116 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, October 26, 2022”

  1. This seems like the correct take to me – Musk isn’t a Russian agent, more like a Dunning-Kruger loudmouth who wants the war to stop (whatever the outcome) because wars fuck with his deals by adding an uncontrollable dimension of additional risk. Imagine being so Dunning-Kruger that you come of as a foreign agent; new one for the DSM. Musk should stick to shilling for DeSantis.

    https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/21/23415242/elon-musk-starlink-ukraine-dod-twitter-david-sacks-russia

    1. One reason people like Musk like Putin is that Putin is one of the oligarchs, and oligarchs stick together.

      1. I was relieved like having a good shit to hear that their British royal-jellied queen twat finally kicked the bucket. But like these ants I had in my kitchen last summer, the queen keeps popping them out anyway. So what now? King Charles? Gong Show.

        “So other than killing the queen and tanking the economy, what did Liz truss accomplish?” ~ Alimbiquated

        I owe her a debt of gratitude. LOL

    2. Geez you still really do seem to have a bee under your bonnet for this Musk chap ay? I’ve been gone what? A year and a half and you’re still on about him. Holy shit LOL…

      In some ways, from what I can tell, I seem to agree with him on some things, or be on a similar wave in some regards, and if you’re honest with yourself, presumably you do too, yes? Strange bedfellows?

  2. Ruining a planet (even more) efficiently!

    NASA INSTRUMENT DETECTS DOZENS OF METHANE SUPER-EMITTERS FROM SPACE

    The device, called an imaging spectrometer, has identified more than 50 methane “super-emitters” in Central Asia, the Middle East and the Southwestern US since it was installed in July aboard the International Space Station, NASA said on Tuesday. The newly measured methane hotspots – some previously known and others just discovered – include sprawling oil and gas facilities and large landfills. Scientists estimate the Turkmenistan plumes collectively spew methane at a rate of 111,000 pounds (50,400 kilograms) per hour, rivaling the peak flow from the 2015 Aliso Canyon gas field blowout near Los Angeles that ranks as one of the largest accidental methane releases in U.S. history.

    EMIT, one of 25 Earth science instruments in orbit, could potentially find hundreds of methane super-emitters before its year-long mission ends, NASA said.

    https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/nasa-instrument-detects-dozens-methane-super-emitters-space-2022-10-26/

    1. Meanwhile,

      SCIENTISTS WARN IN REPORT THAT CLIMATE CHANGE HAS PUSHED EARTH TO ‘CODE RED’

      Writing in the journal BioScience, an international coalition led by Oregon State University researchers says in a report published today that the Earth’s vital signs have reached “code red” and that “humanity is unequivocally facing a climate emergency.”

      https://phys.org/news/2022-10-scientists-climate-earth-code-red.html

      1. My response is to shrug. Not because I don’t think it’s interesting and important, but because my high school Earth Sciences teacher warned us in 1974 that this could happen.

  4. GREENHOUSE GASES REACH NEW RECORD IN 2021

    Of the three main types of heat-trapping greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide—the biggest jump from 2020 to 2021 was in methane, whose concentrations in the air came in with the biggest year-on-year increase since regular measurements began four decades ago.

    https://phys.org/news/2022-10-weather-agency-greenhouse-gases.html

  5. Please help me check my lay person’s understanding or our energy situation.

    As I understand it, there were approximately 1.2 billion humans on the planet when the first oil well was drilled in Titusville, PA in 1859. Now there are almost eight billion of us, all wanting to live like Americans. Production of conventional crude peaked in 2005 and production of all fossil fuel resources peaked in 2018 though further time and study will be needed to confirm.

    Is this somewhat of a consensus view around here?

    Boy, it sure would have been nice if this species of greedy monkey could have listened to some of its members way back when. I’m thinking of Paul Erlich, Donella Meadows, Wendell Berry, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, etc.

    1. Yes, yes and yes indeed.

      Please also note that prior to fossil fuel that mass deforestation for wood fuel was the norm.
      And that slave labor in the form of horse, ox and other bovines as well a vast swath of humanity, was how ‘civilization’ was powered.
      The energy requirement of 8 billion is somewhat higher than that of the1.2 billion was.

      Got wood?

      1. We lot will all be joining the dead queen soon enough anyway, wood or no.

      2. I have wood, many times as much, sustainably harvested, as it would take to heat my own home and the homes of my handful of friends and relatives.
        But one or another professional forester ran the numbers a few years back and his result was that without fossil fuels, there wouldn’t be a tree left in the USA except maybe on the grounds of some rich person’s security fenced mansion after about five years or so.

        1. Yeah, TVA’s rural electrification program reforested large areas of Appalachia.

          Appalachia was settled starting about 1800 and was rich for two or three generations. But by the beginning of the 20th century it was an ecological disaster and plunged into poverty.

    2. fossil fuel resources peaked in 2018 though further time and study will be needed to confirm.

      There is a chance that natural gas has not yet peaked. We don’t follow the monthly production of natural gas on this site like we do crude + concentrate. That is all petroleum that is liquid at sea level and room temperature. But yes, C+C peaked in 2018, or at least that is the opinion of all but one or two who post on this blog.

      1. I do not believe World output of C plus C has peaked. It seems likely that the 2018 centered 12 month average peak of about 83 Mb/d will be surpassed, my expectation is a peak in 2030 around 85 Mbpd.

        1. I know you do not believe C+C has peaked Dennis. I said there were one or two on this blog who didn’t believe it. Well, you are one. 🤣

          1. Ron,

            Not sure who the other one is, perhaps Reservegrowthrulz, and there might be one other, there are a few on the fence. Of course nobody knows the future.

      2. I stand corrected- I do not think fossil fuels have yet peaked, but we are getting close enough.
        People will burn a lot more coal if other energy is insufficient.

        1. Correct. I have no idea how much coal is left. Perhaps it has peaked, perhaps not. But I don’t think natural gas has peaked.

          1. Ron,

            I agree, natural gas will be the last to peak in my opinion, coal may have already peaked in 2014 for consumption, but production peaked in 2021.

          2. There is plenty of coal, according to what I read, enough to go wild burning it for another couple of generations, if there’s a market for it, and it can be brought to that market.

            But it’s mostly in places that are tough nuts in terms of the political situation, and it’s not going to be cheap.

            Most of it is going to be expensive to mine , and it will have to be transported great distances.

            I can’t even guess how much of it will be dug up and burnt.

            Hopefully wind and solar power, etc, will be cheaper, so that most of it stays in the ground.

            1. Anthracite is getting very difficult to find for those of us in Maine who use traditional cast iron stoves. We just paid 500 for a pallet, 50 40-lb sacks or one ton.

            2. “burning a pound of coal emits 2.07 pounds of CO2”

              https://www.epa.gov/energy/frequent-questions-epas-greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator

              “SCIENTISTS WARN IN REPORT THAT CLIMATE CHANGE HAS PUSHED EARTH TO ‘CODE RED’”

              Mike B- “My response is to shrug.” “because my high school Earth Sciences teacher warned us in 1974”

              48 years and scapegoating your choices. B meet mirror.

              “How to Sustainably Heat Your Cabin or Tiny Home. Utilizing newer appliances that come with an energy star rating will also cut back on your carbon footprint. These heaters burn fuel more efficiently, reducing harm to the environment and slowing down the use of non-renewable resources. Our favorite electrical source for a tiny house is a heat pump.”

              https://jamaicacottageshop.com/how-to-sustainably-heat-your-cabin-or-tiny-home/

            3. HB you are always so quick at pointing the finger at others.

              Don’t you own shares in FF companies ? Don’t you own stocks in subsidaries of FF companies or companies that use FF ?

            4. Hypocrisy- the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform

              Iron, I don’t understand the point your trying to make. I also own lithium miners, EV producers, renewable manufacturers and EV charging companies. My share of ownership has no effect on the environment or their business practices. Same as I don’t “point the finger” at Shellman for being an oil well worker(even though he likes to play the victim sometimes). The problem isn’t the drug dealer. Take responsibility. It’s the user. No user, no supplier. When I go to the polls, I vote against my fossil fuel interests because it’s the right thing to do. I can live with those consequences or risks. There is no reason for me to leave money on the table.

              Your parents, school teachers, doctors and government officials have all told drug users not to start to use drugs. We are free to choose what we consume. Mike B states he understands the environment for the last 48 year. Yet continues 48 year old ways and justify his actions because of the poor action of others. I want to say B is a quitter. But I suspect he was never in the game.

            5. What we need is another sort of covid-style economic brake…
              Like how about an electromagnetic pulse bomb, maybe propagandized as a Putin false flag operation (from his hypermissiles) that knocks out the internet, many sorts of vulnerable electronics like computers and maybe even EV’s, the electical grid and/or (aspects of) a PV system?

              Some ‘authorities’ apparently ran simulations not too long ago along these sorts of lines. Like virus-release sims just before covid.

    3. Tehodler, there is no f-ing way to know, and certainty about peak will only come about ten years after the fact, I believe anyway. In which case, as my geology professor told me privately, “It’s too late.”

    4. >all wanting to live like Americans.
      Less likely than you may think. Americans use about twice as much energy s Europeans, and a lot of the waste comes from dysfunctional city design. It’s unlikely that Asians are going to tear down their cities like Americans did in the second half of the 20th century.

      1. Hint:
        “If you were born and live in Japan, you can expect to live to 85 years old. For South Korea average lifespan is 83, as are Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Israel, and Australia.

        It’s 82 for Italy, Spain, Ireland, France, Finland, and New Zealand.

        Cuba (!) and Panama are 79; Uruguay and Croatia are 78.

        A total of 61 countries have average lifespans of 78 years or older, ranging from Singapore’s 84 to Estonia’s 78.

        And then there’s the United States. Our average lifespan comes in at a paltry 77 years, along with Iran, Tunisia, and Morocco.”

        1. ~5 years difference doesn’t seem like much does it? ~5 more years of aches and pains?
          …Any statistics where long and painful and/or/versus quick and painless deaths are counted? LOL

          Hey, no mask or vax during the entire pandemic and I’m still alive and kicking. My ‘Italian one-arm salute’ to the system and all those minority dorks still running around late 2022 with masks…

          Masked Dork: “If the government tells me to jump, I ask, how high?
          …You know, I would be good for a CCTV facial-recognition-enabled Chinese-style social credit system over here, how about you? You know, I like that TPTB tell me what to do because I have a hard time knowing what’s right and wrong and what to do and so I need guidance and direction and probably can best get it from people and groups who I sense– I have a good nose for that– are most likely voices of authority and therefore most likely fit to lead me.          “

  6. For World natural gas output we only have annual data from BP Statistical Review of World Energy through 2021.

    From 1994 to 2021 the average annual rate of increase was about 2.55% in World dry natural gas output.

  7. World coal output in exajoules. A big increase from 2000 to 2011, then relatively flat output from 2011 to 2021 with average annual rates of growth over the past 11 years of about 0.3% per year. Data from BP stats 2022.

      1. Alimbiquated,

        Both charts are production rather than consumption. Using Exajoules for coal attempts to adjust for the different grades of coal which have various heat contents per tonne.

        According to BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2022, natural gas consumption rose at a 2.2% annual rate from 2011 to 2021, and natural gas production in exajuoles rose by the same amount over that period (2.2% per year).

        For coal consumption in exajoules the annual rate of increase from 2011 to 2021 was only 0.1%, while production rose by 0.3% over the 2011 to 2021 period. Average coal production for the World from 2011 to 2021 was 162.7 EJ, while coal consumption from 2011 to 2021 averaged 158.4 EJ/year.

        For natural gas average production was 130.35 EJ/year from 2011 to 2021 and average consumption was 129.7 EJ/year over the same period.

        Finally in 2021 for the World coal consumption was 160 EJ and natural gas was 145 EJ, and oil consumption was 184 EJ and total primary energy consumption was 595 EJ, fossil fuel accounted for about 82% of all primary energy consumption in 2021. In 1975 92% of primary energy consumption was from fossil fuel (oil, coal, and natural gas).

        Below I have a scenario that assumes renewables grow at 13% in 2022 (average growth rate was 13.6% per year from 2015 to 2019) and then the rate of annual growth decreases each year by 0.5% until reaching 9%/ year and then remains at that rate of growth from 2030 to 2050. I assume nuclear and hydro consumption remain flat at 2021 levels and primary energy use continues to grow at 1.3% per year (average rate from 2011 t0 2021) from 2022 to 2050. Fossil fuel use falls to about 26% of total primary energy use by 2050 in this scenario due to lack of demand for fossil fuel as they get replaced by wind and solar power, though some nuclear could also be added to the mix ( I assume we choose not to do so.)

        1. That is a very interesting projection Dennis.
          It displays an essentially flat plateau of fossil fuel consumption out to 2035, at which point the global population will be 9 billion. This equates to roughly 12% decline in fossil fuel consumption/capita.

          In the best case scenario (stable and functional world) I think this is feasible.

          It would be useful to see a version of this chart with
          -the renewables projection added
          -the total energy projection added

          1. Hickory,

            Thanks.

            Note that the scenario has 65.6 EJ of hydro plus nuclear power that is assumed to remain constant from 2022 to 2050 (this is a simplifying assumption, these have been fairly flat for the past 10 years or so). Essentially non-fossil fuel energy is the renewables curve shifted up by 65.6 EJ/year.

            1. Thank you Dennis.

              A few comments
              -if this scenario plays out then the prospect for a global level energy collapse are clearly low for the next 2-3 decades
              -will there be enough diesel? That may be the weak link for economies.
              -if this scenario plays out then the global warming ramifications will be very bad
              -wind and solar may not grow as fast as this projection, depending on policy and prosperity levels
              -the US would be a much bigger driver of solar and wind growth if it wasn’t so richly endowed with fossil fuels

            2. Hickory,

              You’re welcome!

              The scenario is fairly conservative/pessimistic. Note that non-hydro renewables grew at about 13.6% per year on average from 2015 to 2019, it is possible that if fossil fuel price remain high and the World starts to take climate change seriously, that we might maintain that rate of increase until 2030 and then jump down to 10% thereafter.

              That scenario looks like the chart below. Fossil fuels falls to zero by 2050 for this scenario.

            3. My guess is that nuclear energy will crash hard sometime in the next 10-15 years, even if that’s not obvious now.

              The fleet was constructed in a short time frame, and has been aging ever since. I expect the plants to all shut down in a short time frame, and the current rate of construction is unlikely to compensate. Even when people start noticing, the long planning phase for new plants will prevent a fast reaction.

            4. Alimbiquated,

              The scenario outlined above assumes 25.3 EJ of nuclear primary energy use from 2022 to 2050 (this was the BP estimate for the World in 2021 for consumption of Nuclear energy).
              This is a very small piece of the overall scenario which also assumes constant hydropower output at 40.3 EJ (2021 World level estimated by BP) from 2022 to 2050. In 2050 the scenario assumes total World primary energy consumptiom of 866 EJ/year (assumes 1.3%/year growth in primary energy consumption from 2022 to 2050), so this 65.6 EJ of nuclear plus hydro consumption accounts for 7.5% of total primary energy in 2050 and nuclear power accounts for only 3% of the total in 2050.

              Bottom line, if you are correct it is unlikely to be much of a problem. I will note that you did not say it was a problem, but some might interpret your comment in that way.

              I double checked the scenario and there is actually a 45 EJ excess of renewable consumption in 2050, enough to reduce nuclear to zero and reduce hydro output to about 20 EJ, by 2051 all hydro could be eliminated as well (much of it damages the environment, but whether the environmental damage is worse than the damage from wind or solar power, I do not know.) Reducing energy use with greater efficiency can also eliminate much of the need for primary energy so the growth of 1.3% from 2022 to 2050 is likely excessive, also population growth will slow and World real GDP growth will slow as the World becomes more economically developed. The scenario is very simplistic and highly likely to be wrong.

            5. A more optimistic scenario that assumes primary energy use grows linearly with a 6.91 EJ/year increase from 2022 to 2050 and also that non-hydro renewables grow at 13.6%/year from 2022 to 2040 and then decrease to 11%/year and after 2044 gradually decrease from there to 1%/year by 2047. Note that earlier I forgot to label the scenario axes, fossil fuel is on left and non-hydro renewables on the right vertical axis.

              For the scenario below fossil fuel consumption falls to zero by 2045 and nuclear energy could also be eliminated by 2045, hydro and nuclear power could be eliminated by 2046.

            6. Upon reading some recent work by Tony Seba, the following is an even more optimistic World Energy scenario with wind and solar continuing their exponential growth rates from the 2012-2021 period up to 2038. Note that solar will fall in cost over time and might see a further increase in growth rate as this occurs, but this scenario does not make that assumption.

          2. It would be as easy as falling off a log to cut per capita consumption ten or fifteen percent in the USA over a few years time if we were to pursue sensible energy policies such as putting a HUGE luxury tax on oversized vehicles used for personal purposes.

            1. True, and putting a big carbon tax on airline tickets and marine fuel sales (excluding commercial vessels), instituting a strict 60 mph speed limit on highways, for example.

              Most other countries who are not so well endowed with energy sources, such as most of Asia and Europe, and do not have nearly as much energy fat to cut. Except from the upper crust.

  8. Fossil fuel consumption in EJ/year. The annual average rate of increase from 2011 to 2021 was about 3.52 EJ/year and an average annual percentage growth rate of 0.75%.

  10. The projections for solar and wind energy growth displayed in the charts above by Dennis perhaps are possible, but have a high chance of coming in much lower, in my opinion. The problem is not the size of the global solar and wind energy reserve- overall they are immense.
    The two biggest constraints are

    1. Financial- much of the world is in no shape to afford the dual path spending it will take on energy. Payment for increasingly expensive fossil fuels, while at the same time engaging on a massive capital buildout of all the components of a replacement system- from heat pump to battery storage, ev to grid upgrade, solar and wind and battery manufacturing, building retrofit, etc. will simply be unaffordable for most at the fast pace needed.
    A wise ape civilization would have entered this attempted transition with a huge dedicated savings account and sterling credit. We have taken steps to achieve neither- quite the opposite in fact.

    2. Even if funding was not an issue, it will take much time to ramp up the global manufacturing capabilities. We are far behind the curve on this, with the only country exception perhaps being China. The US for example has performed pitifully slow on this attempted transition thus far. The near complete obstructionist policies of the Republican partisan and politicians has put us back 2-3 decades on the path. The vast majority of the entire population seems oblivious to the scope of the challenge. The whole world needs to act as if it actually matters to get this done.

    Related issue- any economic downturn will put the world or countries farther behind the schedule of sector growth necessary. There are many countries with very poor financial condition, and some have marginal or poor solar/wind resource. Their energy difficulties will be very disruptive. And that disruptive condition could certainly affect the global supply chain upon which this energy transition is completely dependent.

    1. “The projections for solar and wind energy growth displayed in the charts above by Dennis perhaps are possible, but have a high chance of coming in much lower, in my opinion.”

      And,

      SOME OF THE MOST DRASTIC RISKS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE ARE ROUTINELY EXCLUDED FROM ECONOMIC MODELS

      The risks from climate change are likely to be greater than economists usually calculate, because their models routinely exclude potentially devastating but hard-to-quantify threats such as the collapse of ocean circulation currents, civil breakdowns and major weather disasters, according to a new study published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature.

      https://phys.org/news/2022-10-drastic-climate-routinely-excluded-economic.html

      1. Doug, these projections of fossil fuel supply/consumption are very bad news for climate stability. That is already a certainty. We are a solid 3-4 decades late on making the changes it would have taken to avoid this outcome. Its a matter of degree now (literally).

        1. “Counties in the United States that saw the largest gain in voting Republican for president between the 2012 election and Donald Trump’s election in 2016 were also the counties where people rated their lives the worst.”

          -NYT

          The future is looking pretty fascistic?

    2. Hickory,

      One thing to consider is the lack of investment in oil and natural gas and coak frees up capital to invest in wind and solar. The manufacturing capability can be expanded very quickly as was the case during World War 2 for tanks, airplanes, ships, guns and ammunition. The oil and natural gas industry grew at 7% from 1935 to 1975 and didn’t grow faster because that was as fast as demand grew. I would agree that output may not grow as fast as the most optimistc scenario, but the original scenario (which is not fast enough) is quite possible, the optimistic scenario is what we should strive for (or better). Costs for solar will continue to fall and as they do, even the optimistic scenario might prove conservative at least in the mond of Tony Seba.

    3. Hickory —
      I expect renewable adoption to continue to accelerate.

      The standard narrative in cases like this is something like “doing the right thing is too expensive”. In my view the opposite is the case — world will soon switch away from fossil fuels because they are too expensive and cumbersome. Here’s why:

      First, renewable are disruptive:

      The cost of renewables is very low and will continue to fall. This is already making it harder to make money selling fuel, and as they spread, the pain will get worse.

      The incumbent status of fossil fuels will continue to decline. I pointed out this problem with nuclear elsewhere in this thread, but coal has it in much of the world already. It’s even starting in China, where older coal plants are already being replaced because they are too polluting (and thus a political problem for the CCP).

      Renewables don’t operate 24/7. This upends the economics of the electricity market, endangering older, less flexible power plants. We see this this now in Australia, where wild swings in output are undermining the coal plants. As renewables are added, the problems get worse.

      The key to exponential growth is that cumulative market share (the sum of past implementations) should increase new implementations. The previous points all suggest this.

      Second, renewables are hard to root out once they are there.

      As I have said before, renewables have zero marginal cost, so they never lose market share in a price war.

      Renewables can be built fast, so they spread like weeds on disturbed land. Economies don’t run on Five Year Plans these days, not even in China.

      Renewables (especially solar) scale down. You can even have a power plant per household. These installations will never go away.

      In the long term, oak trees shade out the weeds, but they need decades of undisturbed growth first. Most arguments against renewables ignore how fast and cheaply they they can spread. Replacing renewables with power plants that take 10 years to build is not realistic.

      1. I agree that renewable deployment will continue to accelerate.
        Quite dramatically.
        Question is will it be fast enough to avoid energy shortfall conditions over the next couple decades.
        I am not very optimistic about that for the reasons I have stated before, especially for the billions of people in less fortunate conditions than you and I.

        1. Hickory,

          The car replaced horses in the US between 1905 and 1925. Today we could potentially transition away from fossil fuel much faster, nobody thinks things can change that fast, later in the 20th century transitions occurred more rapidly than in the early 20th century and in the 21st century (smart phones being the obvious example) the transition was very rapid. Tony Seba often seems too optimistic, but some of his predictions have been pretty spot on. Solar power seems poised to take off in my opinion and high natural gas and coal prices will accelerate the growth in PV installation.

          1. The race is on. Place your bets-
            We have Debt and Depletion neck and neck…here comes ElectroV up the backstretch…and now Trodden Mass is pulling all the stops…

    4. Hickory is as usual in or very close to the bullseye.
      I will add something he has not taken into consideration in this particular comment.

      There’s some silver lining in every black cloud. War is probably the most expensive of all human undertakings. It’s certainly the most expensive in the short to medium term.

      But no matter how expensive it gets, it’s never so expensive that it falls to second or third place in the budgets of countries at war, except possibly for maintaining food and energy supplies adequate to support the actual fighting…… meaning in essence that a country at war is at war all the way, not only with weapons but also in economic terms.

      I don’t want anybody killed or any cities bombed unnecessarily.

      But it’s my personal opinion that the only reasonably likely scenario under which we will get our collective asses in gear and GET ON with the energy transition is that we collectively suffer enough sharp broken bricks upside our collective heads.

      Putin and his homies are doing Russia immense harm, and doing everything possible within their power to destroy Ukraine and enslave the Ukrainians, short of using nuclear weapons.

      But nothing else has ever even come CLOSE to boosting the renewables and conservation industries the way this war is doing it.

      It’s customary in some liberal circles to say that the two words military intelligence are diametrically opposed, but generals are mostly well informed and intelligent people, and plenty of them understand that the best thing they can do, in many cases, to enhance the security of their own country is to break the fossil fuel habit, so as to quit spending precious money buying oil and gas from their potential enemies.

      This is a good point to bring up when we have conversations with right wing types among our families, friends and co workers.

      1. OFM —
        But it’s my personal opinion that the only reasonably likely scenario under which we will get our collective asses in gear and GET ON with the energy transition is that we collectively suffer enough sharp broken bricks upside our collective heads

        I disagree. I think renewables will take over because they are cheaper than the traditional energy industry.

        As I put it The standard narrative in cases like this is something like “doing the right thing is too expensive”. In my view the opposite is the case — world will soon switch away from fossil fuels because they are too expensive and cumbersome.

        Or put another way, the brick upside the head is the continuing collapse of the cost of renewables. It is already leading to huge increases in installations. For example, the rate of solar installation is expected to be up 50% this year from last year, to about 260 GW of new capacity.

        https://www.pv-tech.org/the-world-installed-174gw-of-solar-in-2021-and-is-on-track-to-deploy-260gw-by-end-of-2022-iea/

  12. https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker

    Another elephant in the room. growing at 9% per year this will destroy the country if not fixed. To fix it you must implode the medical system and start over. That is 20% of GDP which needs to be 4% of GDP

    “Medicare and Medicaid, on the other hand, are another matter. In the fiscal year ending in September those programs (known as “CMS” in the Treasury statement) spent two trillion dollars and yet collected less than $400 billion in taxes to pay for it. That is an operating deficit of more than 80% and thus there is no possible way to increase the Medicare tax, which already has no cap on earnings, as you’d have to multiply it five times to bring the program into balance.“

    1. I’m generally a free market type guy, and not only that , green and a peace lover.

      But we were IDIOTS to ever allow ourselves to get into a situation where in we depend on our potential worst enemy for critical goods such as micro chips and rare earth metals.

  14. Rystad isn’t optimistic about the future of gas power plants in Europe

    https://www.rystadenergy.com/news/energy-crisis-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-gas-fired-power-in-europe

    Rystad Energy forecasts that TTF prices will stabilize at around €31 per MWh by 2030, which puts the LCOE of existing plants closer to €150 per MWh. This is still three times more than the LCOE of new solar PV facilities. For gas-fired plants to continue being competitive, gas prices would need to fall closer to €17 per MWh and carbon prices would need to fall to €10 per tonne, which is currently unthinkable.

    1. “LCOE of existing plants closer to €150 per MWh. This is still three times more than the LCOE of new solar PV facilities.”
      The LCOE for solar depends largely on where the solar is deployed (how sunny).
      Does that value quoted from Rystad indicate the LCOE of solar in north Europe?

  15. While we babble CO2 levels continue to increase (and increase rapidly). Methane more so, relatively!

    Oct. 28, 2022 — 416.33 ppm
    Oct. 28, 2021 — 413.75 ppm
    1 Year Change 2.58 ppm (0.62%)

    Methane concentrations in the atmosphere hit a record high of 1,900 parts per billion in 2021, a number that is nearly three times the pre-industrial levels, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    1. And if that weren’t enough,

      UN REPORT: CLIMATE POLLUTION REDUCTIONS ‘HIGHLY INADEQUATE’

      “Global and national climate commitments are falling pitifully short,” United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Thursday. “We are headed for a global catastrophe.”

      Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson, who chairs the independent Global Carbon Project that tracks carbon dioxide emissions around the world but wasn’t part of the UN report, said “another decade of fossil emissions at current rates and we’ll zip past 1.5C…. The way things are going though we’ll zip past 1.5C, past 2C and—heaven help us—even 2.5 or 3C.”

      Now, let’s hear from the green washers and cornucopians so we can all relax.

      https://phys.org/news/2022-10-climate-pollution-reductions-highly-inadequate.html

      1. …”That “highly inadequate” inaction means the window is closing, but not quite shut yet, on efforts to keep future warming to just a few more tenths of a degree from now, according to Thursday’s Emissions Gap report from the United Nations Environment Programme.”
        Who will tell us when the window has shut? Will it even be uttered? I mean, really, whose gonna be the one to say “That’s it. We’ve run out of time, the window has shut,”. And then what? Switch gears to ‘managed decline’ mode? Personally, I believe the odds are the window has shut and that’s why there is no plan – on any level – be it locally or globally to steer humanity through the storm, much less repair the damage we’ve done.

        1. There are two high profile recent books that say just tha;, by Janssen and McGuire. I don’t think any climate scientist really thinks 1.5 is possible, most doubt 2 and all are aware of a hot house runaway possibility once 2 is breached.

      2. The melodrama is starting up again as another COP (COP27) approaches.

    2. With methane having instantaneous equivalent of 120 parts CO2 the 18ppb increase last year equals 2.2 ppm CO2e. With N2O and other minor gases added CO2 is now less than half the marginal gains. If methane gains as much this year as it did last it will be the single biggest contributor. It is starting to look like some sort of positive feedback action has been tripped for methane. I have seen numbers higher than 120 quoted for the instant effect but even at lower numbers the calculated CO2e should be higher than I’ve seen, so maybe it’s just the marginal number that is so high.

      When in the last ten years, perhaps back to the Montreal Protocol, has there been an environmental story that made you think: “Blimey, that’s surprisingly good news!” It’s not just one “worse than expected” story per day now, it’s the whole front page.

      1. The steamroller of human combustion rolls on, another huge bolus to add to the mix over the next three decades.

        1. The only governor of human activity is natural selection.

          Humans don’t control destiny, they enact it.

          1. Imagine for one moment that the planet’s climate is changing solely due to human behavior.

            What would a singular one world global government do to try to fix it?

            2. “What would a singular one world global government do to try to fix it?’

              Well with me as their decision maker I would have enacted a global carbon tax announced in 1990 and start date yr 1999. Starting slow and gradually ramping up.
              And the funds would have been used primarily to incentivize deployment of lower carbon energy systems and more energy efficient economy.
              And yes most people would hate it because at some point they would realize that it was a significant braking mechanism on the economic and population steamroller of mankind.
              And they would have said goodbye to me and the world government in a very ungracious manner.
              And seeing all this play out beforehand I declined the position.

            3. “What would a singular one world global government do to try to fix it?”

              Jesus, what an easy question to answer.

              First you have to fix stupid. Outlaw ALL organized religion. Increase science and teach racial tolerance in the 1-12 education system five fold. End home schooling.

              Implement a one child system with sterilization after one.

              End the production of ICE personal transportation within two years. End all new production of fossil fuel land transportation with in 10 years. End fossil fuel air transportation within 15 years.

              End residential development outside city limits.

              Eliminate non reusable packaging. Recycle everything.

              Imprison Trump and Putin

              The word “can’t” is for losers

  16. Sunday Morning Trivia or Coal-is-Dead you say

    In 2021, the world’s coal consumption rose by 5.7%, surpassing its 2019 pre-pandemic level by 1% thanks to rebound in global demand. Coal consumption expanded strongly in Western countries, due to the economic upturn and high gas prices, with +13.8% in North America (United States: +14.5%) and +11.9% in Europe, including +17.9% in Germany, +9.9% in Turkey. Growth in coal consumption was slower in Asia (+4.7%), with +6.6% in India, +5% in Japan and +4.6% in China. It stagnated in Indonesia (+0.9%) and South Korea (+0.2%). Most of the world’s coal and lignite consumption in 2021 took place in China (52%), followed by India (13%), the United States (6%) and the European Union (6%).

    https://yearbook.enerdata.net/coal-lignite/coal-world-consumption-data.html

  17. In other fun news, some of the world’s most important navigable rivers, including the Mississippi, the Rhine, the Parana and the Yangtse — are running dry. Well, running dry is an exaggeration, but it is bad enough to limit shipping.

  18. “A German wind farm is being demolished to make way for a vast open-cast coal mine despite Berlin’s ambitious clean energy goals.
    The eight wind turbines will be dismantled with a dozen nearby villages and hamlets to clear space for a pit that will ultimately cover an area about the size of Swindon 25 miles to the northwest of Cologne.
    The Garzweiler II mine is expected to yield about 190 million tonnes of lignite, a relatively dirty fuel also known as brown coal, even though the government says it hopes “ideally” to phase out coal power by the end of the decade. The case illustrates Germany’s predicament as it struggles to reconcile the conflicting imperatives of its energy policy.”

    Please note that the forests in this area have been gone for over a thousand years.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gas-crisis-forces-germany-to-flatten-wind-farm-for-coal-mine-wtnht87fj

  19. To D Coyne

    About 5 months ago I posted about the tremendous increase in the battery metals price increases and you responded with a rendition of Bobby McFerrin’s “Don’t Worry be Happy”.
    Since then lithium carbonate is up over 20% the others are also up. It must be nice going to sleep every night knowing your the smartest kid on the block.

    1. Expensive lithium is a problem
      but it is just one many problems. Oil depletion comes to mind as another example.

      “The average price of a lithium-ion battery pack has dropped nearly 90% from 2010 to 2020. Last year, that cost fell to $132 per kilowatt-hour, according to BloombergNEF, but the decrease was smaller than expected…
      Average pack prices could rise to $135/kWh in 2022.”
      “Reaching relative affordability won’t be possible until EV batteries hit $100/kWh, some experts say.”
      Last year, BloombergNEF estimated that the average price for battery packs would fall to $92/kWh by 2024, but intensifying supply-chain strains make that forecast seem increasingly unlikely.
      Now it could be two additional years before battery prices fall below $100/kWh, Sekine said.”

      “Anode and cathode materials together can account for as much as 70% of the overall battery cost today”
      “In 2021, lithium comprised 9 percent of the cost of a battery cell”

      Ervin, you bet that the price pressures are going to stimulate a huge increase in lithium mining and manufacturing. It will be surely interesting to watch the race.

      https://www.morningbrew.com/series/battery-tech-for-evs-and-beyond/stories/2022/04/13/after-a-decade-of-declines-battery-prices-will-increase-in-2022-top-analysts-say

      1. Hickory
        I’m sorry I don’t remember the source but I recently read that currently the cost of batteries are up to $165/ kWh. I’m sure of one thing, the bean counters and engineers at Ford, when they were planning the Lighting 3 or so years ago, they never dreamed that they would be paying over $12,000 just for the lithium carbonate for one of their trucks. Any company wanting to open a lithium mine in the good old USA will have to spend millions and years fighting the environmental army. Maine just stopped a mine. I really don’t expect any surge in lithium supply in the next five years.

        1. I don’t know how affordable (10 year all costs) it will be to drive around in F-150 ICE or F-150 EV, as the next decade or two unfolds.
          Probably pretty pricey no matter what, although the smart gal charging up from her rooftop solar will probably be paying the less/mile when the end result comes in.

          Of course most people driving around in the country and in the world don’t need such a big vehicle for over 95% of their business. Most people will adapt to having an affordable smaller battery pack/shorter range vehicle. The average American car is driven less than 30 miles/day.
          And then they could rent a bigger vehicle for occasional big load hauls.

          One thing is for certain- the world is not going to stay the same. Routine driving around as if there is no tomorrow is not going to be as easy as it used to- no matter what path the countries of the world follows.

          btw- my wife drives a lot!, and with her AWD mid-size electric vehicle charged up from the local utility at a flat rate of 12 cents/kWh, she is going 100 miles for $3.72 cents on average. A similar size and quality vehicle with gas would get about 33 mpg (or less), and with ‘Gasoline prices averaging $4.949 in the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue area’ it would cost about $14.85 to go the same 100 miles. That is 4 times as much cost/mile. Its real numbers.

        2. Batteries may be a little expensive thanks to supply chain chaos, but that is certainly not the limiting factor in EV sales growth. The limiting factor is that companies can’t produce enough.

          But even with these limitation, sales are growing very fast, and are something like 50% higher this year than last.

    2. Ervin,

      There is an old adage that the cure for high prices is high prices. It applies here as well. I cannot predict the future, if I could I would be wealthy, alas I am not.

      I am fairly certain I have never claimed to be smarter than anyone else, if you can find an instance where I have ever made such a claim I would be surprised.

      Now there are others that claim that when I doubt any piece of their analysis this means I think I am smarter than they are, but no it simply means I question that small piece of their analysis and think the rest is great and I say as much (that their analysis is excellent).

      Some do not take criticism well. I agree with Hickory that this might be a problem. Tesla claims that with the changes they are making in their batteries that costs will be down to $70/kwHr (in 2022 $) by 2026. The last estimate I saw for Tesla battery costs was about $135/kWhr.

      High prices are likely to result in more lithium-cobolt production as it is very profitable at current prices. Eventually supply may catch up with demand, especially if prices remain high.

      1. Mr Coyne

        I apologize for my comment, it was rude and unnecessary.
        I have read enough that going from dirt to a Tesla battery is an expensive, dirty, land hungry process. Just because allot of money can be made and companies desire to profit doesn’t mean it will happen. There is an environmental army well finance, politically connected and fanatical that seems to get stronger all the time. For instance, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, Mountain Valley pipeline to name just two.

        1. Ervin,

          Thanks.

          Generally if the resource is available (it is) and there is money to be made extracting that resource and seling it to others, it will happen in a free market economy. It is possible that it will not, but not very likely in my opinion.

        2. They should look more for lithium in brine. No land hungry operations are needed there, since the lithium is already in a liquid state and you only need the seperation facility – which is more or less in the form of a normal factory building.
          The brine region here is 300 x 40 km big – I don’t think it’ s fully explored for lithium at the moment.

          I see big potential in the now ramping up sodium battery production. All stationary batteries can be replaced with them, and a lot of low/medium range and smaller devices like scooters. This will free lithium for high performance applications.

          With the current state of the ramping up CATL sodium batteries, a up to 40 KWh car battery can be build without any lithium, cobalt, nickel and even copper. It’s at 160 Wh / Kg at the moment when they start mass production, they want to reach 200 in a few years. And it’s sodium, iron, graphite and aluminium – so no price exploding raw material shortages here.

  20. The trailing ten year average GDP per capita growth rates are heading towards zero for most countries, and at about the same time based on recent trends – sometime in the late twenties to mid thirties. A trailing average is a lagging indicator, the actual growth would be hitting zero around five years earlier. This year and next are likely to pull the trend down significantly so it’s a good possibility that growth will be below zero more often than not sometime in the next five years for many, if not most, countries. An extended period with negative growth (ignoring the per capita bit) is a depression. We are heading for a permanent world wide depression. If an energy aware economist were asked what the short term consequence of peak oil would be, he or she would likely say a permanent worldwide depression. But I think there have been secular, demographic and technological trends that have been having effects too.

    1. It was just announced GDP grew by 2.6% in the last quarter. Republicans are pushing a narrative that the economy is far worse off than it is in reality so that you’ll mindlessly associate them as better handling economic matters and you’ll vote for them. They lie, cheat, distort data in order to market these narratives, because it’s worked, like a charm. In the last month, the media has ran with the narrative and turned “the economy” into the biggest issue voters are thinking about in the elections, despite economic circumstances not getting worse (in fact they’ve maybe improved) from earlier in the year when voters ranked other issues higher up in importance.

      1. Exactly Arisa. Good observation. And it works!

        People are misinformed. Then they do a poll and ask people what’s up. Then the results are reported as “See, here’s what matters”. Sadly, it works.

        Narrative strategies. Craft the right narrative and you can control and manipulate what follows. Identify the objective and supply a narrative that folks can identify with and you can get them to act towards your desired end. Some politicians have an intuitive sense for this, it’s not the same as what we call ‘intelligence’.

        1. “People are misinformed. ”
          Severely gullible and heavily brain washed.
          And have the right to vote.

      2. I write about the world over the next 15 years and you reply about the USA in the next three months, and immediately introduce polarising partisanship. If your stuff is so important couldn’t you just have posted it as an original thread somewhere else instead of needing to post it as a reply to something barely related.

        1. That was my reaction as well George.
          Your long range prospect is a very valid concern,
          no matter who around the world is in the political hot seat for a few years here and there.
          Of course that matters for other reasons, but the long trajectory is the same-
          a civilization deep into overshoot now entering the slowdown phase as it rounds the peak.

        2. Sorry for joining in. The ‘feed people garbage’ on one end and then poll them at the other end and hold up the results and say “See!” is what set me off.

          I agree with what you wrote pretty much entirely. Growth, GDP, and primary energy consumption are all pretty much the same thing. No excess energy, no growth. I’ve been around for a while.

          This is an example of having or tapping into a compelling narrative. The end of growth doesn’t have a motivating narrative, while Arisa (and me, and Hickory) are influenced to act by the ‘amused, and misinformed, to death’ narrative.

    2. A different look at World real GDP per capita in constant 2015$. I take the natural log of World real GDP per capita to look at average growth rate from 1970 to 2021, that is the slope of the line which is about 1.6%/year on average over the past 71 years. There has been a slow down in 2020 and 2021 due to the pandemic. At some point as the World becomes wealthier, it would be good for the environment if real GDP per capita gradually slows toward zero. and humans figured out how to live in a steady state economy. As total fertility ratios fall to less than 2.1 (as is the case for the OECD average currently) World population will start to fall (Medium UN scenario has this occurring in 2080) and World real GDP may start to fall when population decline is more than real GDP per capita increase.

      Data from World Bank at link below

      https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD

      1. I think there is a significant chance it will happen differently.
        Decline in prosperity [GDP/capita] will escalate in countries that are already in marginal shape, and this will be severe enough to force a decline in population by 2040.
        And decline in prosperity in some countries that have been doing pretty well over the past 70 years will affect enough of the internal population to cause civil unrest severe enough to disrupt the economy and shatter traditional political function and relationships. People riot when they can no longer afford food and energy and shelter.
        Some other places will continue to do well pretty with their advantage, but no country is an island.

        Sorry to say but the civil society that most of us have been enjoying between wars is at big risk.
        Many here in the US seem eager to hasten the dismantling of democracy, foolishly thinking they can manage the remnant to their advantage.

        1. Hickory,

          Yes there is definitely a high risk that things will not go well. For those in less developed nations things may go very badly with the strong possibility of inadequate food supply due in part to climate change and perhaps inadequate access to fertilizer, water and decent soil.

          For more developed nations there will be severe economic disruption to existing industries due to a convergence of technological changes that may put many out of work and the transition to newer industries will cause a lot of social stress and potential unrest.

          See for example

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj96nxtHdTU

          The video is about an hour, but I thought it was interesting.

  21. Let’s hope their new government reverses this trend.

    BRAZIL’S 2021 CLIMATE EMISSIONS HIGHEST SINCE 2006

    Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions rose more than 12% in 2021 largely due to surging deforestation in the Amazon rainforest under far-right President Jair Bolsonaro. Data shows that last year the country emitted 2.42 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), up from 2.16 billion tonnes in 2020. Brazil, despite having a relatively clean electricity grids reliant on hydropower and renewable energy, is the globe’s fifth-largest emitter of greenhouse gas mostly because of deforestation, agriculture and other land use.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/brazils-2021-climate-emissions-highest-since-2006-report-says/ar-AA13CBnn

    2. Ken,
      Who really knows how much of the transition from fossil fuels can get done to the extent of full replacement- no one.
      But there is enough metals/minerals to get plenty achieved.

      Nuclear energy is not less challenging than solar or wind to accomplish.

    3. Not to forget Harald Sverdrup (https://www.wrforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/5_SS1_SverdrupWORLD7-WRF-Final.pdf), Alan Jones (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc84-udJUJg) or Chris Clugson (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blip-Humanitys-self-terminating-experiment-industrialism/dp/1644380684).
      It’s less than 10% for some materials, that is only to build one generation of renewables, they have to be replaced every 25 or 30 years and recycling is at best 50% (and another high energy sink) and it doesn’t include the materials needed to replace our present crumbling infrastructure, to raise 4 billion or so from poverty to middle class without fossil fuels and to build out from scratch the biggest industry ever known to suck CO2 out of the air.

      1. I think it is silly to not go after deployment of solar and wind at full/massive effort targeting the sunniest and windiest areas- of which there is abundant!!! reserve.

        Nonetheless, I have no idea if more than one generation of mass scale deployment is viable.
        By 2050 a solar panel deployed today will still have over 70% of it original generating capacity.
        And by that time population will be close to peak, assuming no mass catastrophe between now and then.
        Mineral shortages are a far off concern,
        beyond the time when fossil fuel depletion becomes a clear and present issue.

      2. some excellent links. Thanks.
        clearly some people are thinking out 10-20 years to see if our industrial civilization can continue.

  24. I can’t remember this being linked before: https://www.wri.org/research/state-climate-action-2022

    “The report translates the systemwide transformations that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds are necessary to limit warming to 1.5°C into 40 indicators of progress with 2030 and 2050 targets, such as phasing out unabated coal in electricity generation, effectively halting deforestation and much more.

    “Of the 40 indicators assessed in the report, none are on track to reach their 2030 targets. Six are heading in the right direction at a promising but insufficient speed, while 21 are also trending in the right direction but well below the required pace. Five indicators are trending in the wrong direction entirely, while the data are insufficient to evaluate the final eight indicators.”

Comments are closed.