthus, Darwin, Catton, population, agriculture, and — of course — the fossil fuels.
A Tree-Hugger’s Parable.
It’s a parable in the sense that there is a clear moral — and an obvious one to many here on POB.
“Whoever has two ears to hear with, let them hear it!”
Thanks, now I understand why the ash trees outside my windows have died. I hope your successful keeping your’s healthy.
1960
Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann captured in Argentina
Nick,
You seem to be an advocate of a Jetson’s future, but mostly from the perspective of qualitative arguments. Your last post on the other side cited some world-in-data information about sustainability of fisheries. This is more like it.
How many people does the earth sustain in your FF free technotopia future? How long does it take to get there? And, can you point to some solid analysis which backs you up across the range of systems required for life and a modern society (not just the questionable Stanford analysis of energy transition to renewables you pointed to recently).
Regarding agrarian societies, do you have a deep expertise in ag and ecological systems? Sincere question, not a pointed barb. I do not myself, but have taken a few baby steps in that direction. For example, A. Duncan Brown wrote ‘Feed or Feedback : Agriculture, Population Dynamics and the State of the Planet’. One particular quote from Chapter 5 of this work gives me some hope:
“A large uniformly distributed agrarian population can farm ‘for ever’ (climate permiting) if it farms well”.
Mr Duncan argues from ecological first principles as well as a historical review spanning thousands of years of human efforts. Our current system is a blip on the scale of the human story.
It seems like the onus is on proving the current ‘modern’ standard of living can be expanded and sustained globally with high incomes, clean water, health care, relative safety and food that is both plentiful and relatively cheap. Can you prove it?
the onus is on proving the current ‘modern’ standard of living can be expanded and sustained globally
I would disagree.
It seems to me that the most important argument on PeakOilBarrel is whether we should push as hard as possible, as fast as possible, for a transition away from fossil fuels. The rest of the arguments seem to me to be a sideshow: FF is at the root of most of our ills. Just look at the GFN footprint analysis: the majority of our “footprint” comes directly from FF.
FF advocates have made many different arguments for the FF status quo – one of the latest is that we’re heading for The End Of The World As We Know It, so there’s no point in disrupting the status quo. What’s the point, if everything is going away anyway? I know people who live in rural areas who can’t get anyone to listen to ideas about conservation, or improving our treatment of the environment, or use of FF, or, well, anything, because they believe the end of the world is nigh. 40%(!) of the US population agrees with this idea, and many more have it lurking in their subconscious, fed by Mad Max movies, etc., etc. It seems to me useful to combat these unrealistic ideas about TEOTWAWKI. But, still, they’re mostly a distraction, a red herring. Just one of many distracting, irrelevant arguments.
So…
Do you agree that we should transition away from FF as soon as possible (however you define ASAP)?
Yes, I agree that we should transition away from FF as soon as possible.
The need has been painfully obvious for decades.
I would define ASAP as equivalent to the 40% of GDP peak that the US spent at the height of world war 2.
Not happening now and not going to happen ASAP if at all this century.
Too many entrenched interests, too many stranded assets, too many people earning high salaries in the industry, too many politicians on board, too much propaganda, too little understanding of math and science.
But how does any of this prove your point?
too many people earning high salaries in the industry,
That is what I find revolutionary about solar: Not so much that it is a replacement for FF, but that it is a profit killer.
I don’t think anyone knows whether the current profligate energy consumption is caused by a real need for energy. The entire structure of modern economies is partially driven by the profitability of the FF industry.
Profit killer is exactly right.
https://www.azernews.az/region/235119.html
This never happened when Germany produced most of its electricity from coal.
Now it has one of the highest percentage of wind and solar in the world and company executives are saying they are being crippled by the cost of electricity. These are people losing their jobs.
China on the other hand produces 50% from coal and it has one of the cheapest electricity prices in the world.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-electricity-by-country
So like for like a factory in Uk or Germany pays £1 million for energy in China they pay £200,000. That is why we buy so much from China because our factories have shut down.
What job do you have?
It seems that this argument ignores the vast externalities associated with our dependence on fossil fuels.
Why did Germany decide to stop using coal?
Is electricity cost the only ore even primary reason we buy so much from China?
Is fossil fuel burning harmful to the ecosystem humans need to survive?
Are FFS a diminishing resource?
Unless we can agree on these issues we can hardly have a productive conversation about electricity cost or the diminution of American manufacturing.
Jj
When dedicated factory owners say electricity prices have forced them to close then they should be believe if you don’t then just p off.
Loads of..
I acknowledge that electricity in Germany is expensive…..
You’ve cited a citation of a citation on the subject from a news source in a major FF producing country and have accepted that as words out of the mouths of the “dedicated factory owners” in Germany and that that is the only or primary reason we are buying so much from China? OK, but no need to be cranky.
The two main drivers of the high cost of electricity in Germany are the taxes on electricity and the 20 year contracts for solar when it was expensive.
The electricity tax is set to be removed starting in July 2025. The long term contracts will take longer to get past, but because the price of solar fell faster than the number of contracts rose, the cost is already declining.
The additional charges by local governments aren’t likely to go away soon, but the problem is more political than technological. Also the VAT (19%) is likely to stay.
Meanwhile negative prices are getting more and more common. It has happened every day this week.
Transition away from fossil fuels is certainly something to aim for. As fast as possible?; maybe as sensible as possible due to the long lead times and costs involved in getting sizable renewable capacity online (and not at least grid capacity).
The main sub plot of this aim is to make electricity based on renewables anywhere from 50% up to 100% of the total, dependent on the natural environment. The natural given prospects for renewables varies very much for every region. But to include primary heavy industry into the overall aim is questionable. What we will end up with is a declining industrial sector and a vital electric grid capacity wise trying to be “the last man standing” based on renewables (in my humble opinion). And it is actually great if we can get more efficient at utilising electricity and “play” with how supply/demand can be served in a grid (or more grids, microgrids?).
to include primary heavy industry into the overall aim is questionable. What we will end up with is a declining industrial sector
The problem here is competitiveness. If every country were to levy a fairly stiff carbon tax, heavy industry would be just fine: they’d build the new cost into their cost structure for the short term, and in the long term they’d reduce their power costs with efficiency and optimal sourcing. It would make very little difference to these industries overall.
But, if one country increases power costs to heavy industry unilaterally, then domestic industry will be at a disadvantage and it may move to places with cheaper power.
Germany has several things going on: IIRC one is that natural gas prices have jumped due to the Ukraine war. How much of increased industrial power pricing is due to this?
“The problem here is competitiveness”
The industrial clusters all around the world have several things going for them as long as they have maritime access and surplus of skilled labour. So the question is more how to transport energy to the clusters in a cost competitive way. Coal is a major problem over long distances, gas in the form of LNG lesser so. Oil is as we know – is the king of being a flexible and energy dense resource in the puzzle. Electricity based on renewables is a long term solution if the cost structure and application is good enough. Even if fossil fuel access declines or prices increase, the clusters will likely stay the same. The main important assets being maritime access, infrastructure available and surplus skilled labour pool. I am not holding my hopes too high when it comes to industrial and other efficiency gains will keep prices down for a very long time. For now we are fine in the western world.
The beauty of the energy transition is that it so slow moving that it is possible to live your life without seeing the consequences. Correction; true in 1970s, and partly in 1990s, not so much in the 2010, true still in the 2020s but not if you intend to live for a long time.
Gas prices would not have mattered had idiot governments under pressure from minority green coalition forced FORCED closure of coal and nuclear.
Shutting down power plants that had paid for themselves years before. Producing the cheapest electricity.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany
https://euracoal.eu/info/country-profiles/germany-8/
While India and China are booming we go bankrupt, they are laughing at us.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-country-terawatt-hours-twh?tab=chart&country=IND~DEU~GBR~CHN
Loadsofoil
said at 05/14/2025 at 3:02 am:
“While India and China are booming we go bankrupt, they are laughing at us.”
That’s not laughing…its coughing from all the coal dust and various other pollutants in their air.
NICK G
Gas isn’t used much for electricity in Germany, despite ill-informed claims to the contrary you’ll see on the internet (including here).
Gas IS used for industrial heating however. Coal nuclear and renewables are not usually considered to be good alternatives for this market. This causes a lot of confusion and plenty of fuel for populist rants.
Gas is also widely used for heating homes as well. There is a big shift to heat pumps, but that won’t shift the absolute numbers very quickly. Something similar is going on in industry, but again, don’t hold your breath.
Energy is cheap in China thanks to massive subsidies. Chinese subsidies to fossil fuels are over $2 trillion a year.
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/environment/global-fuel-subsidies-08252023061051.html
China also provides massive subsidies to nuclear and renewables.
Alimbiquated,
Thanks, good to know.
Looks like the majority of the subsidies are implicit, for pollution, etc. These are real costs, though many people are unwilling to recognize or internalize them.
I suppose the rate of action that is warranted on the energy transition (+others) depends to a great degree on your personal circumstances and personal discount rate even assuming you’re starting with a similar understanding of likely future consequences.
40 years old, profiting from the current system and not concerned about the future? Fuggedaboutit, let the good times roll.
Maybe put a few spiritual leaders or those already at the pointy end of consequences at the other end of the spectrum with a much different perspective.
uhmmmm, well, the personal circumstances are important: I’d say that people in the O&G industry, and allied industries like cars, really dread the transition. For instance, car dealers really hate the loss of maintenance and repair income that will be caused by the move to EVs.
Most people will be better off. Cars will be much better, and have cheaper TCO. Passive houses are much more comfortable, and quieter and cleaner to boot.
And, of course reducing climate change, oil wars, pollution induced illness, and oil-induced corruption (e.g., Russia becomes much more aggressive when it’s oil income is up, and KSA has been subsidizing religious extremism to hide it’s kleptocracy) makes almost everyone’s lives better.
T Hill,
I agree with all of that. I’m glad to hear it.
Now, I’m not sure what you have in mind when you refer to my point. My largest argument is the one we’ve just agreed on: that a transition from FF is essential, and a good thing. Feasible and necessary.
Now, there are other things we can talk about, like agrarian lifestyles vs industrial ones. That’s kind of interesting, but very abstract, given that we’re nowhere near a point where that might possible be needed. I’m mostly interested in the public policies we should be fighting for right now.
I have 2 questions: what would we do if we were king? And, given that we’re not king, how do we create social and political changes to support good public policy?
As a start on the 1st question: I’m thinking that a good policy might be adding 5 cents per gallon to fuel taxes each month until we get to about $8.00 per gallon (and the equivalent carbon tax on coal and gas). Seems like that would incentivize change pretty fast, while minimizing disruption. The revenue would go 10% to R&D and other costs of the transition, and 90% to rebates to individuals as a progressive reverse-tax to counter any regressivity and macroeconomic impact, and political resistance to carbon taxes.
What do you think?
Nick,
I have taken your prior posts as focused on the energy transition from FF to 100% electric as nearly the sole challenge to sustainability facing the world. I disagree with this perspective. Your comments have seemed dismissive of other aspects of what is sometimes described as a polycrisis. Many of these other issues remain critical aspects of the overshoot situation that Ron and others have pointed to. A globally pervasive Jetsons future is exceedingly unlikely on the facts. I’m also skeptical about the feasibility of an energy transition at the scale required to support current or future population peak at current levels of consumption. I had asked for you to make a stronger, quantitative argument in support of that technotopia future.
I pointed to data indicating an agrarian lifestyle as more likely to be sustainable because of your negative comments to others on this topic. Nowhere near a point where that may possibly be needed? Really? Let’s look at a source you’ve pointed to elsewhere. Our-world-in-data suggests that 1/3 of the worlds food comes from roughly 480M agrarian, smallholder farms. Seems pretty necessary right now.
I don’t see your policy suggestions as having any practical chance of global adoption. FFs are relatively inexpensive for the huge energy density that they provide. Globally we’re going to keep burning them and the associated impacts will continue.
FFs are relatively inexpensive for the huge energy density that they provide. Globally we’re going to keep burning them and the associated impacts will continue.
Well, I see a part of the problem: you’re still thinking about stuff that’s unrealistic. This idea that FFs are relatively inexpensive is incorrect: solar is cheaper than other sources – so much so that it’s not just less expensive to install than other forms of generation, the operating costs of most generation is more expensive than solar in most of the world.
Imagine: it’s worth replacing existing FF generation with solar because FF generation operating costs can’t compete with the TCO of solar.
That’s per Bloomberg New Energy (a very mainstream, credible source). Note that this article is 4 years old: solar has gotten even cheaper relative to FF since then.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-23/building-new-renewables-cheaper-than-running-fossil-fuel-plants
Nick G…. “This idea that FFs are relatively inexpensive is incorrect”.
To humanity as a whole fossil fuels are just as free as solar and wind. We humans have to make machines to take advantage of any of these sources of energy.
We started down the mining of energy route 250 years ago as it gave us a lot more dense energy than the renewable energy forms of mostly wood, wind and solar at the time.
The continued approach to place prices on fossil fuels for human use but consider that solar and wind are free is just a man made construct people use for whatever argument.
Nick G …. ” it’s worth replacing existing FF generation with solar because FF generation operating costs can’t compete with the TCO of solar.”
You keep repeating this misconception ad nauseum, yet cannot ever provide any evidence of where heavy industry is choosing to go totally off grid (to avoid grid fees), to use just solar, wind and batteries for their heavy industry.
Economics of the operation would clearly have many heavy industries choosing to do so if your above claim was correct. Why do you keep avoiding this elephant in the room to all the stated rhetoric??
Nick,
Nope. Outside of an ivory tower lab, the reality is that FF consumption keeps growing and a large part of that remains driven by ground truth cost, regardless of ongoing transitions or what might be theoretically possible in the future. How many EV tractors plowing a field today? Electric chainsaws running all day? Petrochemical plants using your theoretical alternatives? This stuff might as well be magic in comparison to tilling that ground by hand or working a two-man crosscut saw.
Also, looks like you aren’t interested in all of the other systems issues that would be required to support your Jetsons technotopia. Disappointed.
I disagree with folks like Hideway on some things, but it is clear that he/she has done a lot of homework and dug deep into aspects of the field. Please cite some solid research, critique specific research or show some math.
fossil fuels are just as free as solar and wind. We humans have to make machines to take advantage of any of these sources of energy.
Of course. You’re mistaken that this has created any errors in analysis – I don’t know where this idea comes from – some silly FF blogger, I guess. Everyone knows that energy must be captured, converted and transported to where it’s needed. Solar means one needs to manufacture PV panels, mounts, inverters and site wiring, buy or lease land, transport them to the site, install them, wire them and transport the power to the grid. Coal must be mined, cleaned up, moved to a power plant, burned, and the waste stored, etc. NG must be drilled for, piped, burned, etc. When people say that wind and solar are cheaper, they mean that it’s cheaper to do all that stuff for solar than to do all that stuff for coal. In fact, all that stuff for solar is cheaper than just maintaining most coal plants.
Did you look at the article I provided? You asked for such sources- here’s one. Now, this is just a popular article, but Bloomberg NEF is a serious, credible, mainstream organization and it shouldn’t be hard to find more reports directly from them, or new summaries. Or tell me and I’ll find more (but it really isn’t hard to find good info on the relative costs of different power sources.
evidence of where heavy industry is choosing to go totally off grid (to avoid grid fees), to use just solar, wind and batteries for their heavy industry. Economics of the operation would clearly have many heavy industries choosing to do so
Well, no. Hideaway has repeated this ad nauseum, and it makes absolutely no sense. First, heavy industry doesn’t particularly want to be in the utility business – they have enough to do dealing with their core competencies. Most heavy industry is very happy to negotiate low prices from utilities, perhaps move to be in the territory of those utilities that have cheap hydro (or other cheap sources, like Icelandic geothermal). Secondly, it makes very little sense to go off grid – grids provide a lot of services, which make special sense for wind and solar. Wind and solar are obviously best in combination with themselves and other things (hydro, nuclear, utility size batteries, microgrids using EVs, etc). Such services are far cheaper from a large grid than in the service of smaller, isolated operations.
This idea that solar or wind should prove themselves by off-grid use by smelters or miners is an unrealistic McGuffin from a FF defender.
Nevertheless, there are some large mining and smelting operations that are integrating large amounts of solar especially into their operation, without of course going off-grid. This gets ignored, or waved away because it’s not fully off-grid.
So….once again: have you tried doing any research yourself on the relative costs of renewables? It’s a very important topic, and you’re really missing something if you don’t.
Nick G … I see you continue to ignore reality that Aluminium smelters like the new one from Adaro are indeed building the smelter and associated power plant (coal) as a captive plant, meaning it’s own new grid, or effectively ‘off grid’..
Why is it so possible to do this with coal while no-one is doing it with solar, wind and batteries??
Very obvious your sleight of hand claiming solar and wind are cheapest, then referring to smelters that have gone to geothermal and hydro sources of power.
Do you realise that if we exclude ‘traditional biomass’ from energy equations to look at what powers the modern world, fossil fuels still provide 92% of all energy content that includes huge gobs of essential products, while of the exclusive electricity providers, which have zero of the important products, are only 8% of all energy, with hydro and nuclear being the majority of this and solar and wind still only providing 2.7% of the overall energy used.
BTW you don’t seem to understand my position at all. I’m not a fossil fuel defender at all. I’m a reality defender, from what actually exists and is happening in our world. Fossil fuels are dirty, environment damaging sources of energy and products that will be rapidly leaving us, oil initially, due to humanities stupid compulsion to keep growing into terminal overshoot, by ignoring reality of depleting resources and environment damage.
Every cornucopian view of a bright green future based upon solar, wind, batteries and/or nuclear fission/fusion is just as delusional as anyone thinking modernity will continue based on polluting/depleting fossil fuels.
We can only maintain any of our current civilization by continuing high and growing use of energy to make up for the lower grades of everything we mine (energy, metals, minerals and materials), as due to entropy and dissipation 97-99% of all energy goes to just maintenance, not growth of anything ‘new’.
We will leave most of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground once past peak production of oil, as the overall energy decline will, via feedback loops throughout the world economy, crush the complexity of the modern world in chaotic ways. We only do all the mining via high levels of complexity in our modern world and this complexity is required because of the low grades of everything. The falling complexity will make a lot of oil and gas unobtainable, just like it will make a lot of copper and every other mined resources unobtainable as well.
The human march forward of technical ability/modernity over the last 250 years has only come at the cost to the environment of a growing human population/market size that allows for growing complexity, which required growing energy and materials use as well, in a self supporting upward spiral until something major fails.
As overall EROEI of all energy has been falling, manifesting as debt increases and lower standards of living and greater inequality already, once actual energy production starts falling, most likely led by oil production falls, the upward spiral of growth will collapse, taking complexity of our modern world with it…
The more I research it, the more I realise it’s most likely just the way it was always going to happen as the self adapting complex system of civilization reaches the end of it’s time, just like every other complex self adapting growth system ends..
T HILL
How many EV tractors plowing a field today? Electric chainsaws running all day?
I’ve said this before but…
When a new tech is introduced, there are always some people saying it’s growing exponentially against some people saying it isn’t there now so it will never come. How can you tell who’s right?
The answer is that new tech doesn’t enter the mainstream with a bang. It comes in by filling niches and finding early adopters. Each time a niche is filled, sales volumes increase and the tech moves closer to mass production and adoption.
There is no question that renewables fill some niches. The same applies to batteries. The real question is not how fast the tech is growing but how many niches it is filling and can fill.
However, finding niches you are sure can’t be filled isn’t a good counterargument. Even the most widespread tech doesn’t fill every niche. Coal, for example, is rarely used on small islands. But that doesn’t mean it is rare.
Alimbiquated,
Your point is valid. My few examples were limited in number and not representative of the larger picture.
Examples of more comprehensive views on the FF transition can be found in recent work by Vaclav Smil (2024) and David Hughes (2024). Are you familiar with these two?
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/halfway-between-kyoto-and-2050.pdf
https://policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC Office/2024/02/ccpa-bc-getting-to-net-zero-feb2024-summary-web.pdf
Do you have experience working at anything approaching the implied scale of physical infrastructure necessary for a transition to 100% electrification? I believe that the challenge can be hard to internalize unless you do. Examples like the distributed PV buildout in Pakistan this past year are great and encouraging demonstrations of what is possible. For all the complexity involved in such an energy transition, this issue remains one slice of the many challenges facing us.
This recent discussion thread that I was continuing with Nick kicked off with Ron’s post a few days back asking for input on an article that listed 10 issues as contributing to the likely collapse of civilization. Nick had commented on the overall conclusion, but then focused largely on the narrow aspect associated with an energy transition. With little quantifiable support other than opinion.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no FF fan. From a personal perspective, we built our house more than 25 years ago here in the NE US with no FF, only electric and some wood heat. GHSP for space conditioning. 7kW PV array. Went back to school on the side and added a BS in EE more than a decade ago to better understand the energy transition.
NickG, given that the FedFuel tax has been 18.4 cents unchanged for 32 yrs the idea that you could increase it $.60 a year and not cause major disruption is right up there with Donald starting a trade war and think it won’t cause major disruption.
Disruption is in the cards.
At one time I thought changing the fuel tax policy and getting rid of the schedule 179 tax incentive for light trucks would be a worthwhile start but we’re too far down the road attempting to maintain unsustainable levels of consumption that we’re defaulting to crisis and collapse.
the FedFuel tax has been 18.4 cents unchanged for 32 yrs
Well, see, the first step is identifying what you would do if you were king. You’ve identified a change that has been prevented by the oil industry, through it’s control of the Republican party. That belongs to the 2nd step: actually doing the political work to implement change.
Disruption is in the cards.
I dunno. Trading in your SUV for a hybrid or an EV doesn’t seem that difficult…
“Do you agree that we should transition away from FF as soon as possible (however you define ASAP)?”
Whenever someone challenges Nick’s thesis, Nick challenges their values. It’s getting kinda pathetic.
They are laughing at us.
https://thecoalhub.com/indias-coal-production-hits-all-time-high-in-2024.html
The Indian government has stated in the past that it intends to develop coal to it’s fullest capacity.
And they sure are.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-country-terawatt-hours-twh?tab=chart&country=IND~DEU~GBR
While rabid Green lobbies in UK have destroyed the U K coal, steel heavy industries.
We are heading towards the most pessimistic climate scenarios. And now we don’t have the money to protect ourselves from the floods and drought that are already happening.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/06/england-faces-drought-summer-reservoir-water-levels-dwindle
Farmers in many areas are saying crops will fail.
I have asked Greenpeace why they do not hold demonstrations outside Chinese and Indian embassies to highlight the worst offenders of climate change.
Loads of Oil knows full well that it was not “rabid Green lobbies in UK have destroyed the U K coal, steel heavy industries”. It was rabid blue right wing Tory Margaret Thatcher who financialised the British economy and demoted the UK down the league table of manufacturing nations from number 5 to currently 13 or lower. Or perhaps Loads of Oil is too young to have lived through the Blessed Margaret’s creation of the British rust belt in South Wales, the Midlands and North of England, and in Scotland during the eighties, and to have seen the massed mounted or truncheoned charges of police against the working class miners defending their communities from her assaults. But to do her justice, it was she who was perhaps the first leader of any developed country in the world to warn of the threat of climate change resulting from burning of fossil fuels. And what L of O says is true about the fact that currently, the country in Europe that with Ireland and Norway has the highest rates of rainfall is seeing diminishing stocks of water in reservoirs and prolonged drought and probable crop failures.
Mike
You are quite right. But it is impossible to Vigo through the entire history of the decline of British industry in every post.
Thatcher was an extreme libertarian capitalist, only knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
If you can get cheap coal from South Africa, then why pay our miner more. The result was billions of pounds leaving this country every year. Communities fell into utter despair, billions paid in unemployment benefits and precious gas wasted producing electricity.
However in the last 30 years green pressure groups have had great influence on preventing new coal mines opening. I have talked to these people, and they have no sense of moderation at all.
Germany closed all it’s nuclear power plants under pressure from a few mps and the hysteria they spread.
In the U.K. they launched legal action against every nuclear power plants under proposals and new mines.
The result is massive build of wind and solar but no storage, so electricity is discharged into the earth or wind turbines turned off and we pay for it.
Indonesia has one of the cheapest electricity supplies and it’s building smelting plants all over.
We are bankrupting ourselves and achieving nothing.
https://aseanenergy.org/news-clipping/coal-to-remain-king-in-indonesia-for-now/
To prevent the worsening global climate change, droughts, flooding and fires China the worst offender needed to decrease coal consumption starting 2015 and burn less than 2 billion tonnes by 2030.
All other coal consuming countries would have had to make the same percentage cuts.
Now it’s a case of how many die.
https://www.airclim.org/acidnews/global-climate-change-causing-315000-deaths-every-year
Margret Thatcher killed UK coal. She is very much a child of the North Sea oil boom. She thought it would last forever, so she used the cash to deliver tax cuts to the rich and the fuel to kill the union-heavy coal industry.
As it turned out, the oil boom didn’t last forever. Now the state is bankrupt and there is no coal industry, for better or worse.
Ideology over reality.
They made some incredible returns for shareholders, though.
Maybe we can privatise the British economy a second time, another bite of that sweet sweet money cherry…
There is no such thing as “The British Economy”. It died in the last century. All there is remaining is “Heritage”. So the best thing is to dismantle Buckingham Palace and put up the bits for sale to rebuild it somewhere in Florida near Disneyland; likewise send over the Atlantic the Tower of London, Stonehenge and Westminster Abbey, then have King Charles abdicate and get sell the monarchy to Trump – he’s found he can’t be Pope, so the next best thing is dressing up as King of England.
Hightrekker —
Ideology over reality.
I would say it’s an example of the Dutch disease. Access to easy money (often from fossil fuel) makes governments think they can do no wrong. That’s why so many fossil fuel rich countries have terrible governments.
Climate turmoil is already here and getting worse at a rate far quicker than scientists predicted just a few years ago.
https://climateandeconomy.com/2025/05/13/13th-may-2025-todays-round-up-of-climate-news/
Perhaps good thing that shale oil is limited
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13052025/texas-rio-grande-pecos-river-fracking/
1970: Police kill two students during Jackson State protests
Don’t forget the methane lads.
METHANE: WHERE IT COMES FROM AND WHY WE’RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME
“Emissions and atmospheric concentrations of methane continue to increase, making it the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing after carbon dioxide. In fact, methane concentrations have risen faster over the past five-year period than in any period since record-keeping began, and yet research suggests that reducing methane emissions may be cheaper than carbon dioxide mitigation for a comparable climate benefit.”
https://phys.org/news/2025-05-methane.html
To Hideaways point
One of the biggest feedbacks is the monetary system.
When you have a debt based currency you’re always vulnerable to overshoot if your primary energy source can’t expand.
1927 peak coal coal based economy
1970 peak oil US oil based economy
2005 peak conventional oil global
2018 peak oil all forms
Keep this in mind and the fact that diesel production has been declining since 2008 and watch this video on the Eurodollar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNa-fewraJA
Speaking of debt. Americans are currently paying $560 billion in interest a year on personal debt alone.
Average interest expense on credit card debt is about 21%.
I think we can apply the Red Queen to debt in general. The more debt you create the more debt you have to create in order for any of it to be repaid.
$560 billion? Assuming 215 million adults, that’s $2,600 in interest per person? I don’t believe it. Unless it includes mortgages…
Jt,
That video was an overview of the Eurodollar market from 10,000 feet. He basically just described it without the details. He knows the details but for that audience, that podcast wasn’t meant to breakdown what actually takes place in the Eurodollar market.
One thing about Jeff Snyder is he never connects how energy or lack there of energy translates into deflationary money.
As oil exports vanish from the market over the next 10-20 years. The Eurodollar market will say no thanks to places that import a lot of oil. Singapore, Japan, Italy are a few that come to mind that import not only oil but coal and natural gas as well.
There are certain countries that will be cutoff from Eurodollar lending first as the transition to less energy plays out.
HHH
Yeah he doesn’t understand the energy issue.
But it’s a direct correlation to every major downturn
I’ll add one additional facet that any store of wealth that anyone has is simply a claim on someone else’s debt. Without continuous energy growth whoever that someone is will be insolvent.
Prov 18:11 The wealth of the rich is his fortified city; It is like a protective wall in his imagination.
The whole idea of making a profit requires energy growth. Doesn’t matter if it’s a bank lending out money with interest attached. Or if banks are charging fees instead of interest. More money has to be repaid than was lent out in the first place.
It simply doesn’t matter if solar and wind are a thing. Because not only does solar and wind have to be able to repay the debts incurred building them. They also have to be able to retire all the legacy debt.
Which is exactly why solar and wind don’t matter. You’d have to believe everyone within a economy would continue on without a profit in order to believe solar and wind matter.
So much for that idea.
GLOBAL RECYCLING RATES HAVE FALLEN FOR EIGHTH YEAR RUNNING
“Global recycling rates are failing to keep pace with a culture focused on infinite economic growth and consumerism, with the proportion of recycled materials re-entering supply chains falling for the eighth year running, according to a new report. Only 6.9% of the 106bn tonnes of materials used annually by the global economy came from recycled sources, a 2.2 percentage point drop since 2015, researchers from the Circle Economy thinktank found.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/16/global-recycling-rates-have-fallen-for-eighth-year-running-report-finds
It isn’t really a culture based on infinite growth. It’s a monetary system that requires infinite growth.
Who’s going to build anything if there is no profit to be made? Who is going to employ anybody if there is no profits to be made?
We can talk about FF vs Renewables all day long and none of it matters.
Only thing that matters is do we have a growing energy supply that can service all the debt.
It’s a monetary system that requires infinite growth.
“if Big Pharma’s profit margin shrinks, as it will if they have to sell a $1300 drug for $8, investors will diminish.”
Here is another feedback that is happening from tight diesel supply
https://en.mercopress.com/2025/03/12/bolivia-s-fuel-shortage-crisis-deepens
This is reducing industrial and agricultural production making it even harder to get the dollars they need to buy diesel. Bank failures will be next.
The thing about infinite growth is that it would take an infinite length of time to get to infinity, no matter how fast growth is.
It’s not a real thing.
Or are you claiming that growth needs to be infinitely fast? That can’t be right. If the monetary system required infinite growth rates, then either the economy would already be infinitely large, or money would not exist.
I know, I know, math is hard.
1954: Supreme Court strikes down school segregation
The world has a monetary system which requires infinite growth of either material goods or personal services both of which require ever growing supplies of energy and other finite physical resources. On this finite physical planet that cannot happen, and no amount of renewable energy is going to make a large difference to when the collapse comes.
One day, very soon, the financial system is going to collapse, globally, and very suddenly, Global trade is going to largely stop overnight, almost all of the wealthy people in the world (and many of the poor) are going to suddenly realise that money in the bank, stocks, or bitcoin are nothing more than sunshine and rainbows. Global debt will be reset to zero.
Then what? There will still be a planet, people, remaining resources, governments, armies. The internet may or may not get switched off. A lot of people will get hungry very quickly and very angry. But the physical world will not have measurably changed from the day before.
The human species will re-organise. This might be social, feudal, tribal, gang, military or even national. It will be ugly and violent in places, but it will not be the end of the world or even the human species. Trade will resume, as new trust structures are created or military realities are enforced. There is nothing fundamental about money. It is purely a representation of debt that needs to be repaid in the future.
In that world, people in a physical area that is relatively wealthy in renewable energy infrastructure will be in a better position to survive the transition than those that are not.
“One day, very soon, the financial system is going to collapse, globally, and very suddenly, Global trade is going to largely stop overnight, almost all of the wealthy people in the world (and many of the poor) are going to suddenly realise that money in the bank, stocks, or bitcoin are nothing more than sunshine and rainbows. Global debt will be reset to zero.”
Well, that would reveal just how grossly overextended the world is on an immediate basis. Without paper/digital assets on their ledger ask yourself who could get food, get heat, get products of daily living? Your utility would grind to a halt, store shelves would go empty and stay empty, gas stations would be drained, hardware stores would be paneled shut, farmers couldn’t get credit to plant to till to fertilize to harvest, your cell and cable service would go static, as just a few examples.
You are talking a scenario with complete breakdown in social order in most the modern world. Would lock down due to martial law or conditions of anarchy be your worst threat?…perhaps both.
I am sorry to say that the unwinding of the economic and energy system won’t be survivable for most.
What bothers me a lot right now is the number of species going extinct. No swallows here this year. A hour long drive in a rural area last week and we came home with one insect splat on our windsheild. One.
I am right there with you on that. Each day that 8 billion people live on earth is one more day of crushing impact on the natural world. In 12 years it will be 9 billion.
If only we could hear the 24 hour air raid sirens at 200 decibels signaling the catastrophe, we might pay a little attention.
Or maybe not.
Yeah it’s definitely weird how quickly insects vanished. Some say it’s the neonicotinoids.
We are in a mass extinction .
Large Cloud Feedback Confirms High Climate Sensitivity
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/CloudFeedback.13May2025.pdf
Picked up a commercial food dehydrator last week.
Thanks Survivalist,
The first sentence of your linked paper includes a reference to Hansen’s work from February. I recommend that work, as it provides a great public overview including a good deal of commentary on this same issue.
Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494?needAccess=true
Figure 15 in particular is the best graphic I’ve seen to illustrate that GHG forcing appears to be pretty close the RCP 8.5 scenario.
Lots of red meat there for however many true believers remain.
New posts are up
https://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-update-may-2025/
and
https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-may-17-2025/