92 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, October 16, 2021”

  1. Interesting interactive global map that shows the distribution of the earth land surfaces that are human modified.

    Modified being a nice way of saying degraded from the natural state- paved, clearcut and repeatedly logged, converted to monocropping on grand scale, grazed down to stubble, and surfaced mined.

    Most of the areas that show up brightly on the map are urban centers and industrial zones- basically a population density map. Also prominently visible are the areas under extensive agriculture. Take note that combined these comprise most of the worlds zones of inherent natural abundance. Wildlife has become close to non-existent in these most favored places compared to the baseline condition….

    Much less conspicuous, but still faintly visible, are the areas where there is sparse agriculture and grazing. These are lands with relatively poor natural productivity and wildlife density- Too dry, poor soil, too steep or rocky for humans to have densely occupied with some rare extraordinary exceptions such as Las Vegas,US or Riyadh,SA

    There still are some naturally bountiful relatively undisturbed places, especially some tropical and boreal forests and steep mountain sides, for now.

    https://davidtheobald8.users.earthengine.app/view/global-human-modification-change

  2. Re: Shallow Sand’s comments on growth of meth addiction

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new-meth/620174/

    “Different chemically than it was a decade ago, the drug is creating a wave of severe mental illness and worsening America’s homelessness problem.”

    “The spread of P2P meth is part of a larger narrative—a shift in drug supply from plant-based drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin to synthetic drugs, which can be made anywhere, quickly, cheaply, and year-round. Underground chemists are continually seeking to develop more potent and addictive varieties of them. The use of mind-altering substances by humans is age-old, but we have entered a new era.”

    1. Thanks for the post and link.

      Most have no idea how bad this has gotten.

      The number of people in my rural community on meth is staggering. I have never seen it this bad.

        1. This is the result of 50+ years of prohibition.

          If alcohol would be still forbidden, the usual moonshine you could buy at the corner would have 80% alcohol, and would contain enough Methanol to make you blind one day.

          Drug prohibition couldn’t suppress drugs, not a bid. It could only invent more dangerous ones, and they are additional contamined with production dirt.

          When Grandpappy’s good ol’ ephedra meth would still be available, people would take this and the black market wouldn’t exist in this size. You would add education agains drug abuse in any case.

          Yes classic pure produced meth isn’t healthy. But you’ll survive it most times. The german “Wirtschaftswunder” was powered by meth, too. Want to do double shift? Take an ephedra or a pervitin.

          Takeout from a film in the 60s, the boss is ordering a Pervitin (meth) because of a hard day. It was normal.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb0j66EVfbI

          And it didn’t cause the problems you have now.

          1. Depends how good the regulation is.

            Several states have legalized cannabis in the US. Problem is it is still widely sold on the street. Other problem is both the street weed and even some of the legal weed, sold in shops that are supposed to be regulated, is being cut with synthetic. Synthetic weed is bad stuff.

            I’m not surprised states rushed into legalization without setting up proper regulation of the product. More interested in $$ than people’s health.

            1. Weed is legal where i live.

              Before legalization, weed was $300/ounce.

              After legalization, I know people who will only buy the regulated product simply because they’re more confident of what’s in it.

              In response, the street dealers reduced their price to $100/ounce, with delivery guaranteed within an hour. Many of the street dealers are still in business, but there are fewer of them, and they’re making less money now.

              Not sure how this will all end up, but it’s interesting to watch.

            2. The problem is that you can’t really regulate synthetic drugs — there are too many of them.

              When you regulate a drug you regulate a specific chemical compound. However the number of possible organic chemicals is extremely large. As soon as one specific compound is banned a new slightly modified drug with the exact same function pops up, just with an extra carbon atom in the non-functional tail or whatever.

            3. Alimbiquated,

              The key to successful regulation is that you actually approve some stuff and make it easily available to consumers. That way the illegal variants have to compete with stuff that’s been proven to be (reasonably) safe and effective.

            4. Nick G
              I agree, if it is convenient enough to get the legal stuff you don’t look for alternatives.

  3. Is anyone surprised? Note that they concluded NO country is moving sufficiently fast enough to avoid global warming of 1.5°C or even 2°C.

    EXPANSION OF WIND AND SOLAR POWER TOO SLOW TO STOP CLIMATE CHANGE

    The production of renewable energy is increasing every year. But after analyzing the growth rates of wind and solar power in 60 countries, researchers at Chalmers University of Technology and Lund University in Sweden and Central European University in Vienna, Austria, conclude that virtually no country is moving sufficiently fast enough to avoid global warming of 1.5°C or even 2°C.

    The authors claim: “This is the first time that the maximum growth rate in individual countries has been accurately measured, and it shows the enormous scale of the challenge of replacing traditional energy sources with renewables, as well as the need to explore diverse technologies and scenarios.”

    The article dated Oct.14, 2021″National growth dynamics of wind and solar power compared to the growth required for global climate targets” was published in the journal Nature Energy, written by Aleh Cherp, Vadim Vinichenko, Jale Tosun, Joel A.Gordon and Jessica Jewell.

    1. Sort of a moot point if at least 2°C is already baked in ……

      Study: Warming already baked in will blow past climate goals:

      “”The amount of baked-in global warming, from carbon pollution already in the air, is enough to blow past international agreed upon goals to limit climate change, a new study finds.
      But it’s not game over because, while that amount of warming may be inevitable, it can be delayed for centuries if the world quickly stops emitting extra greenhouse gases from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, the study’s authors say.
      For decades, scientists have talked about so-called “committed warming” or the increase in future temperature based on past carbon dioxide emissions that stay in the atmosphere for well over a century. It’s like the distance a speeding car travels after the brakes are applied.
      But Monday’s study in the journal Nature Climate Change calculates that a bit differently and now figures the carbon pollution already put in the air will push global temperatures to about 2.3 degrees Celsius (4.1 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming since pre-industrial times. …
      https://apnews.com/article/climate-climate-change-pollution-3f226aed9c58e36c69e7342b104d48bf

      …… but most of us here already knew that. I took personal action, such as it is, beginning over two decades ago. Off-grid passive/active solar home, reduced driving dramatically, let much of my acreage go back to nature (over 15 acres of pasture now in forest). Hoping to set an example and do my part,, all that.
      Silly me. Funny thing is how easy this all was, and how hard other people work to do all the wrong things when it comes to not screwing up the climate.

    2. I continue to believe that a large portion, maybe even most of our species will die hard before this century is out, but that barring bad luck, some people in some places are going to pull thru ok, skinnied down no question, but alive, with food, medical care, electricity, water and sewer, etc available…… assuming the climate doesn’t go totally nuts and that a regional hot conflict over land, water, oil, fish, etc, doesn’t morph into WWIII.

      When the shit is once well and truly into the fan, at least some countries are going to go on a wartime economic footing to DEAL with the problems.

      We can get by just fine, assuming a little luck and good leadership, on a third of the energy we use currently here in the USA, maybe even as little as a fourth. We can get by just fine with micro mini cars that will run the speed limit safely with two people fore and aft plus groceries for fifty miles with ten percent of the battery capacity needed for a full size car for three hundred miles.

      If we spend half of what we spend on beer and cosmetics, etc, on energy conservation, we can retrofit our old housing stock to stay warm or cool with a third the energy we need for that today.

      And we CAN build enough wind and solar capacity, and enough storage capacity, to pull it off.

      We simply need a series of sharp blows upside our collective head to bring us to the realization that we HAVE to do it, that it’s do it or die.

      I don’t even pretend to have a solution to the refugee problem, but thank Sky Daddy for the Atlantic and the Pacific!

      We’re also safe from the North, and we may figure out a way to cut a deal with Mexico, providing plenty of help to the Mexicans, to keep our southern border reasonably secure.

      I am NOT opposed to an annual hundred thousand, or two hundred thousand, although I would like to see them vetted, ESPECIALLY if they’re young men who grew up in places where violence is the day to day reality. Men who know nothing else continue to live as they have always lived in too many cases.

      Allowing too many immigrants in is a practical matter would be a HUGE mistake, in political terms, because doing so would provide too big a boost to trump type politicians.

      Pray to the Rock or Snake of your choice for Pearl Harbor Wake Up Events.

      Such events will necessarily be cultural and economic by nature in many or most cases. It’s too easy for the conservative political camp to dismiss events such as hurricanes, droughts, floods,, and wild fires as simple natural variation.

      1. OFM —

        Yes, there is obviously a reason so many billionaires are establishing “bolt holes” in places like New Zealand. They might grow sick of mutton but that’s preferable to the fate many are likely to face. The very rich are different from you and me.

        When times get tough, they don’t ravage supermarket shelves for toilet paper and Clorox wipes. Instead, they jet to luxury bunkers outfitted like underground mansions where they can wait out a pandemic or other cataclysm with all the comforts they’re accustomed to.

      2. If countries A through E experience catastrophe and massive dieoff, that will alleviate pressures and allow countries F through Z to squeak by.

        Perhaps.

      3. OFM- agree
        yet I would like to point out that simply blocking the entry of unvetted immigrants at the border without a comprehensive immigration/labor plan in place
        will have a huge unintended consequence-
        The shortage of labor we are starting to experience in the US would skyrocket.
        This would result in the twin effect of business failures or contraction, and high inflation.
        It will be a set of conditions that will be very hard for most people to handle.
        US is so very used to relatively inexpensive ( and very competent) labor provided by immigrants from the south in so many sectors.

        Trump said the Mexican government would pay for a wall-
        horseshit of course.
        If we did have an effective wall, it would cost each American for the construction, but much much more for the higher wage needed to paid for basic and skilled labor, and much higher inflation for all goods.

        The whole issue requires a comprehensive reckoning and plan. But that won’t happen in our broken political system. McCain-Kennedy gave a strong joint effort, and got no traction. I doubt we’ll get closer.

      4. “ESPECIALLY if they’re young men who grew up in places where violence is the day to day reality”

        Hey Mac,

        Does the United States fall in the category of “where violence is the day to day reality” ? Here in SoCal full of undocumented. Everyone I know are more afraid of jacked up pick-ups with gun racks and US flags flying off the rear bumper with Caucasian male drivers. Then a Hispanic male driver in their half ton Toyota with a lawnmower and weed eater in the back.

    3. “EXPANSION OF WIND AND SOLAR POWER TOO SLOW TO STOP CLIMATE CHANGE”
      Not surprised in the least.
      Most of the worlds population is not engaged in the attempt to slow carbon emission.
      Either they are unaware of the level of risk of climate change just over the horizon, they are too busy with the attempt to either survive or entertain themselves, or they don’t have the high level of resource to make energy saving adaptations- have you priced the cost of making your dwelling more energy efficient?
      The coming warming is baked in now.
      And as Doug has pointed out before- air conditioning demand is going to skyrocket global over the next few decades. Hope you have solar on the roof to supply that electricity folks. Your wallet does too.

      The utility scale solar and wind deployments are nonetheless a very helpful trend.
      For example in the US the amount of coal burning replaced is pretty significant thus far, and will be highly significant by the end of this decade.

      And oh yeh- almost forgot to mention that solar and wind do provide electricity to offset depleting fossil fuel- which has been the primary intent all along. After all, people generally are prone to care a hell of lot more about their energy supply than about the environment.

      1. HICKORY —

        Well, maybe air conditioners will become a cool status symbol. Cover your roof with solar panels and invite your friends over to escape the heat beside your aircon for awhile while the less fortunate sweat out the latest grid failure.

        1. Might be a lot more basic than ‘status’
          Here in the west particulate matter air filtration during the smoke season (which lasts until November in CA in many years) will also be a feature that all who are savvy will install.

          I have been in a situation where the temp was over 100 F, the electricity was down, and the air was smokey enough to cause nausea and block visibility of the mountains only 1/2 mile away.
          We all would have been extremely grateful for solar on the roof at that time.
          That doesn’t have to happen too often before you seriously consider migrating north.

          1. You said: “That doesn’t have to happen too often before you seriously consider migrating north.”

            Don’t start thinking about moving here as a guarantee against serious lung damaging wildfire smoke; we are often bathing in the stuff. And, wildfires in Siberia have been covering the northern latitudes with severe smoke (while producing megatons of carbon dioxide as a by product of course). Just how far north were you thinking of going? 😉

            1. What happens if you get to the north pole and just keep going north?

            2. You get to the methane fires/explosions from the melting Siberian permafrost.

            3. Darn, well there goes that plan.

              but I thought Siberia was south of the pole?

  4. 1-Hey everyone, this post is regarding human population growth and some possible decline scenarios. Hope some people will find this interesting.

    So if we look at the human population growth rate there is a R^2 > 96% correlation with a linear regression line. What I’ve done firstly is extend this linear regression line into the future up to 2100. This is the base case for business as usual and a linear declining population growth rates. Some reasons for the declining growth rate may include:

    * decline in testosterone in men
    * women increasing education levels and entering the workforce.
    * Improved living standards in third world countries and consequent cultural changes.
    * Philosophical/ethical reasons such as antinatalism having a bigger reach due to the internet

    1. This chart starts at a convenient time, the time the pill was invented. One way to interpret it is as a measure of the spread of the use of the pill in the population.

      1. …and the modern IUD as well.

        There are well-established links between population growth and economic development.

  5. 2- Now if we get this linear regression projection growth rate we can model the population growth in this base case scenario.
    We can see the peak is at ~2071 at around 11 billion people. As a reference point, the U.N I believe have their peak at 2100 at 11 billion.

  6. 3- This is an assumption that in the year 2030 some major changes come whether political driven policy changes or possible natural effects such as climate change, resource depletion or nuclear war (I include war as a natural consequence because it is part of our evolution).

    Note: These are just possible outcomes, obviously not written in stone. For example the population impact of nuclear war is to say the least unknown. One thing we do know is the impact it would have on population demographics is very different to some of the major wars we have seen in the 20th century as it will have a much more severe impact to human population than say the most devastating war humans have experienced (WWII) which had arguably little effect on population growth.

    1. Thanks Mike.
      A few comments
      -in many parts of the world young men can’t get married and have kids until they can afford to, and that earning power is a another big variable.
      -I suspect that population will continue to roughly track global energy supply, with a roughly 20 year lag on the way down.
      If you knew the energy supply out to 2100 you would have am interesting graph to add to your mix.
      Consider the attached chart-
      https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/node/1347

  7. So, what is it? In any case this result doesn’t bode well for planet Earth.

    CONSPIRACY OR INCOMPETENCE? WHY FOSSIL FUELS ARE FLYING

    From the cited article: Even though the current administration in Washington and the most powerful figures within the EU are attempting to switch away from fossil fuels, oil, natural gas, and coal use are soaring. And, last week, Bloomberg’s Will Wade reported that during Trump’s term in office, coal consumption by utilities in the U.S. had fallen by 36 percent despite all of Trump’s efforts to boost the sector. Now, under the fossil fuel opposing Biden, the decline has reversed to a 23-percent jump in consumption. And that’s in the U.S. which, until recently, was the biggest producer of gas in the world.

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Conspiracy-Or-Incompetence-Why-Fossil-Fuels-Are-Flying.html

    1. What a bizarre headline.
      There is no grand conspiracy or specific incompetence-
      its simply 8 billion people with energy demand and the inability of policy makers/governments to shift the trajectory of the energy sector at scale in a quick way.
      Not at all unexpected for a informed observer.
      Too much inertia in the human bulldozer.

      Coal is the first fall back position.
      The next level fall back position is rapid deforestation for wood fuel, and or last ditch effort warfare.

  8. Russia’s Remote Permafrost Thaws, Threatening Homes, Alarms Scientists Bold mine.

    Russia’s Remote Permafrost Thaws, Threatening Homes, Alarms Scientists
    Private houses on a territory of former airfield, damaged by thermokarst processes in Churapcha

    1
    Churapcha: The old airport in the Siberian settlement of Churapcha has been unusable for years, its runway transformed into a swampy field of puffed-up mounds and reliefs.
    Like cities and towns across northern and northeastern Russia, Churapcha is suffering the consequence of climate change thawing the permafrost on which everything is built.

    “There isn’t a single settlement in Russia’s Arctic where you wouldn’t find a destroyed or deformed building,” said Alexey Maslakov, a scientist at Moscow State University.

    Homes are becoming separated from sinking earth. Pipelines and storage facilities are under threat. Roads are increasingly in need of repair.

    As Russia warms 2.8 times faster than the global average, the melting of Siberia’s long-frozen tundra is releasing greenhouse gases that scientists fear could frustrate global efforts to curb climate-warming emissions.

    With permafrost covering 65% of Russia’s landmass, the costs are already mounting.

    65%, I had no idea!

    1. And, if that wasn’t enough.

      ARCTIC METHANE DEPOSITS ‘STARTING TO RELEASE’

      Scientists say they have found evidence that frozen methane deposits in the Arctic Ocean have started to be released over a large area of the continental slope off the East Siberian coast. At this moment, there is unlikely to be any major impact on global warming, but the point is that this process has now been triggered. This East Siberian slope methane hydrate system has been perturbed and the process will be ongoing, according to Swedish scientist Örjan Gustafsson, of Stockholm University.

      https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/oct/27/sleeping-giant-arctic-methane-deposits-starting-to-release-scientists-find

      1. Total doomer downer, man. Maybe try focus on some good news for a change…. not all is lost; a tech daddy billionaire will invent a self piloted electric plane and save humanity, somehow…. b-b-but Amazon! Cheer up ffs.

        1. Okay, some good news just for you.

          HELIUM: SOUTH AFRICA STRIKES NEW ‘GOLD’

          The Company Renergen is almost ready to start producing both natural gas and helium, placing South Africa on an elite map with helium reserves that could be the richest and cleanest in the world. First tests revealed helium concentrations of two to four percent (In the U. S., helium is extracted at concentrations as low as 0.3 percent). Recent exploration work has found concentrations as high as 12 percent. The Company estimates its helium reserve could be as much as 9.74 billion cubic meters — larger than the known reserves in the entire U.S. What sets South Africa’s find apart is how the gas is extracted. Renergen plans to have 19 wells installed by early next year. Gas currently extracted is being used as compressed natural gas in a pilot project to run buses. Eventually the plant will process liquified natural gas for domestic use and liquid helium for export around the world.

          https://phys.org/news/2021-10-helium-south-africa-gold.html

      1. Hickory,

        Without reading the article, the quote below posted by Ron says enough. A lot of oil- and gasinstallations will collapse or are already collapsing.

        With permafrost covering 65% of Russia’s landmass, the costs are already mounting.

  9. Morning trivia.

    CONCRETE IS THE THIRD LARGEST EMITTER OF GREENHOUSE GASES ON EARTH AFTER CHINA, US

    If concrete were a country, it would be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases on Earth, behind only China and the US. Cement is the most utilised material on Earth, consumed to make concrete at a rate of some 150 tonnes each second. According to the Global Cement and Concrete Association, around 14 billion cubic metres of concrete are cast each year. Cement production alone accounts for as much as seven percent of global CO2 emissions — three times the emissions produced by aviation. That’s more than all the emissions from the EU or India, just behind those of China and the US.

    https://ca.yahoo.com/news/concrete-third-largest-emitter-greenhouse-115922016.html

  10. From other thread- a response to Nick

    [Hickory- ‘the transition costs away from depleting fossil fuel is going to be very very very high.’
    NIck G- ‘Well, how do you know? What makes you think it will be significantly higher than the investments required to simply maintain BAU?’]

    I didn’t say that the costs will be higher than keeping business as usual attempt , although they probably will be. Either way I see both pathways as being unaffordable on a global basis. In reality we will be proceeding on both paths simultaneously for the remainder of the century. The paths are inseparable/intertwined.

    It will be like swimming upstream and hoping to get everyone across. Upstream will unattainable (less available affordable energy) and fewer and fewer people will make it across (to a life with affordable energy security).
    Thats the implication of peak energy.

    I believe you would like to think that energy supply is a manageable issue, that we can just think it through or talk through. But the reality on the ground is not just words.
    Have you purchased- battery Ev, charging station, solar array, battery bank, double or triple glazed windows, heat pump, and renovated your dwelling to incorporate more insulation?
    These are the kind of costs that I refer to as affordable for most families, let alone a nation in great debt with huge prior commitments and the risk of higher interest rates/lower credit rating- as most countries will be facing.

    This coming year will probably be one where we see the cost of installed PV rising significantly, I fear.
    Sorry.

    1. Yes, I’ve insulated my house to the point that I don’t need heat until temperatures fall below freezing. There was a premium above normal window replacement costs for better windows, but it was cost effective. Plus it reduced noise pollution.

      So, let’s take EVs as an example. Light vehicles account for about 45% of US oil consumption. The average MPG is only 23, and the average occupancy is only 1.2 persons.

      The lowest income quintile of households does little driving – it’s too expensive. They tend to live in big cities and use mass transportation. Most driving is done by middle and high income people.

      New cars buyers are even higher income than the average driver. The average new light vehicle costs about $44k. There are a lot of very good EVs available for less than $44k. So, a transition to EVs is very affordable.

  11. “LONDON, UK — The world needs to cut by more than half its production of coal, oil and gas in the coming decade to maintain a chance of keeping global warming from reaching dangerous levels, according to a U.N.-backed study released Wednesday.”

    Well, its not going to happen.
    We are on the dual path of rapid globing warming and energy shortage.
    Both are certainties, as i see it.
    It is a recipe for global downsizing in population faster than current estimates.

    1. We are on the path of…rapid energy shortage.

      Dennis’ projections don’t support that. Where does that come from?

      1. Dennis has posted many projections of oil supply, and not focused on nat gas and coal projections.
        And his projections are a estimate of what is possible for oil production according to the assumptions he uses.
        What is possible theoretically is often not what is achieved in reality.
        There are many pitfalls to the rosy scenarios of theoretical energy production.
        Trade wars for example. Poor policy choices are another.
        Look at Libya or Venezuela.
        Also, the intention to limit carbon emission will likely curtail fossil fuel production before an effective replacement mechanism is in place- such as they are seeing in Europe currently.
        China is another version of the same.
        So I am just guessing as to what the most likely scenario is as i see it.
        And this view is not a unique one.

        Nick- here is an example of what I am saying, published today-
        “Iraq is perfectly capable of producing 8 million bpd of crude oil, or even its original figure of 12 million bpd Officially, according to the EIA, it holds a very conservatively estimated 145 billion barrels of proved crude oil reserves Baghdad’s unstable relationship with the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region has proven to be a major obstacle Endemic corruption across the country is particularly prevalent in the sector where there is most money – oil. Given that no real change has resulted from last week’s elections in Iraq – the fervently anti-US radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is still the de facto leader – its latest crude oil production ambitions should be considered as they always were: that is, by looking at theoretically what could be achieved, and that at practically what is likely to happen.”

        1. Dennis has posted many projections of oil supply, and not focused on nat gas and coal projections.

          Dennis has posted projections for nat gas, and for coal.

          And his projections are a estimate of what is possible for oil production according to the assumptions he uses.

          Not exactly. He projects what is likely under certain conditions (plus high and low end scenarios). NOT what is possible. And if you don’t like those assumption, he’s usually happy to try others for you.

          What is possible theoretically is often not what is achieved in reality.

          Dennis’ scenarios are pretty conservative. Things in the past have typically turned out better…

          1. I tend to notice Dennis posting High, Medium and Low scenarios. Many here comment as if to perhaps finding Dennis too optimistic.

            “Dennis’ scenarios are pretty conservative. Things in the past have typically turned out better” – Nick

            Anybody want to try and guess what that means? Nick and his rule of thumb’s lol. I think that’s called the “it’ll be better than what Dennis says” methodology of future trends analysis. Gripping stuff.

            Peak Oil, Climate Change, and now COVID; I wonder what’s next eh Nick- progress? GTFO!

            1. Anybody want to try and guess what that means?

              It means pretty much what it sounds like. Dennis tells us that when he goes back and looks at his old projections on oil production he mostly finds that the projections were too low. In other words, production was better than expected.

          2. Nick.
            i get the sense you do whatever mental gymnastics you can muster to help package the world into a neat tidy package.
            I hope the actual performance achieves your expectations.

            I see things as often very messy, often absurd… and sometimes extremely cruel.
            Overshoot is never pretty. For that matter- the way up hasn’t been all that pleasurable for most people either.
            Best luck with your path of carefully crafted optimism.

            1. Hickory,

              If you engage with the actual ideas (rather than making personal speculations about people), I think you’ll find thinking about these topics much more interesting and productive.

              I certainly agree that the world is not tidy – mismanagement and unavoidable surprises are always happening, as I have often discussed. But it’s still possible to understand broad, fundamental trends and ideas.

              For example, I presented some information and ideas about EVs above – what did you think?

        2. Hickory wrote:

          What is possible theoretically is often not what is achieved in reality.
          There are many pitfalls to the rosy scenarios of theoretical energy production.
          Trade wars for example. Poor policy choices are another.
          Look at Libya or Venezuela.

          That is how I see it also. Another example is the melting permafrost in Russia. What will that do to oil- and gasproduction and transportation ?

          Also, the intention to limit carbon emission …..

          The intention…

      2. Hickory,

        In chart below I have updated earlier oil, natural gas, and coal projections.

        https://peakoilbarrel.com/coal-shock-model/

        https://peakoilbarrel.com/world-natural-gas-shock-model/

        As you mentioned I tend to focus on oil and update those more frequently.

        The model below sums the updated oil, natural gas, and coal shock models using exajoules per year (EJ/year) for energy units as BP stats now does for the common unit for all energy sources.

        I have only used the medium models for this update, the low models would be lower and the high models higher, but the medium model is my best guess, at present assuming a very slow transition to other forms of energy besides fossil fuel. My expectation is the high fossil fuel prices post peak are likely to lead to a relatively fast transition to wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear power and to electrified transport (especially on land). The peak in the slow transition scenario is 2027 for all fossil fuels as shown in chart below. The transition away from coal has been faster than I envisioned in 2016.

        1. Thanks much Dennis.
          “My expectation is the high fossil fuel prices post peak are likely to lead to a relatively fast transition to wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear power and to electrified transport (especially on land).”

          I am certainly hopeful of this too.
          The big race is on.
          We’ll see if market forces will get the job of transition done in a timely manner.
          I remain a big skeptic on this point. It takes a measure of stability, prosperity and urgency of purpose to get such a big job done.
          Conversely, a planned or coordinated response/effort is not in the cards (for most territories).

          1. I remain a big skeptic on this point. It takes a measure of stability, prosperity and urgency of purpose to get such a big job done.

            Hickory,

            I remain skeptic too. I think that politicians increasingly don’t know what to decide (from ICE cars to EV cars is not difficult, but enough consumers must have the possibility to buy them) and also they can become powerless/helpless for instance in countries with increasing numbers of migrants. Extreme right political parties are gaining territory in a lot of countries.
            From planning a nuclear plant to becoming operative it takes at least ten years.
            In Holland they are planning a hydrogen economy. A transition from gas to hydrogen. Offshore wind farms generating the electricity to produce hydrogen. The hydrogen will be transported in the now existing gas pipeline network (that has to be changed somewhat), even to other countries in Europe. That is the plan, and Shell wants to become the big player in it. Some call this: “a jump in the dark”. Some politicians are convinced it will work. Of course Shell also.
            Just a few facts and considerations….

            1. Han-
              That Wind plan [with hydrogen storage mechanism] sounds like as good a national plan as any I’ve heard of, particularly considering the flat terrain and fairly poor solar potential.
              The offshore wind resource for Netherlands territorial waters is huge! Looks like the entire zone is over 9m/s at 100m hub height, which is world class.
              https://globalwindatlas.info/

              Forgive my lack of understanding regarding the distinction between Holland and Netherlands.

              I look forward to seeing how the projects progress.

          2. Hickory,

            I mostly agree. At some point rising fossil fuel prices may cause a change in thinking, much as it did in 1975, only this tkme there is no North Sea, Alaska, or GOM to come to the rescue as was the case around 1982 to 1990. So the changes in attitude may be permanent.

            1. Hickory,

              thanks for the info (globalwindatlas). Still I wonder if the plan will work well
              Holland = the Netherlands

        2. Thanks, Dennis.

          Am I correct in thinking that this chart just shows joules from fossil fuels? Could you add a line showing total energy output (that is, FF, renewables & nuclear)?

          I’d think you’d want to adjust things to make FF primary energy comparable to nuclear/renewable electricity – do you still use the BP FF 38% efficiency factor?

          1. Nick

            It is fossil fuel primary energy only.

            BP has changed the efficiency factor read the methodoly tab in bp stats excel file.

            I don’t have a good model for future non fossil fuel energy.

            Wind and solar grew at about 16% per year from 2011 to 2019.

            1. Dennis,

              Could you share the annual numbers from your projection above? Just copying the numbers into a comment would work. Thanks!

            2. Nick,

              Annual Fossil fuel energy consumption (primary energy from oil, natural gas and coal) in exajoules for shock models from 2019 to 2070 below:

              first line is 2019 last line is 2070

              856.29
              811.99
              831.59
              852.22
              866.97
              881.00
              892.03
              897.23
              898.39
              895.50
              892.30
              888.48
              883.59
              877.77
              871.28
              863.77
              855.18
              846.05
              837.02
              827.64
              817.98
              807.80
              798.10
              785.78
              773.56
              761.84
              750.51
              738.38
              726.17
              714.16
              701.80
              689.60
              677.79
              665.93
              654.66
              643.11
              631.68
              620.24
              609.19
              598.12
              587.16
              576.19
              565.59
              554.98
              544.48
              533.97
              523.83
              513.66
              503.58
              493.48
              483.71
              473.94

    2. The crazy rhetoric is really being ramped up in advance of the latest climate convention in November.

    3. Hickory,
      Happily the wind picked up and today it was about a third of the UKs energy production, up from a quarter a few days ago.

      German electricity was 71% renewable today. There’s no shortage of ambient energy, and there never ever will be. There’s just a shortage of harvesting.

      1. Here we go. “Kern” means nuclear, and the yellow band is renewable:

      3. Alim- “There’s just a shortage of [wind] harvesting.”

        Absolutely, and every kwhr generated by wind is some coal or gas burning avoided and saved for some other day.

  12. I like this piece on Roger Pielke‘s bit. Perhaps others do too.

    “So the math here is simple: to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the world would need to deploy 3 [brand new] nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy every two days, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. At the same time, a nuclear plant’s worth of fossil fuels would need to be decommissioned every day, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.

    I’ve found that some people don’t like the use of a nuclear power plant as a measuring stick. So we can substitute wind energy as a measuring stick. Net-zero carbon dioxide by 2050 would require the deployment of ~1500 wind turbines (2.5 MW) over ~300 square miles, every day starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.” ~ Pielke

    https://www.peakprosperity.com/getting-real-about-green-energy/

    1. Similar analysis to replace the energy of depleting fossil fuels just for the energy regardless of carbon considerations.
      Late to the game.

      1. And, that’s been the case forever: stuff wears out, and it needs to be replaced every 10 to 40 years. That’s the case whether it’s fossil, renewable or nuclear.

        The numbers sound large because the energy industry is large. The energy industry is large because the world economy is large.

        It’s the old, misleading argument by hand waving: “Look how big those numbers are! How could we do that??”.

    2. Pielke asserts that we must replace 100% of the energy we currently get from fossil sources, but that isn’t true; it’s closer to 40% if we discontinue the use of combustion engines and thermal plants. Also, how much of our current energy consumption is used for finding, extracting, processing, refining, and transporting fossil fuels? I’ve no idea, but it must be considerable.

      It’s still a big job, but no use overstating the case.

      1. Bob ,” t’s closer to 40% if we discontinue the use of combustion engines and thermal plants. ”
        Now let me understand . The human body needs 2000 calories per day normal ( if you are bed ridden 1500 calories ) , so if I was to knock off 800 calories in continuity I could continue my current lifestyle with 1200 calories . Something doesn’t smell good , maybe I go back to school and relearn my math .

        1. How about this: an average gasoline car might get 30 miles per gallon. There are about 35 kWhs of energy in a gallon, so that’s about 1.2 kWhs per mile.

          EVs use about .25kWhs of energy per mile: about 1/5 of the gas car.

          Internal combustion engines (aka heat engines) are very inefficient.

        2. Hole-
          the analogy you presented doesn’t apply here

          Here are few things to consider
          – an EV requires roughly 1/3rd the energy per mile than an ICE [as has been shared here on multiple occasions], and so the oil energy used in transport does not need to be replaced on a 1:1 basis to keep the global mileage traveled the same
          -no need to keep traveling so much. perhaps the world would be just fine if only half the miles were traveled
          -not all the oil needs to replaced. 50% by 2050 is doable. It better be since depletion will make it so regardless
          -much of the worlds heating and cooling is done with older less efficient devices. The modern heat pumps accomplish the job with much less energy than the older equipment.
          -there is lots of energy just wasted on frivolous uses. No need to replace all of that with non-fossil sources. People can learn the hard way (expensive) to be more restrained, and find joy in simple things like banjo music and apple cider, or walking- try it sometime.
          –

          1. Nick and Hicks , I know my EROEI . Electricity and ICE are negative EROEI when you consider transmission losses etc . Try cutting your electricity usage by 40 % and we will see how good you are . Let me give you a real life example . A couple in CA decided they will not buy anything that is Made in China or Made of China . They did not last a fortnight . Get real, understand criticality . Ever see a mother protect her child from goons , even if in a movie . When push comes to shove ??? . Now back to my single malt .

            1. I cut my lighting bill by about 80% in recent years. Electricity consumption by TVs has also fallen radically thanks to the death of CRT technology. Washing machines and dryers have gotten much more energy efficient. For example, the newest dryers are heat pumps. We also have a very efficient dishwasher that takes hours to finish but works with cooler water.

              Heating and showering haven’t improved though. Well heating has improved a little with triple glazed windows in a few rooms.

            2. Hole-
              you say- electricity has neg EROEI when you consider transmission losses.
              Are sure that is a position you want to be remembered for, sober or not?

              Since you are into amazing analogies- i will give you one to match your statement
              “people wanted to go uphill but they were facing backwards and the hill was going down in front of them, and their heels were behind the toes”
              Think about it.

              On a more constructive note- have you digested the studies of the last 5 years that have given a fact based look at Wind Power energy payback time?
              The results of multiple studies overlap closely and may surprise you if actually read up on it. Here is one such for you to consider. A person interested in EROEI issues would be familiar with this it seems-
              https://www.offshorewindadvisory.com/faqs-ghg-payback/

              btw-
              “The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that electricity transmission and distribution (T&D) losses equaled about 5% of the electricity transmitted and distributed in the United States in 2015 through 2019.”

              Challenge your preconceived notions lest they become beliefs.

            3. Try cutting your electricity usage by 40 % and we will see how good you are .

              We cut our gasoline use by 90% 5 years ago when we bought the Chevy Volt PHEV. Today you can buy it used for $10,000 and drive it for another 10 years. We installed a 10 kW PV system on the roof almost 4 years ago. Meets 80%-90% of our annual needs even with PHEV charging and heavy AC use during summer. Breakeven in about 7 years. The economics is even better today.
              Cheap iron air and liquid metal batteries to store renewables are in the early stages of commercialization. EVs cheaper then ICE cars will be available in about 5 years.

          2. Hickory,

            I generally agree. One thought:

            there is lots of energy just wasted on frivolous uses

            I would call that “low-value”, or “marginal value” uses. There is some value to personal convenience: single occupancy, large vehicles for occasional high-intensity hauling, etc. Frivolous sounds judgmental, while “low-value” simply suggests that it’s not a big sacrifice to do without those things when price signals tell us to.

            It’s a complex question: I mention large vehicles with hesitation because I agree that SUVs and pickups are indeed often just conspicuous consumption, which I would agree is frivolous. In fact, I think they’re dangerous to sedans, bikes and pedestrians. But…I think the thought in the paragraph above is still useful.

          3. there is lots of energy just wasted on frivolous uses.

            Hickory,

            Right, but a lot of people have jobs because of those frivolous uses.

            1. Han- Absolutely, and there is going to be plenty of hard adjustment needed to be made in even the most optimistic of scenarios.
              The loss of jobs in industries like distance tourism, including air travel and cruiselines may be crushing to those sectors and places.

        3. Hole in Head —
          >The human body needs 2000 calories

          This is a stupid analogy. Your body doesn’t get new technology every few years.

    3. U.S. solar notches record Q2, but faces bottleneck issues

      The second quarter of 2021 was a record Q2 for U.S. solar development with 5.7 GW installed. This marks the 4th largest quarter ever for solar development in the United States.

      Sector-by-sector growth was strong. It was a near-record quarter for residential (974 MW), commercial solar was up 31% year over year (354 MW), and there was 177 MW of community solar developed. Perhaps most impressive, 4.2 GW of utility-scale solar was developed, and 9 GW of utility-scale solar was procured.

      So, enough solar PV was deployed in the US for the second quarter of 2021 to be equivalent to one 1 GW nuclear plant. That means that the world as a whole needs 135 times the amount of capacity installed in the US in Q2, 2021 to be installed every quarter.

      Looked at another way, roughly 127 GW of solar capacity was installed across the world in 2020 ( https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Apr/World-Adds-Record-New-Renewable-Energy-Capacity-in-2020 ). That is enough to generate the equivalent of almost 32 nuclear reactors. At that rate the world built enough solar capacity to replace one nuclear reactor every 11.4 days. To reach a rate of replacing 3 reactors every three days that rate would have to increase by a factor of about 18.

      That is less than five doublings so, if solar continues to grow exponentially it doesn’t look like such a long shot. If solar PV manufacturing capacity took five years to double, it would take a little more than 20 years to hit the target rate. The thing with exponential growth is that if it doesn’t slow rapidly once you approach the target there is a possibility that you will overshoot by a large margin. With exponential growth, during one doubling period the amount that is consumed/produced is the same as the total (all time) cumulative consumption/production at the beginning of the period.

      Of course there are a myriad of limits to growth that could make this impossible but, how close are we to hitting limits is anyone’s guess. There’s also the matter of increased efficiency from moving away from heat based engines mentioned by others.

      1. I just had a look at the energy flow chart posted by Bob Nickson below and did a quick and dirty spreadsheet to see what the growth rate of solar PV capacity would have to be for solar PV alone to be the equivalent of deploying “3 [brand new] nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy every two days’. As it turns out 8.3% growth in the amount of PV added each year would do the trick, assuming the amount of capacity retired going forward has a negligible effect.

        That is if solar alone were to produce all the energy. I added a couple of columns to my spreadsheet to add wind to the mix and plugged some arbitrary values in for the rate of increase in capacity added per year. A 2.2% rate of growth in the amount of wind power added each year coupled with a 6.5% growth rate for the amount of solar added each year would do the trick. For some perspective, the amount of new wind power added globally in 2020 was 53% more than the amount added in 2019 and solar has been adding roughly 10% more new capacity for the last few years. That sort of suggests that net zero carbon by 2050 is not ambitious enough. Maybe we should be aiming for net zero by 2040.

  13. A quick comment on the pandemic . The chart below is from Our World in Data ( https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cases ). I selected some first world countries with high vaccination rates (UK, US, Israel, Singapore, Japan, Ireland) and compared them with a wide range of countries, mostly low income but a couple of middle income.

    All the first world countries have vaccination rates in excess of 60% except the US, sitting at 57.6%. Japan is the only first world country with less than 12 new daily confirmed cases per million, all the rest are in excess of 150. All the other countries that have less than 12 new daily confirmed cases per million are what President Trump described as “$#!t#0le countries”. Vaccination rates in many of these countries are appallingly low with Eritrea yet to start administering any covid vaccines.

    The legend is sorted in order of new daily confirmed cases per million. Somehow all the countries below Israel in the legend have manged to restrict new daily confirmed cases per million to below 12 despite hitting numbers as high as 280 in India and 694 in Namibia. There is obviously a story that is not being told.

    Yesterday evening I watched the FLCCC Weekly Update (Zoom, recording archived at https://odysee.com/@FrontlineCovid19CriticalCareAlliance:c/FLCCC-WEBINAR-102021_FINAL:8 ). Towards the end the host a retired radio and television news reporter and anchor (CBS) remarked that she was old enough to remember Vietnam and how Walter Cronkite changed America’s view of the war, by presenting a side of the story that had previously not been told by mainstream media. is America destined to have a “Cronkite Moment’ with this pandemic? While the vaccines have prevented many people from advancing to the stage of hospitalization or death, they do not protect all (Colin Powell). It is obvious to me that whatever is being used in places like India, Namibia, Indonesia and Japan is far more capable of ending the pandemic than any vaccine!

    1. That is truly astounding! Slightly more than two thirds of the energy produced by burning fossil fuels is not doing any useful work!

      1. Absolutely, Islandboy. And that is reason over 90% of VMT will be via EVs by 2030. It is a no brainer when EVs achieve cost parity with ICE cars around 2025.

  16. Up above HinH indicated a belief that the EROEI is severely unfavorable for new electrical based energy system.
    Studies of modern wind and solar equipment does not bear this out, if these generating sources are placed in favorable locations. [Solar and Wind Atlases available]

    Regardless of papers and maps, just consider a basic reality test of viability.
    Does anyone really think that the 30-40% growth in wind and solar capacity installations that we have seen over the past years would really be happening if the electrical output couldn’t even pay for the energy utilized in deployment. Any investor/financier would laugh such a proposal out of the room, rather they are lined up to invest more. Realize that energy costs for the components of a turbine or a panel, as well as the transmission are included in the purchase price of equipment and project.
    And per kWh of energy output both solar and wind projects have overall cost that is competitive with all the other big energy sources.
    Ten years ago this wasn’t true, and it also it not true in some locations. Solar in Ireland would not be on my project list, but it sure would in anywhere more than half way sunny.

Comments are closed.