Comments not related to oil or natural gas production in this thread please. Thank you.
142 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, September 1, 2021”
Comments are closed.
Comments not related to oil or natural gas production in this thread please. Thank you.
Comments are closed.
hole in head asked “What is the mood for the forthcoming elections” and while I’m only half German (I live in another German speaking country though) I will give my opinion.
First, I think there is a rather large sentiment of pragmatism. None of the candidates of the large parties are inspiring or even seen as good choices by voters of their own party. No grasp of important issues in sight, only distractions but that is to be expected I guess.
There is wide range of possible coalitions with the ‘big’ one that is currently in power (CDU and SPD) being the least popular at least among the online comments I read. I.e. I have no sources to back up this claim. I feel that people want change but not too much as that could be uncomfortable.
So what are the chances that the election *will* change anything substantially? I say none. All of them are BAU parties apart from the shunned AfD and maybe LINKE, just as Democrats and Republicans in the US are left and right hand of the same businessman.
Thanks . Tweedlede ot twiddledum ? Useless . When the world needs leaders we have Biden, Johnson , Macron etc . Anyway let us see what happens .
Whether or not our so-called leaders have a grasp of reality isn’t really relevant at this point. Being truthful about what’s ahead and what’s required to address our many predicaments is a path to political oblivion. The majority of people want hopium rather than nopium, and resent anyone who explains that their behavior is going to have to change dramatically.
Seems the only path to power is fear, blame, and lies.
TO AVOID A CLIMATE CRISIS
“It is a dangerous idea to use a ‘technological will fix all’ approach to justify the pursuit of continuous growth. Instead, we need to start to wrestle with the idea of Degrowth. According to The Absolute Impact 2021 report by Carbon Tracker Initiative, at the current rate of emission, 41.5 GtCO2 per year, we only have 22 years before we see global temperatures rise by 1.75 degrees. That gives an idea as to how quickly the world needs to deal with its emissions problem.
There isn’t enough time for the world to wait for new technology to solve the problem. It is at this point that Degrowth becomes a very appealing idea that policymakers should pursue. To begin with, this involves rejecting the link between growth and improvement in the standard of living. This has to be countered, of course, by the fact that as the population grows more energy will be consumed. Importantly, however, “high energy civilizations” may face the risk of decline due to limitless consumption of energy. This is a good point to segue into the argument that Degrowth should begin in developed countries in order to allow the developing world to catch up.”
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-One-And-Only-Way-To-Avoid-A-Climate-Crisis.html
Meanwhile, displaying U.S. leadership in in the fossil fuel reduction side. 😉
IN CLIMATE REVERSAL, BIDEN OKAYS NEW OIL AND GAS MEGA AUCTION
“US President Joe Biden’s administration on Tuesday announced plans to open more than 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas exploration after a court ruled against the administration’s pause in leasing.”
https://phys.org/news/2021-09-climate-reversal-biden-okays-oil.html
Hi Doug,
I fully understand that your heart is in the right place. Unfortunately this can be a real problem, when you ( rhetorical you) fail to give due consideration to political realities.
The POLITICAL reality facing the Biden administration is that there’s a VERY real possibility that the Republicans may regain control of the BOTH the House and the Senate next election cycle, and therefore it would be INSANE, in terms of the big picture, to hand them nail studded club to beat the brains out of the Democrat’s hope of maintaining control.
Furthermore , as a long term observer of the peak oil scene, etc, I have little to no doubt that the amount of NEW oil that will be produced in Yankee land will be trivial, in relation to the global supply. As a matter of fact, we may be in desperate need of this potential new supply, depending on how the global supply and economy play out.
ONE thing is absolutely BEYOND question, as a practical matter. We’re utterly dependent on the national economy holding up reasonably well to have ANY hope of a successful transition to renewable energy over the next couple of decades…… and oil is still the LIFEBLOOD of the economy, and will continue to be the lifeblood of the economy for at least another ten to twenty years, minimum.
Mac,
L.O.L. I’ve little knowledge of Canadian “political realities” much less U.S. ones so you may well be correct. I certainly wouldn’t dream of arguing with you on these issues but when I read about the urgency of changes necessary to combat climate change compared with what I read about, and observe, I’m not optimistic. Simple as that.
“I’m not optimistic. Simple as that.”
I’m in total agreement, lol.
But on the other hand, I don’t see the situation as hopeless, in terms of the BIG picture.
My personal ( PIPE?) dream is that while I expect a major portion of humanity to die hard within this century, some people in some places will pull thru more or less whole in terms of maintaining an industrial economy, and all the critical things associated with the same, such as the electrical grid, water and sewer systems, medical care, readily available food, etc.
Die hard? You mean a mass-die-off? This Century? I recall some models from TheOilDrum where it was expected that by 2150 or so, there’d be only 1.5B people left as would be naturally sustainable. Earth can support a couple birds an acre, that sort of thing.
What are you citing?
I’ve given due consideration to the political realities, and concluded that more folks alive today will die of starvation than not.
“Yield volatility is gonna go through the roof”
Climate Change and Global Food Security: Prof David Battisti
https://youtu.be/YToMoNPwTFc?t=45m36s
What is DeGrowth?, on a practical basis.
I have read a little, and it seems that degrowth will not come voluntarily to humanity.
Maybe some people will cut things back (like child-bearing) , and some will better insulate their buildings so as to use less energy, but overall these choices are swamped by the actions of the hoard.
Governments can force degrowth through taxes and penalties (one family/one child or a heavy carbon tax as examples). But these measures will cause economic contraction if they are to be meaningful in scale. What government will survive if they cause intentional economic contraction?
Some say we can have degrowth without economic contraction. Call me extremely skeptical on that point. Maybe some sectors will thrive under certain scenarios of degrowth adjustment (such as derelict factory tourism, goat herding), but the vast majority of sectors will be in some degree of long depression.
Simply, I think degrowth will happen, but the vast majority of it won’t be voluntary.
And keep in mind that its not just about carbon dioxide. Its even more importantly about population and forests and water and food and minerals.
Any/all educational comments on this would be appreciated.
“What is DeGrowth?”
L.O.L, I’ve no idea. In any case, have yet to find any of my neighbours who have any intention of changing their life style one iota. Most guys have recently bought new F250 or F350 equivalent trucks and their wives new SUVs. Give them a decade of two and maybe thinking will change. 😉
The few articles I have read about ‘degrowth’ as some goal or a mechanism to ‘save the word’ have failed to lay out any kind of realistic or feasible path.
Human nature and the nature of the situation being what it is I think the best we can hope for is a gradual slowing of economic growth and population. However, as OFM alluded to, there will be no transition away from carbon-intensity energy systems without a considerable degree of prosperity.
And this is in direct opposition to any goal of degrowth.
Lots of more carbon and methane in the atmosphere, and clearing of forests, is already baked in the cake.
“…and clearing of forests, is already baked in the cake.” Every report I’ve seen supports this view. For example:
IMPACTS OF DEFORESTATION AND FOREST BURNING ON BIODIVERSITY IN THE AMAZON
“Since 2001, between 40,000 and 73,400 square miles of Amazon rainforest have been impacted by fires, affecting 95% of all Amazonian species and as many as 85% of species that are listed as threatened in this region. While forest management policies enacted in Brazil during the mid-2000s slowed the rate of habitat destruction, relaxed enforcement of these policies coinciding with a change in government in 2019 has seemingly begun to reverse this trend. With fires impacting 1,640 to 4,000 square miles of forest, 2019 stands out as one of the most extreme years for biodiversity impacts since 2009, when regulations limiting deforestation were enforced.
Known mostly for its dense rainforests, the Amazon basin supports around 40% of the world’s remaining tropical forests. It is of global importance as a provider of ecosystem services such as scrubbing and storing carbon from the atmosphere, and it plays a vital role in regulating Earth’s climate. The area also is an enormous reservoir of the planet’s biodiversity, providing habitats for one out of every 10 of the planet’s known species. It has been estimated that in the Amazon, 1,000 tree species can populate an area smaller than a half square mile.
We have to remember that it took decades to reduce Amazon deforestation, but it may take just a few years to destroy the conservation policy pillars of conservation. The recent reverse in deforestation and fires trends, and their impacts on Amazon biodiversity, should be a huge cause of concern.”
https://phys.org/news/2021-09-impacts-deforestation-forest-biodiversity-amazon.html
Doug, being you don’t know what degrowth is. Let’s call it making it illegal for humans to burn fossil or organic fuel to heat homes north of the 45th parallel. That should stop humans from growing into areas that advance climate change.
The destruction of the Amazon is leading to climate changes in Brazil that will wreck the Brazilian economy. As this happens we will see if there will be any public or political changes. My prediction is no.
I think a large portion of those talking about degrowth are actually conservatives who are trying to prevent change by discrediting environmentalists. If they can associate a transition away from fossil fuels with a decline in living standards then they can make the whole idea of moving away from fossils look bad.
Agree, just cut to the chase. Make it illegal to manufacture new ICE light and medium duty transportation vehicles after 2025 and illegel to produce new heavy duty ICE transportation after 2030.
In addition, one child policy needs to become the normal mindset, along with 55 mph. Except in Texas of course.
If your in a hole. The first thing you need to do is stop digging. Unless your an oil executive in the Permian
Make it illegal to manufacture new ICE light and medium duty transportation vehicles after 2025 and illegel to produce new heavy duty ICE transportation after 2030.
That would work. I suspect that a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be easier to get passed, but that would absolutely work.
Living standards for most are dropping, regardless. What looks like high on the hog living is actually low financing costs for crazy assed toys. If and when interest rates return to normal we are going to see a real decline of ‘stuff’ and activities in the wealthy west.
The places I have seen degrowth discussed are all from environmentalist and left leaning sources. I not seen a single conservative source on this topic, but maybe i just don’t hang out in the ‘right’ places.
More precisely, the idea that money = energy is driven by people who sell fuel for a living. The size of the economy is measured in money, so the claim that growth means more energy is the same as saying money = energy.
“Conservative” is the preferred moniker for politicians and media outlets on the take from fuel selling interests. The fuel industry is heavily in to bribery.
A more accurate (though still flawed) idea is that money = information. The idea here is that the information content of a product should determine its value, rather than the energy content.
Let’s look at an example of a high cost item.
An iPhone 12 weighs about a quarter of a kilogram and costs maybe €1500, or 6000 €/kg. Potatoes, on the other hand cost maybe 2 €/kg, so iPhones are 3000 times more expensive than potatoes.
But potatoes are vastly more complex and information rich than iPhones. iPhones are close to the peak of human engineering but clumsy and primitive compared to potatoes. Among other things, each potato is an entire factory for making more potatoes. Each cell of a potato contains all the information needed to create an entire potato, and a single potato can contain hundreds of billions of cells.
When you eat a potato, you destroy more information than mankind has gathered in all its libraries in its entire history.
So why are iPhones so much more expensive than potatoes? If you are thinking it is because of the raw materials, think again. The materials in an iPhone are worth less than €1, maybe a 60th of 1% of the value of the finished product.
The real issue is the primitive manufacturing processes used to create iPhones. If iPhone factories could produce iPhones as efficiently as potatoes produce more potatoes, iPhones would cost <€10.
This results in two questions: First, would an economy capable of producing iPhones as cheaply as potatoes be larger in GDP terms than the current economy? Second, would anyone care about GDP? That is to say, does growth even matter?
In a nationwide survey on what people would like to spend money on….
124. Polka band for cousins wedding
125. Home Insulation upgrade
126. 5 day trip to Baluchistan
“Two-Thirds of Americans Think Government Should Do More on Climate”
“At a time when partisanship colors most views of policy, broad majorities of the public – including more than half of Republicans and overwhelming shares of Democrats – say they would favor a range of initiatives to reduce the impacts of climate change, including large-scale tree planting efforts, tax credits for businesses that capture carbon emissions and tougher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.
Public concern over climate change has been growing in recent years, particularly among Democrats, and there are no signs that the COVID-19 pandemic has dampened concern levels. A recent Center analysis finds 60% view climate change as a major threat to the well-being of the United States, as high a share taking this view as in any Pew Research Center survey going back to 2009.
79% of Americans say the priority for the country’s energy supply should be developing alternative sources of energy, such as wind and solar; far fewer (20%) give priority to expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas. To shift consumption patterns toward renewables, a majority of the public (58%) says government regulations will be necessary to encourage businesses and individuals to rely more on renewable energy; fewer (39%) think the private marketplace will ensure this change in habits.”
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/
Some people say they want a carbon tax and other such measures, but in reality very few are willing to do what it takes to make a significant difference in the environmental destruction they are taking part in.
And very few are willing to voluntarily do with less energy requiring conveniences of daily life.
And very few are willing to forego the energy requiring leisure and entertainment and travel they may have access to.
And very few are willing to walk backward down the scale on their personal level of prosperity for the sake of the environment.
Example- rather than forgo airplane travel some people will purchase offsetting green carbon credits, and that is a load of crap folks.
People will pick energy access over environmental concerns when push comes to shove. Its a privileged delusion to think otherwise.
Thats my rotten but realistic take on it.
Sorry. I say to earth and to children.
To echo what Hickory said, we should go by what people do, not what they say.
For example, everyone will say they want sweat shops in Asia to end and proper wages to be given to the workers, likewise in the West, lorry drivers and other supposed lesser jobs be paid more.
But no one wants to pay for this. No one is happy to give up cheap food, fast fashion, JIT delivered trinkets, and so the system continues because it is irrelevant what people wish for. People quite clearly do not want to live a more ecofriendly and equitable existence. No one is forcing them to continue as we are. We are doing this voluntarily.
“Two-thirds of registered voters support making fossil fuel companies pay a carbon tax, according to December 2020 polling released in January 2021.
The poll, by the Yale Program on Climate Communications, was reported in a New York Times story, Survey Finds Majority of Voters Support Initiatives to Fight Climate Change.
The Times story focused on the strong support expressed for solar power, efficient automobiles and clean-energy research. But the 67 percent positive score for “Requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a tax on the carbon pollution they produce, and using that revenue to reduce other taxes (such as the federal income tax) by an equal amount (i.e., a revenue-neutral carbon tax)” was notable as well.”
https://www.carbontax.org/opinion-polls/
Conservatives emphasize individual action in order to delay any real change. It’s collective, public policy that will make the real difference, and that has strong public support.
“public policy that will make the real difference”
Absolutely. And good policy enacted up by good leadership is critical.
However it appears to me that we are in great shortage of these things, with a democracy that feeble.
The fight for democracy and good policy is paramount.
Did you notice that the Popes version of Sharia law has been adopted in Texas this week.
And the Texas version of the the Taliban can now carry semiautomatic weapons in public, and without permit or training.
Talk is cheap. There are plenty of instances where a better path was voted against because it would inconvenience people too much.
This is psychology, see above. You’re not changing that, and no, polls and papers showing what could be technically done don’t matter. It’s what people are willing to do. People are willing to carry on as we are.
Let me know when Extinction Rebellion’s demands are accepted as being anything like sensible ideas by the vast majority of people. Then I’ll consider it a success.
Kleiber, you hit the nail on the head. I have been thrashing this same straw since the sixties. Some young people think that this is a new problem. I have read dozens of books on the subject. They all end with something to the effect: “Here is what we must do.” We will do nothing” You cannot convince 7.8 million people to do a fucking thing. You cannot change human nature.
Sure, fertility rates have fallen. But that is because people see a personal advantage in having fewer children, not because they have been preached to about overpopulation. People, in general, are selfish creatures and act in their own self-interest.
We are destroying the environment and will continue to do so until it is way too late. We are driving all megafauna and a lot of smaller creatures into extinction. And we will continue to do so until they are all gone.
Things are getting worse every day, not better. Learn to live with it because you will die with it.
Ron, I’m sure you meant 7.8 billion.
And yeah, I’m afraid you’re right. William Rees hits it on the head:
Too clever by half, but not nearly smart enough.
All those recessions and financial crises, that was degrowth lol
The 2009 episode and other recessions, as well as all the global central banks struggling to keep the world economies embers warm, and the heavy economic migrations of the past 2 decades are just the preamble to economic contraction. So was a presidency like trump and bolsonaro- economic nationalism in a flawed attempt to keep past trends alive.
The book on contraction hasn’t even started yet. Watch the oldest countries and those teetering on failed state status for early indications that the global contraction phase has begun.
The world economy will be much bigger before contraction I think. We are adding a billion more people by 2035 or so, and total energy and food available won’t have peaked (or declined enough to force contraction yet) before that.
Big economies with oldest median age- Japan and Germany
And watch countries that are held together an authoritarian governments- China, Saudi
And watch countries that are growing fast on foundations that are questionable- Nigeria, and most of the rest of Africa for that matter.
Hell, watch all the countries.
total energy and food available won’t have peaked (or declined enough to force contraction yet) before that.
When you say “energy” are you referring to oil? It’s the only form of energy that faces any kind of shortage any time soon: wind and solar are replacing coal and natural gas, and there’s really no shortage of wind and solar.
No, ‘total energy’ was an intentional choice of words.
And so far wind and solar have not replaced nat gas consumption- nat gas is still growing briskly.
In the decade 2010 to 2020 global nat gas energy production grew faster than wind and solar.
Maybe that will shift this decade.
Nonetheless Nat gas will still be growing.
Hickory,
Every joule of electricity that comes from wind and solar is energy that would otherwise come almost entirely from natural gas and coal. When I said wind and solar energy are replacing natural gas and coal, that’s what I meant.
That makes sense, doesn’t it?
Over the last decade wind and solar and nat gas energy consumption have all gone up.
And gone up more than coal has declined.
I don’t have the actual numbers off hand.
I agree.
But that doesn’t change my point, right? Every gigawatt-hour that was produced by wind and solar was a GWhr that didn’t have to come from FF.
I’m trying to build a general consensus about what’s going on (and what should be done), and it helps to come to agreement on things, even if they seem small.
So…does that concept make sense?
Agree on your point.
Okay, good.
Now, the next thought here is that as wind and solar ramp up, they replace FF. That happens in roughly 3 stages: first they reduce the growth rate of FF, and then FF consumption levels off, and then FF consumption falls.
In the first stage, renewables are a FF-extender. In the 2nd, that expands: FF are no longer in exponential growth, and they will last far longer than before: in the world of Peak Oil, FF would be described as having peaked. In the 3rd, FF is declining and obviously obsolete.
For the whole world, coal is in stage 2, and very close to stage 3. In the OECD it’s in stage 3. Gas is in stage 1, but after coal is mostly eliminated it will be next.
Really, there’s very little likelihood of a shortage of electricity due to a resource shortage. Wind and solar will continue to grow and will displace FF far faster than it depletes.
“Okay, good.”
I don’t see it that way.
More to the point-
“Really, there’s very little likelihood of a shortage of electricity due to a resource shortage.”
Agree, with some big caveats.
That really varies by country or region. For example if Belgium or Japan cannot import large amounts of electricity, or nat gas, or coal they will be far short of resource.
Germany too unless it resorts to accelerated domestic coal burning.
Second caveat- on the current path nat gas is going to in heavy demand for the next couple decades. It is very premature to mothballing peaker plants.
Third- all the biofuel that is part of country plans is tragic for the environment- habitat destruction.
Fourth- resource is not the limiting factor when it comes to solar and wind in about 2/3rds the world. The limitation is the inability of cultures to rise to the challenge of getting the job done quickly enough and at large enough scale.
if Belgium or Japan cannot import large amounts of electricity, or nat gas, or coal they will be far short of resource. Germany too unless it resorts to accelerated domestic coal burning.
Wind and solar are much more widely distributed than nat gas, oil or coal. That means that energy independence is easier with renewables. OTOH, small countries like Belgium will be far better off not trying to be energy independent. Really, why should they be? On the other (3d?) hand, Germany and Japan won’t have a very hard time producing their own power. It will be far from the cheapest approach, but they can do it: they have more than enough wind and solar resource.
It is very premature to mothballing peaker plants.
Not sure what you mean there – could you expand on that?
biofuel that is part of country plans is tragic for the environment
Yeah, I think that’s mostly true. Biofuels are mostly a destructive and unneeded distraction.
in about 2/3rds the world. The limitation is the inability of cultures to rise to the challenge
Yes, I think culture (interpreted very broadly) is the primary problem in dealing with climate change. I think climate change is a much harder problem than energy shortages.
@Nick G: Regarding Belgium, you may want to look into the EU commission reports on an Eurozone wide grid abs the implications on supply. They are not as rosy as many believed, and we have already had episodes in the last few years of nations suffering supply disruption because of a fault across a border.
If no one is to suffer the consequences directly of lack of investment, then no one will invest. This has also been seen in the UK when renewables could not meet demand.
We are nowhere near weening off FFs for renewables that consist solely of PV and wind, alas. And, as I stated before, wholesale energy bills have risen 23% in the UK this year alone. And we’re supposedly a world leader in renewable build out.
Regarding Belgium…supply disruption because of a fault across a borde
Hmm. Are you suggesting that Belgium (a very small country) should try to have an independent grid?
wholesale energy bills have risen 23% in the UK this year alone
Do you have any information as to why?
@Nick G: I would say that Belgium should have their own generation for the very probable instance of a grid issue affecting them. Reliance on another nation for critical infrastructure is a terrible idea.
As for the energy prices, it’s a combination of wholesale energy rises in fossil fuels feeding down into the market. Doesn’t matter that my provider, Bulb, is 100% renewable. The costs of build out for the grid using wind and solar, along with the increase in gas and coal, have led to all energy suppliers in the UK putting up prices in double digits. This has meant the price cap has been moved up (kinda defeats the point) because of the big energy providers suffering profitability crises (my previous supplier, Npower, got eaten up by Eon due to not making money and folding in the consumer market).
And keep in mind, this is during an unprecedented period of tax increase and inflationary pressures for food and other goods.
Then there’s this. Check out the STUC report linked:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-09-08/sustaining-the-unsustainable-why-renewable-energy-companies-are-not-climate-warriors/
Kleiber,
I can see why Belgium would like to have some energy independence, perhaps by producing most of their energy domestically. But it seems mighty silly for them to take that too far – it would be very expensive to be completely independent. They don’t try to be independent in steel production, car making, etc., etc.
As for that New Labor Forum article, I’m not sure what lesson you’d suggest we draw from it. I agree with them that it would be good strengthen social priorities over simple profit making. Beyond that, much of their energy commentary is simply unrealistic – I don’t know why they’d want to borrow out-dated, out of context anti-renewable arguments from the FF industry. I’d say they’re simply outside their area of expertise.
@Nick G: In addition to what I mentioned before about energy prices.
https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1435971318999048194
There’s also nothing fallacious about painting renewables as being yet another industry that doesn’t help the planet. Being less bad than FFs is not beneficial for the planet. One does not take losing an arm as being preferable over losing a leg, and yet that is the dichotomy here. The conflation of the Green New Deal being able to replace jobs and also make a “sustainable” economy is simply not more out by reality. You can’t have it both ways, and we see this in the data.
Accepting a smaller economy and far less consumption is, and always has been, the only route. But no, we’re simply using renewables to bolster FF growth and usage.
I’m sure the planet will implement out plans before we voluntarily do at this rate.
Kleiber,
I don’t know about “saving the planet”. That seems like a straw man, created by FF interests to suggest some kind of unrealistic flaw in renewable power.
I’m talking about reducing green house gas emissions. Renewables do that. The only reason that isn’t clear is that we haven’t built enough of them to replace FF.
Similarly, talking about “Accepting a smaller economy” is highly unrealistic: it would be less effective, and far more disruptive and politically difficult. I mean, think about it: if you simply reduce the economy by 50%, you might reduce GHG emissions by 50%. Well, why not reduce them by 80%, which is what you’d get by eliminating fossil fuels and replacing them with renewables (agriculture is the other 20%).
And, of course, we need to deal with agricultural GHG emissions: a very large part of that come from beef, which could be mostly replaced with plant-based ground beef without anyone noticing much change.
Those two things: renewables and plant-based ground beef, would probably reduce GHGs by 95%. That last 5% would be harder, but whatever we used to deal with it (sequestration, tree planting, mineral erosion, etc) would be infinitely easier and less disruptive than reducing the size of the economy.
Honestly, I think a large part of why we hear this talk about “degrowth” is that it serves the interests of the FF industry. Why? Because it will never happen voluntarily. So it’s easy to argue for it: it’s a no-risk proposal. And it blocks the low-hanging fruit which can actually be accomplished, like renewables.
Of course, there are some people who are sincere about the idea: they’re just out of touch with reality….
Nick G:
I don’t know about “saving the planet”. That seems like a straw man, created by FF interests to suggest some kind of unrealistic flaw in renewable power.
I’m talking about reducing green house gas emissions. Renewables do that. The only reason that isn’t clear is that we haven’t built enough of them to replace FF.
Hardly. This is the very definition of the Green New Deal. Come now, you can’t possibly be blind to the rhetoric put out by just about every politician and green business or think tank about this, or celebrities for example. Even Greta is more about the replacing of FFs as a primary mandate for industry and government because otherwise we burn. Renewables are peddled to save the world from climate change and ecological devastation. Which they won’t, because climate change is, as stated, a symptom of the very system that RE is propping up, for better or worse. Tell people that they also have to cut back on flying, driving, eating meat, having large families, consuming fast fashion and throwaway gadgets, and suddenly you don’t hear as many people adamant to trumpet your cause about climate change.
Watch how quickly people turn against beloved characters like Sir David Attenborough when he raises the consumption and population issue. The word eco-fascist got thrown around like he was trying to promote Malthus or Thanos, when he simply pointed out that driving an EV and recycling is not going to save the day.
Ironically, the fossil fuel companies are on this bandwagon too, because as the above posted article shows, there is money to be made. It’s no different to corporations now embracing Pride because it is financially rewarding because of society’s shift, not because they now passionately believe in the cause. See also BLM.
Similarly, talking about “Accepting a smaller economy” is highly unrealistic: it would be less effective, and far more disruptive and politically difficult. I mean, think about it: if you simply reduce the economy by 50%, you might reduce GHG emissions by 50%. Well, why not reduce them by 80%, which is what you’d get by eliminating fossil fuels and replacing them with renewables (agriculture is the other 20%).
And, of course, we need to deal with agricultural GHG emissions: a very large part of that come from beef, which could be mostly replaced with plant-based ground beef without anyone noticing much change.
Those two things: renewables and plant-based ground beef, would probably reduce GHGs by 95%. That last 5% would be harder, but whatever we used to deal with it (sequestration, tree planting, mineral erosion, etc) would be infinitely easier and less disruptive than reducing the size of the economy.
I’ve already addressed the beef thing. It’s not, contrary to what you may think, that big a deal. The reason beef in the Amazon is a problem is because of what it’s replacing. Beef production in the USA is negligible in impact and has grown output despite keeping GHG pollutants the same for 30 years. There are obviously more efficient ways to get protein, such as chicken or insect, but beef is not destroying the planet. Cars and mass air travel should go before we consider dismantling parts of our food supply.
Additionally, over 10% of GHGs come from just concrete and steel manufacture alone. So you’re off base if you think FF and beef vanishing gets us anywhere near zero (and I might add, we need negative emissions, not just zero).
I could name another bad source:hydropower. But it is under the RE banner, and so gets a free pass despite the massive emissions and environmental damage produced by dams, to say nothing of the geopolitical ramifications on the order of the oil empire protected by the US military.
Mass industrial agriculture of any flavour is inherently bad. You only have to look at monoculture plantations destroying vast swathes of Asia to see this. It’s not as simple as meat = bad, plants = good. That sounds like the vegan lobby talking points long since debunked e.g. humans never evolved to eat meat and going vegan is better for the planet. It’s way too black and white.
Honestly, I think a large part of why we hear this talk about “degrowth” is that it serves the interests of the FF industry. Why? Because it will never happen voluntarily. So it’s easy to argue for it: it’s a no-risk proposal. And it blocks the low-hanging fruit which can actually be accomplished, like renewables.
Of course, there are some people who are sincere about the idea: they’re just out of touch with reality….
It will never happen voluntarily anyway. That’s human nature talking. What you are basically drawing up is a plan to end violence by saying war is bad because death and economic carnage, so all we do is stop being violent. Good luck with that, because as any chastity ring promoting Christian group will begrudgingly admit, human nature trumps ideology every single time.
So yes, the FF companies may know that there’s no way they will get people to give up their lifestyles, and in fact that rather substantiates my point: this lifestyle is purely allowed by cheap, abundant, DAMAGING fossil fuels. If it were a no brainer to switch to RE and have no repercussions in doing so, we’d have done it as logical consequence of enabling industry and economic growth every bit as much as we crushed Luddite movements during the Industrial Revolution. But we haven’t. Can you guess why?
Please be under no illusion, I am not pro-fossil fuel industry. I am simply stating that if we could wave a magic wand tomorrow and replace all FFs with brand new start of life RE equivalents, it would not stop climate change nor the other multitude of problems brought about by growth. And the only answer to that is the opposite of growth. I’ll leave it to the reader to figure out what that entails.
Kleiber,
I checked into the draft legislation a little while ago, and if I remember correctly The Green New Deal is all about climate change. Now, when you talk about “saving the planet”, are you just referring to preventing climate change?
Nick G: When I talk of the “Green New Deal”, I guess I should clarify that I mean the modern environmentalist movement, not so much the new US legislation. But generally, yes, climate change is considered by most to be the number one pressing problem for humanity today, especially after this past summer. I very rarely see things that feed into climate change being addressed outside of obvious ills from fossil fuel usage and mass agriculture leading to overconsumption.
For example, Apple made a big song and dance about not shipping chargers with their phones from last year onwards. But they naturally won’t be pushing for people to not upgrade as often as possible, though you can see they see the writing on the wall for consuming new devices as they pivot to services instead for growth.
Though when I think of saving the planet, I am thinking of a holistic approach to dealing with what causes climate change AND working that into the conversation. Instead of buying an EV “because electcity isn’t gasoline”, I would also urge people to consider if they need a car at all or to drive so much. Likewise for anything else. Do you need a tablet, a phone, and a laptop? Must you always fly long distance for a holiday? How big a house do you really need and could it have a heat pump rather than a massive fireplace?
And so on, so forth. As you can imagine, I’m fun at parties…
Kleiber,
I have sympathy for the idea of personal frugality and energy efficiency: I think that way as well. I keep my cars for 20 years, and my phones until they’re no longer supported by their maker.
But preventing climate change can’t be handled on an individual level. Why is that, you might ask?
Well, for one thing, if individuals start buying less then the economy will slow down, and the government will find ways to stimulate it: lowering interest rates, government spending, tax cuts, central bank interventions, etc.
For another, individuals just don’t have direct control over choices made by utilities, government, manufacturers, etc.
I think individuals should take responsibility for what they do, in part to save money, in part make a difference, in part to set an example. But they have to primarily work on social change: educating their friends and family, educating their representatives, bribing (excuse me, making campaign contributions to) their representatives, etc.
And…we have to focus on what is most important. Are we trying to lift people’s consciousness and make them realize that they only need so much “stuff”? That after a certain point they need to work on other things, like relationships, and emotional and physical health, etc.? If so, I think that’s great. But…it’s different from dealing with climate change. If we want to deal with climate change then we need to point straight at it, and not try to change the whole society.
Really, fossil fuel is the main problem, and the others have technical solutions. Steel is now produced with coal, but it can be produced with zero-GHG hydrogen. EVs can be produced with zero GHGs, and emit zero GHGs. Concrete can redesigned with a zero-GHG chemistry.
If it’s so easy, then why don’t we do it now? Because it threatens the investments of a lot of very, very wealthy powerful people. It also threatens some FF jobs, but those employees don’t really have that much power: it’s the billionaires that are the problem: the Kochs, Murdoch’s etc. They’re putting up a big fight!
Degrowth is something for intellectual white middle class people. Together with the wish to welcome every refugee and searching for discrimination in everything they do.
All other will take their share with delight and carry on. We have mixed people here at work – and this self-mortification is only present in white middle class people from the orginal “West” countries which did the 68 hippy time revolution.
East Europeans, Asians, south Ameriacans and Africans are immune to it. Even the spain can understand only in parts – they have to have a very strong university background to join this.
I recently had 4 old friends over as we attempt to resurrect after 18 months of Covid. (we are all vaccinated with a local high vax rate and low numbers). My wife had to be away and I thought it would be a great time to reconnect.
Anyway, all have university +, etc. 3 of the 4 cannot wait to resume air travel. The same 3 have RV campers or trailers and big trucks to tow them. All understand the climate issue. Most had kids who are now young adults. They’re going anyway. Activities like winters in Mexico, mountain biking at Arches UT, trailer towing, etc.
I was the only one who has not ‘done’ air travel for years, and sparingly use an old Westfalia on Vancouver Island. My wife and I seldom drive anywhere, actually. I live on a river and they were pissed when I wouldn’t budge on ‘catch and release’. They are all overweight and do not need to fill up on fish during a drought. It was like refereeing a cookie jar fight.
I tried to figure it all out, and it is more of trend and style than anything else. I’ve been to Arches…maybe 20 years ago on the way to a wedding in Colorado. The formations were spectacular. But to go there to bike ride? Really? This seems to be a time when ‘having arrived’ means having experiences. Some of these activities pretend to be ‘Green’, but it still seems to be ‘keeping up with the Jonses’ from what I can see. I mentioned to another friend that it seemed a bit senseless to keep working in order to maximise her pension. You cannot get the years back, and once you hit seventy you won’t need increasing amounts of money for travel. She blew a fuse about it. Her plan is to galavant all over Europe. Forever. I don’t get it. We all know the problem and it is us. She did not believe me when I said we need less as we age.
Anyway, the Big Chill Guy overnighter was a bust and will never again be attempted. Very disappointing. Discouraging.
PAULO —
Around here its mostly about locals with bigger trucks, bigger SUVs, water skiers behind bigger (powerful) boats in summer, kids racing around in quads in the summer, ski mobiles in winter, all the while transients “camping” in forever ever bigger mobile homes. Our grocery outlet parking lot normally filled with huge gas or diesel guzzling pickups. Yes, discouraging sums it up.
Things are a bit smaller here.
Yes, there is some once a year vacation with flying somewhere or an extended car trip to some hotel. Some do it twice.
But there is a reason why CO2 per person in Germany is almost half from the USA value. Getting more down without using new tech will be making no vacation at all – or a local hiking trip with a tent in the backpack.
My car does 45 mpg, and for vacation I drove a 1000 miles trip into a hotel in the mountains this year. Beside the driving – most activities have been hiking and bathing (lots of nice lakes there).
An Asian college does more here – he flies 2-3 times a year to a bathing and diving outlet in Puket or to Australia. He lives in Singapore.
I have frequently observed that electric vehicles will never take off in rural Maine because they are not big, loud and ugly.
“Degrowth” is the environmental movement’s equivalent of Critical Race Theory.
Nobody knows what it is, but it sure scares the right…or it would if they were paying attention.
The idea that the world economy is going to contract will scare anyone if they think through the ramifications.
Most people like to hope that it won’t contract, or that it will contract in a managed and gradual way.
If the past is any guide, humans will fight the process and each other tooth and nail for any stable piece they can.
Forced Contraction
Intentional Contraction
Managed Contraction
Degrowth is already in the forcing phase. An acquaintance of mine recently moved back to Western NC from this little town where he had gone into business with a relative after the 2008 mess. Story about that town:
“FAIR BLUFF, N.C. — It’s been almost five years since Hurricane Matthew flooded this small town on the coastal plain of North Carolina. But somehow, the damage keeps getting worse.
The storm submerged Main Street in four feet of water, destroyed the town hall, the police and fire departments, and flooded almost a quarter of its homes. After two weeks underwater, the roads buckled. The school and grocery store shut, then didn’t reopen. When Hurricane Florence submerged the same ground two years later, in 2018, there was little left to destroy. ……”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/climate/climate-towns-bankruptcy.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20210902&instance_id=39433&nl=the-morning®i_id=74358650&segment_id=67884&te=1&user_id=b6f91430af5958cccad0fcbcbeaba3a8
Dough Leighton:
“It is at this point that Degrowth becomes a very appealing idea that policymakers should pursue. ”
You say that if there is a choice!?! Real growth ended about a decade ago. The West has been in decline for at least the past decade: Labor force participate rate, Demographics, Peak Oil Production, $390T global debt or +4 times Global GDP. The only thing propping the industialized world is trillions of printed money. If the CBs ever take the QE punch bowl away, the world plunges head first into a severe economic depression. Issue with that is the last time, we got WW2.
Then throw in the CCPV which probably will never go away. Its now in about 40% of the deer population & there is a new strain popping up about every 6 months or so. The current round of vaccines are useless & only accelerate the spread by creating super spreaders (asymptomatic & shed high virus loads).
Idiot speak regarding the virus pandemic from techguy.
“the current round of vaccines are useless”
Wow, what a stupid comment. Tell that to the thousands of unvaccinated people on ventilators right now.
In case any of you don’t know what CCPV stands for-
It is Q Anon/Trump speak for Covid-19
Chinese Communist Party Virus
Techguy thinks we are all scientifically retarded like those who espouse this propaganda, or he practicing a lame attempt to distract from trumps failures in all things China policy.
Regardless of his motivation, it is intentional disinformation regarding the pandemic and should result such a person being banned from the site, IMO
The current round of vaccines are useless & only accelerate the spread by creating super spreaders (asymptomatic & shed high virus loads).
TechGuy, please! That is horrible bullshit and only causes more deaths by ignorant Trumpites. The covid vaccine is very effective and to say it creates superspreaders is total nonsense, bullshit to the worst degree. Please refrain from posting such antivaxxer bullshit in the future.
99% of COVID deaths are now of unvaccinated people, experts say
The vast majority of people being hospitalized with COVID and dying from the disease haven’t been fully vaccinated, according to public health officials. More than 97% of hospitalizations from COVID right now are of unvaccinated people, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, said at a press briefing Friday, adding: “There is a clear message that is coming through: This is becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated.” In early July, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the president’s chief medical advisor, told CBS that 99.2% of COVID deaths are now of unvaccinated people.
Electricity wake up call- Can’t take it for granted.
Good points made here-
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/transmission-tower-destroyed-by-ida-likely-to-complicate-power-restoration/605826/
SIBERIAN WILDFIRES DOUBLE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION RECORD
Wildfires in Siberia have produced 800 megatons of carbon dioxide since the beginning of June, nearly doubling last year’s record, according to estimates by the European Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS). Satellites are keeping an eye on the fires as they devour the subpolar forest in the sparsely populated Russian northeast. Last week, they captured how the massive plume of smoke from the fires, over 4,000 miles long (6,437 kilometers), spread all the way to the North Pole and reached the coast of Alaska.
Of course, wildfires raging in North America are causing similar problems. CAMS models expect that some of the particles from wildfires in the western U.S. and Canada will deposit in Greenland. Presumably those would be the ones that didn’t wind up in our lungs.
https://www.space.com/siberia-wildfires-greenhouse-gas-emissions-satellite-images
Speaking of the Amazon
AUGUST AMAZON FIRES REMAIN NEAR HIGHS UNDER BOLSONARO
The number of fires in the Brazilian Amazon as the burning season opened in August fell slightly from 2020, but remained close to the near-decade highs seen under President Jair Bolsonaro. Brazil’s space agency, INPE, recorded 28,060 fires in the Brazilian Amazon last month—down 4.3 percent from August 2020, but well above the average of 18,000 for the decade before Bolsonaro took office in 2019. “The amount of fires registered each August has reached absurd levels since 2019,” said Cristiane Mazzetti, of environmental group Greenpeace, condemning a new “Bolsonaro standard” of destruction.
https://phys.org/news/2021-09-august-amazon-highs-bolsonaro.html
When climate scientists can’t explain why “A true runaway is essentially impossible in our current climate state.”
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/08/30/a-methane-emergency/#comment-199882
They know it isn’t possible but they can’t show it even though it’s a straightforward derivation.
Covid Variant Update:
Mu from Columbia:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/01/who-says-it-is-monitoring-a-new-covid-variant-called-mu.html
C.1.2 from South Africa:
https://www.businessinsider.com/covid-variant-south-africa-worrisome-mutations-delta-2021-9?op=1
You peons keep letting a clique of faithless globalists preaching unfalsifiable science make you think that taking insane actions to purposely lower your own living standards is good for you.
“faithless globalists preaching unfalsifiable science”
Good one fatboy. You might want to check the spelling on ‘unfalsifiable’
Careful, Fatty. My wife and I ‘lowered our own living standards’, relative to our growth monkey contemporaries, years ago, and our quality of life went way up. Figure that one out if you can.
Same. Our only dining out is a great Chinese food place we now get takeout about once per month. I have tried to duplicate it at home and the owner told me why I could not and that was the high heat grill. They cook on a scorching grill and domestic stoves won’t do it. Otherwise, we eat at home for a fraction of the cost…better food to boot.
You peons keep letting a clique of faithless globalists preaching unfalsifiable science…
A globalist is someone who thinks the earth is a globe… like me. Only flat-earthers ever use that term. Really, do we have a flat-earther posting on this blog?
The FAO Food Price Index rebounded rapidly in August, up 31.5 points (32.9 percent) from the same period last year.
“And this sixth mass extinction is happening because of us. Yes, us. We are the meteorite now. At least the unbridled economic system we have built. ”
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-09-02/the-ipcc-leaks-and-unbridled-capitalism/
“I have no comprehensive proposal for how we can get to “fewer and less,” nor does anyone else. The scale and scope of the challenge is unprecedented, and beyond the reach of conventional policy proposals. ”
We shall see—
Hightrekker,
Education for girls and women helps by reducing fertility rate, then population growth falls to zero and becomes population decline, also as living standards rise economic growth also slows, eventually we reach a steady state economy or even see degrowth as World population falls.
Agree, if that policy was enacted 70 years ago.
But agree, let’s do the best we can.
However:
“The scale and scope of the challenge is unprecedented, and beyond the reach of conventional policy proposals.”
But I have been wrong before
… “But I have been wrong before”
Not this time.
“…… The nonstop, compound environmental disasters of this summer alone — the fires, heat waves, droughts, floods and hurricanes — would probably have been enough to shock us. But they also come after a year and a half of a pandemic. Even worse, they come atop an ongoing crisis for our democracy that is preventing us, as a nation and a species, from effectively meeting any of these challenges. …..”
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/02/opinions/nyc-flooding-dystopian-moment-for-climate-scientist-sobel/index.html
Parts of this is media – everything now is climate change. Here even every summer thunderstorm.
Look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1862
There was no climate change at this time – imagine this happening now. Half California flooded – I wouldn’t even count if the great damns would survive this. Their overflow has been damaged already with much less.
Or here in Germany, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary_Magdalene's_flood
13 billion tons of earth washed away in a few days . This is not completely fair – they had less than 20% of wood covering at this time (because of bio energy). Today it is more than 40%. Yes, not all things are worse these days.
Yes, climate change is real. But not every flood is the apocalypse. And a lot of it is man made.
A harbor for example is alway exponated. And getting trashed by a storm is completely normal in history. That’s why they prefered natural harbors like New York in history – a bit away from the big waves of the coastline. Who builds at the Florida Keys or similar locations get’s trashed every one or then.
We have here in Germany even legends of sunken citys – that’s not that uncommon. One of these legendary cities has been found in the sea.
GHUNG, the New York Times agrees with you.
OVERLAPPING DISASTERS EXPOSE HARSH CLIMATE REALITY: THE U.S. IS NOT READY
Disasters cascading across the country this summer have exposed a harsh reality: The United States is not ready for the extreme weather that is now becoming frequent as a result of a warming planet…
Even with the right projects designed and funding in hand, climate change is outpacing the speed at which American communities can fortify themselves.
“It’s happening faster than we’ve anticipated,” said Dr. Dahl of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who is 43. “I didn’t expect all of this to happen at this point in my lifetime.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/climate/new-york-rain-floods-climate-change.html
Yeah climate change is real and possibly caused by humans….blah, blah, blah, but….
Beano, two things. Climate change is not “possibly” caused by humans, it is definitely caused by humans. And that goddamn horse is not dead, it is alive and kicking.
So what’s your point? Do you think we should stop talking about climate change just because you are tired of hearing about it? Perhaps we should stop talking about the covid pandemic as well because you are tired of hearing about that as well. Perhaps you believe both covid and climate change are both a hoax. From the tone of your post, I would not be surprised if you do.
MyBeano.
This is not a dead horse .
That would be like a situation where a war was lost- like the USA in VietNam.
[it is very important to learn from your mistakes- US has not learned about war failures]
Rather this issue is very much alive.
Its the first decade in a century of severe disruption from the ‘normal’ times. Sure the past ‘normal’ times had plenty of disruption, but we are just starting to see that trend ramp up. And it will have tragic impact for the majority over the coming decades.
Just because you have been wrong for so long doesn’t mean you have to be wrong forever. Al Gore was brave enough to speak the truth regardless of the risk to his own career. That is a rare thing in this world.
Once the damage is on the apple it’s too late to spray.
Hightrekker,
We may need unconventional policy proposals. When things become very bad (think 1930s bad or worse) people are sometimes willing to make serious changes. Hopefully the change will be for the better (ala Roosevelt) rather than worse (ala Hitler).
Better education is a modest proposal, we could also have progressive taxes, universal healthcare, universal childcare, free university education, better salaries for educators, these are also very modest proposals for all western democracies except one.
There is certainly more that could be done, but Great Depression 2 may be needed before serious consideration for alternative social structures are considered. This is likely to begin in Europe which has left the US behind on social policy.
It is not clear to me what the solutions are, so far the systems that exist in Western Europe seem as good as it gets. Europeans may have some better ideas how their social systems might be improved.
I agree, things are going to be challenging.
Western Europe (actually North Western Europe) does seem to be on a serious task.
I’ve lived part of my life in Asia, and see no insight.
I couldn’t read the article since it is paywall protected but it reminded me of the business cargo bikes that Raleigh is working on the UK
“we are Going to Need a Lot More Cargo Bikes…”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-01/how-to-pave-the-way-for-more-electric-delivery-bikes
https://www.raleigh.co.uk/gb/en/offers/e-cargo-bikes/
Better be electric
Looks like Tony Seba is right. By the end of this decade our grid will be powered entirely by renewable sources of energy (SWB= Solar Wind Battery) and non-aviation transportation will be electric. As a matter of fact we will suffer from an embarrassment of riches. We will have a large surplus of energy on most days. This is because the intermittent nature of renewable energy forces you to overbuild so you have enough energy for the worst days of the year. This produces a vast surplus on most days. Note that this surplus is “free” since fuel (sunlight and wind) is free. In addition to mitigating peak oil this also tremendously helps mitigate AGW.
Next step: end animal agriculture. We can do this.
Here is a new design for offshore floating wind turbines that produce 5 times the energy of conventional offshore wind turbines. Also these turbines can be built cheaply several miles offshore in really deep waters.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90672135/this-wildly-reinvented-wind-turbine-generates-five-times-more-energy-than-its-competitors
You might want to digest this info-
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/09/03/the-world-needs-vastly-more-green-electricity/
caution- it ain’t so rosy as Seba would portray.
I find her opinions absurd. Renewable energy is already the cheapest source of energy. Why would power companies build or operate fossil fuel power plants in the future? Batteries are already replacing existing peaker power plants. This trend will accelerate as batteries get cheaper. No one will build another peaker power plant or coal fired power plant in the USA again. The existing coal and natural gas fired power plants will be shutdown by 2030 because they will be more expensive to operate than SWB (solar wind battery). The beauty of SWB is that once it is built fuel is free forever and maintenance is negligible.
EVs will reach price parity with ICE cars by 2025. By 2030 EVs will be a lot cheaper than ICE cars. Charging infrastructure will be everywhere. Who will buy a gasoline car then? By 2030 it is all over for fossil fuel power plants and gasoline cars.
Note that if they get self driving cars working, most people will subscribe to a car instead of owning it. So we don’t even have to replace every ICE car with an EV. Total car population will shrink considerably.
Hi Suyog,
That report was not the authors opinion- it is a summary of findings from a 282 page report that I just downloaded from DNV Group- they do research on business risk.
I will take more time to look through the report, but from what i have seen thus far, it looks to be like a very realistic portrayal of where things stand and the pace of change, rather than a report on what is theoretically possible.
My quick take home message is that humanity has some great tools at hand [SWB]. and yet the job of transition from fossil fuel is truly massive. We are slow and late in the effort.
More comments to follow.
Hickory,
You said:
“My quick take home message is that humanity has some great tools at hand [SWB]. and yet the job of transition from fossil fuel is truly massive. We are slow and late in the effort.”
I agree 100%. A couple of things give me hope:
i) Around 2014 Tony Seba made predictions that were seen as absurd at that time. However everything he predicted has turned out to be true. Who could have imagined that by now we will have 30c/W solar panels, $130/kWh Li ion batteries, 2c/kWh renewable electricity, 200 mile EVs for less than $30,000 and cars that can drive autonomously on the highway with camera vision and neural networks? Yet, these things have already happened and it took barely 10 years. If one is not astonished by this it is because one is not paying attention.
ii) Over 100 years ago the US made a rapid transition from horses to cars in less than 15 years. This was done while fighting WW1 and the influenza pandemic. The US created entire new industries (roads/highway construction, oil refineries and gas stations, automobile mass production) from scratch with early 20th century technology. It should be a lot easier now. The roads and highways and the electric grid already exist. We have large scale automation. Constructing a Li ion Giga battery factory takes a year. There are breakthroughs like iron air battery, liquid metal battery and flow battery that are very cheap and suitable for grid storage.
I hope we also end animal agriculture soon. It is not only based on egregious cruelty and sadism but also massively destructive for the environment.
Power to you.
Everything that is accomplished is a hell of lot more than that which is not.
You want to give humanity unlimited energy to carry on polluting and mining the planet?
Sounds pretty terrible. And why is coal and gas use going up if PV and wind is such a slam dunk? Did no one tell the power companies? Last I checked, renewables didn’t crack 5% energy usage globally. Better send the memo to the nations growing their fossil fuel usage in the double digits that they’re doing it wrong. Or maybe Seba is an idealist working on a model that doesn’t reflect reality. Since reality shows that his vision isn’t coming to pass any time soon.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2021/08/30/soaring-electricity-and-coal-use-are-proving-once-again-roger-pielke-jrs-iron-law-of-climate/
Also, on EVs: https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/30/22648218/electric-robotaxi-climate-change-emissions-harvard-study
And: https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2021/09/05/this-isnt-going-to-work/
Turns out allowing things to carry on as BAU is a terrible idea. Gee, I wonder if peak fossil fuels is the problem or if it’s, say, relentless resource consumption because of cheap energy?
Tough one.
Kleiber,
Ignore the short term price signals. Look at the cost curves for renewable energy, batteries and EV. We are in the early stages of exponential growth. Also autonomous vehicles will be available around 2023 (I think Mobile Eye and Tesla will get there first). Autonomous EVs will drastically shrink the number of cars on the road.
I share your lament regarding destruction of the environment. What is the solution? After everything is said and done I would rather get my electricity from my rooftop 10kW panels than a fossil fuel power plant.
By the way the largest producer of green house gases is animal agriculture. The Amazon rain forest is being destroyed to produce beef for Americans. I hope those of you who truly care about the environment have gone vegan and lowered your fertility to below replacement level. For what it is worth I am a vegetarian with only one child.
@suyog: The price curves, which have been writing on the wall for a number of years now as I have consistently read, are only one factor. The bottom line is that we cannot power our current economy with renewables, and we cannot build out the infrastructure without massive ecological damage to an already vastly overburdened planet. This isn’t even a matter of debate, it’s just the reality. For every person proclaiming EVs will rid us of nasty fossil fuels, there is another highlighting how they will continue happy motoring and exploitive mining.
There is nothing good about replacing current infrastructure with yet more, slightly less polluting infrastructure. Carbon and climate change that comes about as a result of its emission, is a byproduct of our civilisation. We may as well have energy be the limiting factor now, rather than water or pollution or minerals later on. Renewables don’t address our direction, only the infatuation with CO2 emissions which is rather like using corn based ethanol to pour on your burning house instead of gasoline: the end result is the same.
You’re also WAY over optimistic with autonomous driving. It’s nowhere near coming to public life in a Level 5 way. And they were talking about FSD capabilities in Tesla for the Model 3 when it came out. And like the Tesla Semi, it’s still vapourware. It is yet another instance of the tech nerds extrapolating exponential growth and assuming massive computing power will solve for all ills. It hasn’t turned out that way, which is why we get stories like this:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/08/23/silicon-valleys-driverless-car-dream-road-disaster/
I’ve heard autonomous taxis will be round the corner for the last decade. It hasn’t happened. And it’s not going to, because it’s another boondoggle overpromising and underdelivering right now on the order of VR gaming and 3D movies.
On agriculture, you may indeed be right about Bolsanaro’s raping of the Amazon, which was going to happen regardless of Western appetites (it was either cattle or housing and other infrastructure development). But that’s mainly because Brazilian agriculture is super inefficient. Only 2.8% of US GHG was down to agriculture in 2007, but production increased by double digits from where it was in 1990. The Western nations have extremely efficient animal grazing practices and ag business in general, and while they do produce GHGs such as methane, they are not the largest contributor by far (transport and construction would be up there instead: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector).
Additionally, the GHG assessments of animal agriculture are… a little less cut and dry. The carbon emitted by livestock is biogenic, not fossil fuel based. It’s part of the carbon cycle, and therefore is like saying livestock “use up” water that was otherwise going to be lost to land that cannot support plants. Most cattle are not grazing on ground that would compete with wheat or maize, but on lands where grazing of plant matter that would otherwise be wasted is allowed. Likewise, the cattle are fed remnants from plant agriculture that is essentially recycled.
This is a whole other topic, but you can read some more about it here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6d7e
Generally, comparing driving an ICE or flying from London to NYC to eating beef in your diet is disingenuous at best, misleading at worst.
But, for the record, I am childless, drive a 1.4 L car to a job that is about ten miles commute, live in a two bedroom bungalow (<900 sq/ft) and haven't flown since 2002. I do eat meat and dairy, but only as part of an otherwise balanced diet. I'm also of the minimalist persuasion when it comes to lifestyle, preferring a few high quality goods over many disposable items like cheap computers or fast fashion.
And my solution is to have people think more Edo period Japan, and less Jetsons for the way the future ought to be. I know we just debated degrowth and what that even means given it's entirely incompatible with our current economic model. However, that is basically where we are going already, so we may as well try and figure out how to upend consumer culture and the pursuit of wealth and status to the detriment of our planet.
>the job of transition from fossil fuel is truly massive.
Actually it isn’t difficult at all, since even maintaining fossil fuel energy sources is more expensive than building renewables. The hard part will be keeping the old system alive.
That’s clearly not the case in just about every study I’ve ever read.
Also, reality says otherwise. I’ve already posted several current stories indicating how this renewable future isn’t the slam dunk everyone keeps wanting it to be. I’m sat in the car now listening to BBC Radio 4 talk about the total inadequacy of public charging for EVs and people who have no driveway. Something the gov’t is barely addressing despite the 2030 date for stopping ICE sales.
And then there’s the elect city deficit and costs of bills in the UK too. My supplier is fully renewable. Prices are now on their fifth consecutive price rise in twelve months. Cheap? Hardly.
Alim.
I hardily disagree with you on that.
The global lack of recognition of the scale of the job, the lack of urgency and sense of purpose on getting the job done on transition away from fossil fuel energy dependency means that.
1. We will be in for serious energy shortage
2. Cumulative global carbon emission will continue to accumulate at huge scale.
These things are absolute, its a matter of severity at this point.
The difficulty to transition is the self interest of the fossil fuel industry
And the lack of savings/and or credit for 7.9 billion people to do all the things it will take to wean themselves from fossil fuel in a decade or two.
and oh yeh- coming up with 300-400 EJoules of non-fossil power
[1 joule is equal to 1.0E-18 exajoule]
How about periods like last month in the UK where the vast majority of our power came from gas, nuclear, and imports, as our turbines and PV sat idle?
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/electricity-explained/electricity-and-me/great-britains-monthly-electricity-stats
Yeah. Super easy to switch. Be even easier when people have even less disposable income and fossil fuel production declines proper.
Alimbiquated, Hickory,
It might help the discussion to distinguish between different kinds of energy. We lump fossil fuels together, but oil is pretty different from gas, and both are pretty different from coal. And, of course, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear….they’re all different, with different costs, time to build, regional distribution, complexity, etc., etc., etc.
So, to get the discussion started: in most places, wind and solar are more abundant and cheaper than fossil fuels to build, and in many places their installed (“overnight”) cost is less than even the operating costs of FF.
For electricity, the large majority of new installed capacity in 2021 is wind and solar. It will be easy to replace through attrition: as FF shuts down at least 80% can be replaced cheaply and seamlessly over 30 years or so. The problem here is accelerating that pace: that will mean shutting down FF plants before the end of their normal lifetime, which will cost investors money.
Hickory,
In 2019 primary consumption of fossil fuel was about 490 exajoules. Keep in mind that only about 38% of that primary energy is used for useful purposes, the other 67% is mostly waste heat which is not put to any use. So the job is to replace the 490 times 0.38, which is 186 exajoules of fossil fuel exergy use.
Of the 186 exajoules of exergy about 96 EJ of electricity was produced in 2020 with about 39% of the electricity produced by non-fossil fuel.
Data from BP statistical review of world energy, 1 TWhr=0.0036 exajoules.
Hickory, you said above:
Did you notice that the Popes version of Sharia law has been adopted in Texas this week.
And the Texas version of the the Taliban can now carry semiautomatic weapons in public, and without permit or training.
Welcome to Talibanexas. Scary. Personally however, I would call it the Evangelicals’ version of Sharia law (albeit with support from Trumpist Catholics).
Catholicism is a broad church (pun intended) from the liberal Pope Francis to the conservative US Conference of Catholic Bishops. For example:
“Vatican sends letter to U.S. bishops: Don’t rush the debate on Communion, politicians and abortion”
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/05/10/vatican-communion-bishops-biden-catholic-politicians-abortion-240627
fair enough John.
I don’t really make the distinction. The ‘Pope’ is the figurehead of Christian Fundamentalism, even if the other sects have broken away.
I equate all Fundamentalists, whether Hindu, Jew, Moslem or Catholic, etc
It is time to end spiritual Nationalism and Bosses.
In this regard, I am self employed and an intact sovereign mind.
And i firmly believe in separation of church and state, as much as any guiding principle of modern life.
What the hell, maybe COP27 or 28 or 29 then.
CHINA, US DEAL ON CLIMATE CHANGE FAILS BEFORE COP26
The collapse of talks came at a critical time when the world’s two largest economies were grappling with the deadly consequences of climate change, including the recent deadly flooding in New York, and the torrential rain that hit several Chinese cities in July and August and killed hundreds of people. China and the US are also the world’s top two polluters, producing 10 million and 5.4 million tonnes of CO2 in 2019, according to Climate Trade.
And, despite pledges to peak coal consumption before 2030, China brought 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power into operation last year – more than three times what was brought online globally.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/4/us-china-climate-change-talks
Yup,
FORGET ABOUT PEAK OIL – WE HAVEN’T EVEN REACHED PEAK COAL YET
Despite all the heavy dissemination of narratives and talking points about a “climate emergency” and the “energy transition” during 2021, the ongoing economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic proves that the world still heavily relies on fossil fuels to provide its constantly growing energy needs. Indeed, as the pushers of Peak Oil demand theory try in vain to revive their own always-wrong narrative, it now appears that the world has yet to even meet the peak of demand for the least environmentally friendly fuel of all, coal.
This is especially true in China, India and much of Asia, where thousands of coal-fired power plants have seen record usage levels in the face of a major heat wave this summer. Bloomberg reported that China’s enormous demand for coal this summer has caused commodity prices to spike to the highest level seen in 2 months, briefly climbing above 900 yuan/ton, roughly $139.31 at current exchange rates.
And, lets not forget, this spike in coal demand and usage is far from limited to Asia. The Wall Street Journal reported in early July that coal-fired power usage was also spiking in European countries like Germany and France, both of which spent years loudly boasting of their plans to eliminate coal from their energy profiles.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2021/08/02/forget-about-peak-oilwe-havent-even-reached-peak-coal-yet/?sh=6b1692532a9b
Coal consumption peaked in 2013.
That’s misleading. Coal consumption has been essentially flat since 2013. Further, Southeast Asia coal demand is expected to double by 2040 offsetting declines elsewhere. The main reason for coal’s continued importance in the region is expectations for massive overall energy demand growth as populations continue to increase and become wealthier. Even though new renewable energy capacity is forecast to be installed at about twice the rate of coal through 2040, fossil fuels will still represent about 75% of total energy demand in 2040, according to the IEA. Almost 100 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity is set to come online in Southeast Asia, mainly in Indonesia, Vietnam and Malaysia. Around 30 gigawatts is already under construction.
So yes, according to the IEA, global coal demand probably peaked seven years ago — in 2013 — at just over 8 billion tonnes and, despite a forecast pick-up in demand next year as economies rebound from the coronavirus lockdowns, global demand for coal is forecast to “flatten out” over the next five years at around 7.4 billion tonnes.
https://www.thegwpf.com/southeast-asia-coal-demand-to-double-by-2040/
>Coal consumption has been essentially flat since 2013. Further, Southeast Asia coal demand is expected to double by 2040 offsetting declines elsewhere.
Exactly. “Essentially flat” actually means fell. Even your “is expected” fairy tale only claims to maintain the current level.
Coal consumption peaked in 2013
Coal consumption peaked in 2013
BP agrees:
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/coal.html.html#coal-consumption
Read all the comments this morning and always go back to this for the US. (and Canada)
Much could be done if there was a 2-3 year (5 year?) phased in LARGE fuel tax put on gasoline and diesel. Talk about degrowth. Plus, add in a carbon tax.
There is absolutely no reason why the US price for gasoline is 2/3 of the Canadian price, especially as we are the US biggest foreign supplier. We have a carbon tax. The generated funds could be directed at change to renewables. Further, get rid of the silly ethanol mandate, which uses more energy than it saves in production. I do know this, I pay between $4-$5 per gallon and it isn’t even an issue as we have reduced our driving. Living rural we don’t ‘chase’ for stuff. We make a list and shop maybe every 2 weeks for that which de don’t grow ourselves. I have friends who live in town and bomb to the store for one thing or another every day. As for Canada, I would like to see the Federal fuel tax increased across the country, something that could only be done by the right wing conservatives. Unfortunately, they have just started to admit there is global climate change so we might be a tad behind on this one.
Yes, we are fossil fuel hogs in Canada. But raise the price enough and behaviour will change. Hell, I used to love using pine nuts for pasta dishes. Bought them at $5 per pound. One day I went to buy a small bag and it was $40 and that was the end of that. Sure, it is a discretionary example, but much of what we do is discretionary. The generated taxation could be used to help those who are victims of this change.
I’m not optimistic about a democracy doing much of anything until there is more flooding and destruction. Miami being destroyed might be a wake up. Tahoe isn’t cutting it, or flooding on the NE left coast. It has to be a red state or many red states, but since so many still deny the existence of the Covid threat, that speaks for itself, doesn’t it?
And some good vaccination news from BC.
“Health officials say that equates to first doses for 85.4 per cent of all eligible adult British Columbians and 84.8 per cent of all eligible people 12 and older.
In addition, 78.1 per cent of all eligible adults have received their second dose, totalling 3,376,103 residents.
regards
PAULO —
Nah, the night is young, let’s party on. After all, Governments can print money forever, can’t they? And, face it, we’re the only species that matter, being God’s chosen creatures, and all.
We are all children of God whether you like it or not.
We’re the children of apes, wild, smelly, meat-eating apes.
In fact, we’re still apes.
“A century ago, people laughed at the notion that we were descended from monkeys. Today, the individuals most offended by that claim are the monkeys.”
― Jacob M. Appel
Hey ape-man Kevin- I request that you refrain from telling me what I should believe , or what I may or may not like. Your delusions are great for you, but don’t presume that they are acceptable to me.
I a member of the ITL- Independent Thinkers League. It comes with a healthy sense of freedom of thought and the challenge of discovering reality.
Maybe try it one day.
Yeah, God’s chosen people, earthlings. But once God had a chosen race of people, the Jews. God was the first racist. Then he changed his mind. God often does that.
Note: I have had this argument before, that Jews are not a race but a religion. Okay, so his chosen race was the Hebrews, that changes nothing. He was still a racist.
Ron,
Makes sense as man made god in his image.
Speaking of coal, that unspeakable (to many) topic.
THE DISCURSIVE LEGITIMISATION OF AUSTRALIAN COAL IN THE AGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Despite mounting urgency to mitigate climate change, new coal mines have recently been approved in various countries, including in Southeast Asia and Australia. Adani’s Carmichael coal mine project in the Galilee Basin, Queensland (Australia), was approved in June 2019 after 9 years of political contestation. Counteracting global efforts to decarbonise energy systems, this mine will substantially increase Australia’s per capita CO2 emissions, which are already among the highest in the world. Australia’s deepening carbon lock-in can be attributed to the essential economic role played by the coal industry, which gives it structural power to dominate political dynamics. Furthermore, tenacious networks among the traditional mass media, mining companies, and their shareholders have reinforced the politico-economic influence of the industry, allowing the mass media to provide a venue for the industry’s outside lobbying strategies as well as ample backing for its discursive legitimisation with pro-coal narratives. To investigate the enduring symbiosis between the coal industry, business interests, the Australian state, and mainstream media, we draw on natural language processing techniques and systematically study discourses about the coal mine in traditional and social media between 2017 and 2020. Our results indicate that while the mine’s approval was aided by the pro-coal narratives of Queensland’s main daily newspaper, the Courier-Mail, collective public sentiment on Twitter has diverged significantly from the newspaper’s stance. The rationale for the mine’s approval, notwithstanding increasing public contestation, lies in the enduring symbiosis between the traditional economic actors and the state; and yet, our results highlight a potential corner of the discursive battlefield favourable for hosting more diverse arguments.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00827-5
They canceled one new coal mine permit in BC and one in Alberta and you would think the world would end if you read the company reactions.
Quinsam coal in Campbell River, maybe a 15 mile truck haul from mine site to tidewater, produced thermal coal for Asia. It went bankrupt in 2019. No one is interested in buying their assets or prospects. If you can’t make it with those logistics you aren’t going to make it with a 1,000 mile rail haul with extra handling.
If the mining process in and of itself is cheap enough, a mine can still be profitable even with a long rail haul…… especially if the rail line is already built. We haul coal from the upper Mid West to Georgia here in the USA…. for the same money delivered as West Virginia coal in terms of heat value.Possibly less.
Good local weather and salmon news to share.
I live about 1/2 way up the east coast of Vancouver Island. By chance we are on the line between extreme drought (for us) and the wetter north Island. With a good snow pack the river stayed cool for most of the summer and flows were adequate. We have had some rain, and quite a bit (maybe 1/2 inch per day) should happen this coming week. Anyway, the good news is that so far the salmon count shows 15K spawners in the river of about 25 km long. Most are chinook, with the usual big schools of early pinks. The coho are just staring to arrive. We have a huge run of coho every year.
No fishing at all 100 meters below my house, and catch and release only from my place on up. I’m 5 clicks from the ocean, but it is tidal. There are probably only 25 -30 homes along the entire river, and access is almost totally restricted. There is also another limitation with almost all areas restricted from development by being forestry and/or in the ag land reserve. No development possible or legal.
When the fishing guides show up from down Island, (granted they are fly fishers) I get my DeWalt planer out and plane up lumber for winter furniture building. They soon move on. 🙂 As soon as I hit send will go out and fish with my Jack Russell. We usually catch a coho and release, or I screw it up on purpose so it gets off. Otherwise, my dog is on my case all bloody day to go fishing. 🙂 She also loves to kayak….can’t even spell the word. Never say the words fishing, or dock.
Its good to hear about your special corner of the world.
I picture my wooden kayak being right at home there.
Thanks.
So, it’s not just China.
INDIA IS RUNNING OUT OF COAL
Just a few weeks ago Oilprice reported that India is nowhere near ready to kick fossil fuels. As the country’s population continues to grow and more and more Indians join ranks of the middle class, the country’s energy demand is set to far outpace its renewable energy capacity. In fact, it’s going to take all of the fossil fuels as well as renewable energy the nation has just to keep up with demand. Now, new reports are showing that as India’s economy recovers from the coronavirus pandemic and the nation eases restrictions, the nation’s energy demand has skyrocketed so quickly that India is scrambling to import coal as their own producers come up short…
India’s coal consumption is skyrocketing. As the dirtiest fossil fuel, the elimination of coal from the global energy mix is paramount for mitigating the worsening of the greenhouse effect. As Indians move out of social isolation and back into their daily routines, however, the demand for energy is so great that the government has urged utilities to start importing coal from other countries, as several major power plants teeter on the edge of running out of fuel completely. What’s more, in India “overall electricity generation rose 16.1% in August, while coal-fired power output rose 23.7% from a year earlier.”
Meanwhile, A Global Energy Monitor report concludes that if China continues to expand capacity to 1,400 gigawatts through 2035, as proposed, “its coal-power generation alone will be more than three times as large as the global limit on coal power use determined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to keep global warming well below 2 degrees C.” So mush for the “greener world scenario”.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/India-Is-Running-Out-Of-Coal.html
“In fact, it’s going to take all of the fossil fuels as well as renewable energy the nation has just to keep up with demand.”
That also applies to the world as a whole.
If we don’t want coal to be part of the mix, its going to take a hell of a lot of capital expenditure on industrial scale renovations to wean ourselves.
Lets remember that India is not a place with plenty of capital, and their carbon production is very small- per person.
2017-
Canada- #24 GDP/Capita at $46500
India- #122 GDP/capita at $7200
Carbon dioxide emissions per capita 2019 (metric tonnes)
Canada-15.7
India- 1.9
The sentiments and aspirations of a person from India or Nigeria are of no lesser importance than those of a person in Dallas or Sydney. The effectiveness of their governance and policy is not necessarily better.
Hint:
per capita is what is key only if applied to population.
India has over a billion people.
Canada? 40 million (i’m guessing) in the second largest country on the planet.
The math is not that hard.
Well, I think each Canadian produces 22 tonnes of greenhouse gas per year — which is the highest among all G20 members and nearly three times the G20 average of eight tonnes per person. Pretty impressive, eh? 😉
Impressive, for sure.
But it has 40 million people doing that, in the second largest country on Earth, not 1.3 billion.
If India had 30 million people, I could be more sympathetic to your point.
7.8 billion people living in a collapsing ecosystem is something to take note of.
Our traditional population has been 1-10 million, with a near extinction 65, 000 years ago.
So Hightrekker
you are saying that both you and i as US citizens are entitled to 8 times as many carbon emission units as 8 people from India, without penalty or derision?
Wow, I’m feeling even more entitled now.
Thank you.
Just delivering the reality of the situation.
Hint:
1.3 billion people is the problem, not 40 million people over polluting in a huge area.
We can have our moral outrage, but reality always wins.
(I’m not condoning Canada’s usage)
This is a predicament, beyond a problem.
I haven’t a solution, but we had better act with wisdom.
Certainly agree about the overpopulation as the root cause,
but all of us with extreme overconsumption of energy for our many decades
have a pretty hollow voice on this carbon issue. just pointing that out.
Sigh, Brazil still doing its part to rid the world of rainforests.
DEFORESTATION IN BRAZILIAN AMAZON HITS HIGHEST ANNUAL LEVEL IN A DECADE
“Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has hit the highest annual level in a decade, a new report has shown, despite increasing global concern over the accelerating devastation since President Jair Bolsonaro took office in 2019. Between August 2020 and July 2021, the rainforest lost 10,476 square kilometers – an area nearly seven times bigger than greater London and 13 times the size of New York City, according to data released by Imazon, a Brazilian research institute that has been tracking the Amazon deforestation since 2008. The figure is 57% higher than in the previous year and is the worst since 2012.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/20/brazil-amazon-deforestation-report-bolsonaro-climate
The real problems of China’s economy will be associated with the depletion of cheap coal, which was the physical engine of the entire Chinese economic miracle.
Prices for the most traded coal futures contract on the Zhengzhou Commodity Exchange reached $ 150 per ton on Tuesday, up 80% from a year ago ($ 85 per ton) and well above the five-year average.
Power generation is growing significantly faster than coal mining (+ 7.4% for power generation in the first 7 months of the year versus + 4.1% for coal mining compared to 2019), while coal remains its basis.
Coal provides about 57% of Chinese power. A ton of coal can provide roughly 3,500 kWhs. A price rise of $85 would raise the overall cost of power by about 1.4 cents per kWh ($85 / 3,500 x .57).
China only imports about 6% of it’s coal, so a price increase means a modest transfer of income from industrial consumers in urban areas to inland coal producers.
On the other hand, my impression is that recent price increase are due a conflict between China and Australia which is interfering with coal imports. This would appear to be temporary. Have you seen good information about the cause of the price increases?
It’s not clear to me how a coal price increase would hurt the overall Chinese economy significantly.
A new Open thread non-petroleum has been posted.
https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-september-8-2021/
A new thread for May Non-OPEC production has been posted.
https://peakoilbarrel.com/may-non-opec-oil-production-up-slightly/
An interesting article from IEEE Spectrum on vision-based autonomous driving.
Tesla-places-big-bet-vision-only-self-driving
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tesla-places-big-bet-vision-only-self-driving