World Report Card: The Inexorable March Toward Zero Carbon Emissions (Not!)

Reposted from the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

As we all know, the most important task currently facing the world is the elimination of carbon emissions from energy consumption in order to save the planet from the existential crisis of climate disruption.

The world actually got started on this task back during the 1980s and 90s, with the creation of the IPCC (1988), the issuance of the IPCC’s First (1990) and Second (1996) Assessment Reports on the climate, and the signing of the Kyoto Protocol (1997) for emissions reductions. And then after 2000 things really started to get serious. In 2005 the Kyoto Protocol officially took effect. It was June 2008 when Barack Obama promised (in his speech accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination for President) that this would be “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal …”). Two years later, in 2010, Germany adopted legislation formalizing its Energiewende program to replace fossil fuels with “renewables.”

So by today the U.S. and Europe have been hard at work for well over a decade on the real nitty gritty of getting rid of fossil fuels and replacing them with “renewables” like wind and solar power. It’s time for a Report Card on how things are going.

Fortunately there is an organization called REN21: Renewables Now that makes a business of tracking and reporting on the progress of converting the world’s energy consumption to renewables. This organization has just (June 15) issued what it calls its Renewables Global Status Report. Chapter 1 of the Report, the Global Overview, can be found here. This Report does the hard work of aggregating global energy consumption from all sources to give us an overall picture of how the campaign to replace fossil fuels is progressing.

First, the “good” news: (from the Global Overview):

  • [R]enewable energy saw a record increase of new power capacity in 2020 globally and was the only source of electricity generation to experience a net increase in total capacity.
  • Renewable energy reached its highest recorded share in the global electricity mix in 2020 – an estimated 29% – due in large part to low operating costs and preferential access to electricity networks during periods of low electricity demand.
  • [M]ore than 256 gigawatts (GW) of renewable power capacity was added globally during the year, surpassing the previous record by nearly 30%.
  • Costs of producing electricity from wind and solar energy have dropped significantly in recent years. In 2020, the global weighted average levelised cost of electricity from utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV) declined 85% since 2010, while onshore wind power costs fell 56% during the same period. . . . These declines mean that for most of the world’s population, electricity production from new renewables is more cost effective than from new coal-fired power plants.

Wow, that sounds great. Surely then, the evil fossil fuels are well on their way to oblivion.

Actually, not so much. First, here is a sampling of some of the obstacles that just won’t seem to go away:

  • “[I]nnovation is still needed to enable the widespread adoption of renewables in harder-to-decarbonise sectors, such as energy-intensive industrial processes and long-haul transport.” The phrase “innovation is still needed” means that as of today nobody has a clue how this is supposed to be done. Steel mills and tractor trailer trucks and airplanes powered by solar panels? Not happening.
  • “Another key reason for the low penetration of renewables is the persistent lack of supporting policies and policy enforcement, particularly in the transport and heating and cooling sectors. . . . Targets also were more often achieved and set for the power sector than for heating and cooling or transport.” I think these people really believe that if governments will just do the right thing and require airplanes to run on solar panels, then it will promptly happen. As to requiring the people to give up natural gas for home heat and cooking, an effort in the UK to order that got reversed in under 24 hours after public blowback.
  • In many countries, investment in new fossil fuel production and related infrastructure continued. Although some countries were phasing out coal, others invested in new coal-fired power plants, both domestically and abroad. . . . [B]y year’s end a steep increase in new coal capacity in China offset global retirements, resulting in the first annual increase in global coal capacity since 2015. In line with past years, public finance from China funded by far the largest amount of coal capacity in other countries, followed by funding from Japan, the Republic of Korea, France, Germany and India, nearly all of which was directed towards developing and emerging countries.

And that’s just a sampling of what was happening in 2020. The Report then contains this summary of developments in what they call Total Final Energy Consumption over the ten year period 2009-2019:

Renewables Share In Total Energy Mix.png

Whoa! In that ten year period fossil fuels declined all the way from 80.3% to 80.2% of TFEC. The share of what they call “modern renewables” (wind, solar, biomass (i.e., wood chips), geothermal, ocean power, hydropower) did go up marginally from 8.7% to 11.2% of TFEC, but that seems to have been mostly at the expense of the barely mentioned “non-modern renewables,” presumably mostly animal dung. While the fossil fuel share of the total went down, it was an almost imperceptible 0.1%. And meanwhile, since the developing world is in the process of rapidly joining the modern energy-based economy, the total amount of fossil fuels consumed went up dramatically — from about 260 Exajoules in 2009 to about 310 Exajoules in 2019. That’s an increase of close to 20% in the decade when I thought we were supposed to be rapidly reducing usage and indeed setting the world on the path to total elimination of these things.

Reuters covered the REN21 Report on June 14, in a piece titled “Global fossil fuel use similar to decade ago in energy mix, report says.” They quote Rana Adib, REN21’s Executive Director:

“We are waking up to the bitter reality that the climate policy promises over the past ten years have mostly been empty words,” said Rana Adib, REN21’s executive director. “The share of fossil fuels in final energy consumption has not moved by an inch,” she added.

I’ve got news for Rana: Elimination of fossil fuels, and even reduction in their use, is not going to happen. Fossil fuels are cheap and they work. Your assertion that “electricity production from new renewables is more cost effective than from new coal-fired power plants” is just self-deception resulting from ignoring the enormous costs imposed by the intermittency of the renewables. Nobody is going to buy these renewables other than by receiving huge government subsidies. According to America’s Power (trade association for the coal industry) the U.S. alone spent some $82 billion in just the period 2010-18 to subsidize the renewables — and all of that barely moved the needle.

Read the full article at the source here.

5 17 votes
Article Rating
102 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Long
June 18, 2021 2:08 pm

If renewables were so cost competitive everyone would be getting on the green machine bandwagon. Instead, some (advanced?) cultures are driving up costs and suffering from blackouts while China builds coal fired electricity generating plants. Shirley some one is delusional? Not me.

Spetzer86
Reply to  Ron Long
June 18, 2021 2:25 pm

How much does not having the power you need when you need it cost? “Cost competitive” has to include that calculation. Also, I’m not believing any RE cost estimates without some very thorough vetting regarding taxes, incentives, and kickbacks.

Patrick H.
Reply to  Ron Long
June 18, 2021 2:27 pm

I’m with you Ron. Solar doesn’t sell without federal incentives. I was in the solar business, when the federal dollars dry up everything stops. I mean dead stop, nothing.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Ron Long
June 18, 2021 2:28 pm

and not Shirley…

Leo Smith
Reply to  Gregory Woods
June 19, 2021 12:58 am

Dont call me Shirley!

Alba
Reply to  Leo Smith
June 19, 2021 2:25 am

Shirley some mishtake.

Philip
Reply to  Ron Long
June 18, 2021 4:09 pm

China has a global economy to run. It’s got to feed the West all that crap they foisted onto China to make in hopes China would see the capitalist light and give up the socialist authoritarianism. They answered by copying everything including the tech and killing ever more people of conscience. Win,win for China. We get the cheap knock-offs though so… whee…😎

Observer
Reply to  Philip
June 19, 2021 6:08 am

They’re no longer socialist. One party, highly nationalistic authoritarian state that quells free speech, jails dissidents, but allows the (highly regulated) private ownership of the means of production?

Textbook definition of Fascism.

stablesort
Reply to  Observer
June 19, 2021 6:37 am

PINO — private in name only

Reply to  Ron Long
June 19, 2021 7:55 am

Whenever someone says renewables are cheaper the interesting question is are the being (1) stupidly ignorant or (2) deliberately deceptive? These are the only two possibilities.

It is like saying that because fresh peaches IN SEASON are cheaper than canned peaches there is no reason to but canned peaches. You will eat no peaches most of the year. With renewables you will get no juice most of the time.

Editor
June 18, 2021 2:11 pm

There are a lot of ways that CO2 and other “greenhouse” gas emissions from energy production could be drastically reduced, while still providing abundant, reliable, affordable energy. Industry is already doing this in many cases.

However, the irrational obsessions with “net zero emissions” and the mythical “energy transition” are laughable.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 18, 2021 2:35 pm

There is absolutely no reason to reduce CO2.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 18, 2021 2:49 pm

The government and the people who finance industry disagree.

John Garrett
Reply to  David Middleton
June 18, 2021 3:00 pm

David Middleton, as you and I both know, a lot of those folk are innumerates, scientific and economic idiots.

The “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change” CONJECTURE is missing something rather important: EVIDENCE.

The climate crackpots have succeeded in using pseudoscience and propaganda to panic the gullible and the uninformed.

Last edited 3 months ago by John Garrett
Reply to  John Garrett
June 18, 2021 3:35 pm

“No bucks, no Buck Rogers.”

Reply to  John Garrett
June 18, 2021 3:42 pm

The “innumerates, scientific and economic idiots,” are what make your stock trade at 10x, rather than 4x EBITDA. They also run the financial institutions that fund RBL (reserve based lending).

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  David Middleton
June 19, 2021 1:24 am

I always thought EBITDA was a word that Latka Gravis, on Taxi, would use.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  David Middleton
June 18, 2021 3:14 pm

Yep – the people who finance industries such as wind and solar know a government cash cow when they see it. Grrrrrrr!!!!!!

Reply to  David Middleton
June 18, 2021 5:34 pm

All these people are still shaking from the deadly experience of January 6 riots. Let’s ban fire extinguishers.

philincalifornia
Reply to  David Middleton
June 18, 2021 6:08 pm

That’s for the most part not true. The government and the people who finance industry agree that there is a reasonTO TALK ABOUT reducing CO2. It’s a trillion dollar industry for Christ’s sake. Actually doing it is a different story requiring fat mouths like AOC and St. Greta the Great to be brought back into line.

Reply to  philincalifornia
June 18, 2021 6:17 pm

That’s funny… Because the Larry Finks and Bill Gates of the world really are truly clueless.

But there actually is money in reducing emissions… And most of it isn’t government largesse. That’s where the market is. Financing the development of a huge oil discovery is a lot more difficult now, than it was just a few years ago. Financing a huge CCS project is relatively easy right now… the huger the better.

Reality doesn’t have to make sense.

philincalifornia
Reply to  David Middleton
June 18, 2021 6:38 pm

Yes, and this is actually one of the fields that I work in and ….

… let’s explore this further tomorrow if you want to.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  David Middleton
June 18, 2021 10:20 pm

G’day David,

“Financing a huge CCS project is relatively easy right now…”

At least after the Real Estate crash of ’08, the banks/lenders had something tangible they could sell to recover some of their investment.

When a solar/windmill/CCS loan is defaulted, all the bank will have is a clean-up job – of almost impossible to recycle materials – and restoration of the site. How many banks are still “too big to fail”?

Last edited 2 months ago by Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  Tombstone Gabby
June 19, 2021 4:23 am

CCS is actually a self-cleaning project.

DipChip
Reply to  David Middleton
June 19, 2021 9:58 am

Reality doesn’t have to make sense until it does.

stablesort
Reply to  David Middleton
June 19, 2021 6:39 am

It is difficult to discern the differences between government and those who finance industry.

Reply to  stablesort
June 19, 2021 9:22 am

It’s easy… Those who finance industry, not only expect to get their money back, they expect to make a large profit.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 19, 2021 8:12 am

Happily what governments say and do are two different things. Little is being done to seriously reduce emissions because it is politically impossible.

Your easy drastic reductions are a well kept secret. I have no idea what you are referring to.

Reply to  David Wojick
June 19, 2021 9:35 am

Switching from coal to natural gas fired generation is the primary reason that CO2 emissions from electricity generation are down to where they were in the 1980’s. Industry is doing that because industry made natural gas prices fall from >$8/mmBtu in 2008 to about $3/mmBtu today.

The 45Q tax credit is currently $50 per tonne of CO2 permanently sequestered. Bipartisan legislation will increase it to $85-120/t depending on which bill passes. The states of Louisiana and Texas have opened state lands and waters for CCS leasing, and both states are in the process of gaining primacy for UIC Class VI injection wells. This business will be huge within a couple of years… Companies are already pursuing leases and applying for Class VII permits (currently from the EPA).

This will result in the build out of CO2 pipelines and ultimately reduce the cost of capture technology. This, coupled with the fact that the CO2 can be used for enhanced oil recovery, might even make it possible to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants by 90% or more.

I don’t think a carbon tax will pass… But the 45Q tax credit has already placed a significant price on CO2 and there’s little doubt that it will be enhanced. There’s enough storage capacity in Miocene reservoirs under the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico for more than 100 years worth of current US emissions from fixed point sources.

Last edited 2 months ago by David Middleton
Reply to  David Middleton
June 19, 2021 9:51 am

The switch began with building 200,000 MW of gas power plants around 2000. That is now fully utilized, while we still burn 600 million tons of coal to make juice. So if you want to build another 250,000 MW of gas plants, plus the pipelines and gas production to feed them, you can. I do not call that easy. Certainly not cheap. $300 billion? Just a guess.

Oh and if we ban fracking then double the cost of juice, without capital cost.

Reply to  David Wojick
June 19, 2021 10:02 am

Also switching from coal to gas is not a drastic reduction in CO2. More like 50%, gas being CH4 so mostly C by weight.

Reply to  David Wojick
June 19, 2021 10:54 am

Natural gas emits about half as much CO2 per Btu as coal does.

2/3 of the reduction in CO2 emissions from electricity generation since the mid-2000’s is due to natural gas replacing coal on a MW per MW basis.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/11/eia-us-co2-emissions-from-electricity-generation-down-to-1980s-levels-frac-on/

This largely happened because industry made natural gas cheap and abundant.

This will continue to happen unless the Harris-Biden Dominion manage to restrict natural gas production and the price shoots through the roof.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 19, 2021 1:08 pm

Fracking made the cost of gas less than half, not “industry” whatever that is. Ban fracking and gas should more than double, driving juice prices way up.

Last I knew CCS took 30% of a power plant’s power. But that was coal. Gas might be a bit cheaper.

Ian McClintock
Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 18, 2021 3:07 pm

And every reason to increase atmospheric levels of CO2, because it is highly beneficial for all plant life and the biota that depend on it, including us.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  David Middleton
June 18, 2021 3:12 pm

Want to know why so much renewable generation is being built in Texas? Read Robert Bryce’s latest piece on massive government subsidies:

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/06/17/why_was_66_billion…because_big_wind_and_big_solar_got_22_billion_in_subsidies_781862.html

THIS is why it is going to cost us Texans nearly $38 BILLION on our utility bills in the near future – the failure to develop reserve capacity in traditional fossil fuel energy sources due to this massive subsidy. It is enough to make a civilized guy like me spit at the politicians such as Rick Perry, who was chiefly responsible for making those subsidies possible.

Reply to  Larry in Texas
June 18, 2021 3:46 pm

It’s a good article. Very little has changed since he wrote Power Hungry over a decade ago.

Although, the CREZ wouldn’t have been created by the state legislature if natural gas hadn’t been so expensive and appeared to be in short supply back in 2003-2008.

Devils_Tower
Reply to  Larry in Texas
June 18, 2021 4:20 pm

What has not sunk in to almost everyone.

Let’s say everyone in Texas has 300% efficient air source heat pump with electric backup or supplemental. Assuming temp is above 40 to 45 f. The idea green way…

The whole state drops to 10 f for a week. You are supposed to shut air source heat pumps off at 30f

The whole states electric use goes up by 3x to 4x almost instantly.

This is close to what happened this last winter.

Some body tell me how to handle this…

Rich Davis
Reply to  Devils_Tower
June 18, 2021 7:13 pm

Freeze in the dark of course.

Tom Johnson
Reply to  Devils_Tower
June 19, 2021 4:25 am

There is no law that says you must turn your air source heat pump off at 30F. They can work at lower temperatures, but often ice over. Mine iced over twice during the week. I used our 70 degree ground water from my well to thaw them out. I kept it trickling to prevent freeze up. I didn’t even have my resistance backup turned on. The electricity demand did not go up 3 to 4 x. We conserved electricity elsewhere.

Another way to ‘handle’ this is to throw out the federal regulators. It was they who demanded that electricity outages be ‘equally’ distributed. That meant they had to shut off the electricity to the very compressors that were providing natural gas to backup generators. This further reduced electricity supply.

I admit that I have a 4WD car, a leftover from my Northern youth. This, along with well remembered icy road driving skills, allowed me to traverse the roads unplowed after the two snow storms. That helped, too.

Devils_Tower
Reply to  Tom Johnson
June 19, 2021 10:57 am

I am up north with geo and supplemental electric and propane. I am well versed on all this.

You really should shut off heat pump at 30. If you are letting it freeze over you will be replacing before long. My thermostats default setting for air source is to turn off heat pump at 30f. Yes I have to use an air source thermostat to control my geo. The honeywell way and it’s a pain.

When I say 4x..

A good air source heat pump will be working at 300% at 40 to 50f.

100% no gain around 30f, the change of 3x

The 4x as you add heat as you go down to 0f especaly with southern style insulation.

You natural gas compressors used to be self sufficient until the green idiots came along.

Not saying air source heat pumps are bad, the system needs to provide an adaquate means to handle a surge like this last year saw in texas. When folks go full electric the green idiots way needs to be flushed.

******************

The future….

Nuclear of some form needs to be made to work, period

There will always need to be emergency gas generators on standby
You see them now at a lot of nuclear plants.

There needs to be efficient biomass ethanol generators.
You may not know it yet, fuel cells are the future.
Do not bet on hydrogen

The new F150 all electric truck is a joke….

If not, back to being cave men will dead cell phones.

Tom Johnson
Reply to  Devils_Tower
June 20, 2021 5:14 am

You must be using different strategy heat pumps than I am using. Though I was in the peak of the storm (sub freezing highs, nights in single digits and two snow storms in 8 days), it is rare for us to get more than one or two nights a year below 30 degrees. Many years we get none. My heat pumps are set up to add resistance heating only when room temperatures drop much below the room setting, regardless of outdoor temperature (which is an optional feature that I don’t even have installed). The heat pump In my discussion did not have the resistance heating connected to power.

These heat pumps also have a defrost cycle, that, under most conditions, can adequately defrost the outdoor heat exchanger with no damage.

You apparently use an outdoor thermostat to turn off your geo(thermal) heat pump at 30 (degrees). That doesn’t make any sense to me. It’ should be getting ground water at temperatures well above freezing. It should be totally insensitive to outdoor temperatures. When I used a geothermal heat pump in Michigan, I made sure it was on in cold weather in order to keep the return line from freezing since it was not buried very deep underground.

Tom Johnson
Reply to  Tom Johnson
June 20, 2021 5:29 am

BTW, I also sized my geothermal system so that it never needed backup heating or cooling. We had an unlimited supply of well water, so I sized it to handle extreme temperatures.

Also, my ‘Southern’ home has far better insulation than my Northern home had.

Devils_Tower
Reply to  Tom Johnson
June 20, 2021 5:44 am

Yes I have geo with ground water loop.

I also have electric and propane for supplemental.

Electric is far more expensive, who knows what the future will bring, look at California.

Controller for air source heat pumps have provisions for an external temp sensor to turn off compressor rather than wasting energy and protection when it drops below 30. The correct way….

Point I am trying to make is what would happen if every one has air source heat pumps and what would happen to utility loads on a cold snap. Disaster like texas…

Reply to  Devils_Tower
June 19, 2021 7:06 am

Blankets.
And cuddle your cat!

Auto

davidmhoffer
Reply to  David Middleton
June 18, 2021 3:16 pm

Industry is already doing this in many cases.

What industry is really doing is a façade (look! I put a solar panel on the roof of my factory! ) or just counting efficiency improvements that reduce energy consumption that they were going to do anyway. Anything to get ESG credits and improve share value, it doesn’t have to actually accomplish anything.

Last edited 2 months ago by davidmhoffer
Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 18, 2021 3:51 pm

Ramping up natural gas production by frac’ing “shale” formations and building natural gas combined cycle power plants are the primary ways that industry has been reducing CO2 emissions.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  David Middleton
June 18, 2021 4:17 pm

That only applies to the oil/gas/energy sector not industry in general. But sure, add it to the list. They would have done that anyway, and the business drivers had nothing to do with CO2.

Last edited 2 months ago by davidmhoffer
Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 18, 2021 4:32 pm

When I referred to industry, I was referring to the energy industries… That said, the expansion of the 45Q tax credit will quickly bring more industries into the GHG emissions reduction business. CCS/CCUS will rapidly expand in Texas and Louisiana over the next few years.

H.R.
Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 18, 2021 7:14 pm

davidmhoffer: “[…] What industry is really doing is a façade (look! I put a solar panel on the roof of my factory! ) or just counting efficiency improvements that reduce energy consumption that they were going to do anyway. […]”
.
.
You got it! I worked in a small factory that set up in an old warehouse. Nice open spaces, set up and lay out your equipment and processes any way you want. The lighting and heating was from the early 1970s.
.
.
We changed out the old 8′ fluorescent fixtures for LED lights and fixtures. We knew it would cut lighting costs quite a bit and the factory was in need of more lighting. We’d save on electricity every month. Cost: about $12,000 but we got a gubbmint ‘Green’ rebate check for $5,000.

We were going to do that anyhow.
.
.
We changed out the old gas heaters to Energy Star models. The old ones were hard to keep running and spare parts were scarce. The new ones were about $4,000 each and we got a ‘Green’ rebate of $1,000 each to do that.

We were going to replace them anyhow.
.
.
We replaced our old tar and gravel flat roof with an insulated, white rubber roof. The old roof leaked like a sieve and had no insulation. We got a check for replacing the roof, too, though I don’t know cost and incentive amount as that project wasn’t mine.

We were going to replace the roof anyhow.
.
.
It is amazing how much money the government throws at companies for things that they are going to do anyhow. The incentives can change the timing a bit, but companies are always looking to cut energy costs.

And if solar or a whirligig will cut energy costs, you can bet companies will add them.***
.
.
.
*** Note the small number of solar panels and whirligigs at most manufacturing plants. Limited usefulness and little to no payback, unlike the other things I mentioned.

A Cross
Reply to  David Middleton
June 18, 2021 7:14 pm

RMIT AU scientists claims to turn CO2 to coal with electrified liquid metals in electrolyte solution. Carbon flakes could be usable instead of just burying.

Reply to  A Cross
June 19, 2021 4:32 am

Hopefully, CCUS applications like this will become more economically viable. Right now, in the US, the 45Q tax credit is $50/t for permanent disposal (CCS) and $35/t for enhanced oil recovery (CCUS). Congress will very likely increase the CCS tax credit to $85-120/t in the near future. The 45Q tax credit has very broad bipartisan support.

I would much prefer to use the CO2 for EOR, however in most cases, permanent disposal is far more economically viable, particularly offshore, where CCS is about to become a very big thing.

TEWS_Pilot
June 18, 2021 2:13 pm

The globalist elite never stop pushing their multi-faceted agenda……CLIMATE LOCKDOWNS: Globalist Elite Calling For Extreme Measures To Tackle ‘Climate Change’
https://nationalfile.com/climate-lockdown-globalist-elite-call-for-extreme-measures-to-tackle-climate-change/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2021/03/03/report-world-needs-equivalent-of-pandemic-lockdown-every-two-years-to-meet-paris-carbon-emission-goals/

The globalist elite are now calling for the “equivalent of a coronavirus-pandemic-scale lockdown once every two years” to tackle climate change…
“Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling,” according to a number of various reports.

Pflashgordon
June 18, 2021 2:18 pm

Remarkably, the word “nuclear” never appears.Must be a social faux pas among the greenies. Nuclear power probably makes up the majority of the “others” category, which would suggest that allegedly “emissions free” (snort) so-called “modern renewables” are displacing truly CO2 emissions free nuclear power. Impressive (not).

Reply to  Pflashgordon
June 18, 2021 3:54 pm

The clearest indication that climate change isn’t even a significant problem. If it was the crisis that they claim it is, they would be demanding the construction of more nuclear power plants.

Observer
Reply to  Pflashgordon
June 19, 2021 7:22 am

Their goal is to destroy industrial civilisation, not make it “cleaner”.

And nuclear isn’t carbon neutral, not by a long shot. The resources required to get a nuclear reactor up and running are staggering.

Joseph Zorzin
June 18, 2021 2:22 pm

“As we all know, the most important task currently facing the world is the elimination of carbon emissions from energy consumption in order to save the planet from the existential crisis of climate disruption.”

Well, I’m waiting to see the upcomming report on UFOs. Will it be the “disclosure” the UFO community has been hoping for? Probably not. But it might hint at the truth more than previously. If we finally get that disclosure- that UFOs are real – this will be news far more significant than a trivial warming of the planet. If the aliens have arrived, they really could toast the planet. Now that I’ve just watched all of the UFO “documentaries” on several streaming channels, I’m ready to greet some aliens. I’m just hoping they’re better looking than portrayed in these documentaries. 🙂

Maybe they’ll tell us that the climate “crisis” is bullshit- then we can avoid spending trillions on it and get back to spending our money on things we really want and need.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 18, 2021 5:36 pm

Will they be green?

Observer
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 19, 2021 7:23 am

With a capital “G”!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 18, 2021 7:22 pm

Inflation edging out of control, border completely out of control, China, Russia, and Iran in open contempt of America. Race relations worse than any time in my lifetime…

SQUIRREL!!!!
Look at these UFO pictures

Pay no attention to the real world please.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 19, 2021 3:06 am

You must be rather young if race relations are the worse. They were far worse in the ‘ 60s. Inflation was far worse under Carter. China, Russia, Iran in open contempt of America? What’s new with that? Maybe you’ll live long enough to see that UFOs are real. I’m not saying they are- but they might be and if so it’s a good idea to contemplate what will happen when they land in your front lawn. I saw a UFO in the ’80s- one of the many sightings in the lower Hudson River Valley area. I hope they’re real- that’ll get us off the topic of “carbon pollution”.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 19, 2021 5:21 pm

In the 60’s we had Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. preaching peace and reconciliation, judging people by the content of their characters rather than the color of their skin. Today we have hard-core racism being promoted and open hatred of white people for being white. That’s much worse in my book.

My point is that the only reason the Dementia Zhou Administration and the propaganda media are pushing the ridiculous UFO stories is to distract from the dramatic negative changes in just about everything in the past 6 months.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 20, 2021 2:39 am

Millions of people have seen UFOs and want to understand what they saw- so I think they’re the ones seeking “disclosure”- not the Dems or the media, though of course it makes for appealing stories. After all, it may very well be the case that we are being visited. But the report to be issued soon will of course be a cover up.

Regarding racism- strange, but I’ve noticed that about 2/3 of the people in TV advertisements are NOT white.

Observer
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 19, 2021 7:23 am

Russia and Iran are no threat to the average American.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Observer
June 20, 2021 2:41 am

The EU has several times the population and economy of Russia. Can’t it defned itself without American help? Iran is only a threat to Israel and it can certainly defend itself.

John McDonnell
June 18, 2021 2:26 pm

Whoa! In that ten year period fossil fuels declined all the way from 80.3% to 80.2% of TFEC.

Surprise, Surprise. Maybe if all of the people pushing renewables had put their money into new Nuclear power plants or Nuclear Fusion research then the fossil fuel percentage might have actually gone down. And our energy grid would be more stable.

Reply to  John McDonnell
June 18, 2021 2:36 pm

And green plants start starving

Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 18, 2021 3:48 pm

CO2 would have to drop below ~200 ppm for an extended period of time for C3 plant starvation to become a problem.

AndyHce
Reply to  John McDonnell
June 18, 2021 5:09 pm

That is the half full, half empty idiocy.
“the total amount of fossil fuels consumed went up dramatically … an increase of close to 20%”
while the fossil fuel contribution to total energy consumption went down by 0.1%

Rick C
Reply to  John McDonnell
June 18, 2021 5:44 pm

Obviously what they’ve been doing isn’t working. The answer is, of course, to do a lot more of the same stuff. That is always the solution to all problems, at least the way liberals/progressives see it.

Observer
Reply to  John McDonnell
June 19, 2021 7:25 am

Far too much money has been wasted on fusion already.

Mr.
June 18, 2021 2:40 pm

Reports such as these are evidence that Baghdad Bob (aka Comical Ali) doesn’t know just how widespread a movement he inspired with his “ignore reality” reporting formula, as he denied US military arrival in Baghdad as the tanks rolled past behind him.

markl
June 18, 2021 2:52 pm

After all the wind turbines and solar panels installed they still don’t produce enough energy to be counted on their own? How many $ trillions spent with little to be counted except noise, visual blight, wildlife and their habitat destruction?

Christopher Hanley
June 18, 2021 2:56 pm

The figures for biomass apparently do not include the energy used by about 2.5 billion people who rely on solid biomass, wood peat animal dung etc., for household energy needs.
Traditional biomass represents about 10% of total global energy consumption, what the ‘John Kerrys’ of this world want is for those 2.5 billion people to replace their traditional fuels with wind and solar instead of coal gas oil 🤣.

Rud Istvan
June 18, 2021 3:02 pm

Was curious about REN21. Went there and checked out ‘who we are’. All the usual suspects, with the governing ‘Secretariat’ based at UN Environment in Paris—of course.

Rana, you are waking up to the bitter reality that the climate crisis you fear is a scientific hoax, because observational ECS is only about 1.7C when Schellnhuber assured you 2C was the fatal tipping point. The climate models you base your future fears on run observationally hot, and none of your “community’s” (RAN21 words) fearful predictions have come true in now over 40 years. NONE. NOT ONE! No sea level rise acceleration. No disappeared Arctic summer sea ice. Polar bears thriving—they never relied on summer sea ice in the first place, that was just another scary scientific lie. No increase in weather extremes. No South Pacific Islander climate refugees. Instead, we find Earth is greening rather than browning (as you feared) as CO2 increases.

Now, your bitter realization is actually a good thing, because none of your proposed solutions (your members advocate mainly wind and solar, never nuclear) ‘work’. They are expensive (only built with massive subsidies), intermittent, and destabilizing since they provide no grid inertia. As places like California, UK, and Germany are discovering, the more your ‘modern renewables’ penetrate the grid, the shakier the grid and the more expensive it’s electricity both become.

John Garrett
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 18, 2021 3:16 pm

The “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change” CONJECTURE is, as Manhattan Contrarian has correctly labeled it:

“THE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC FRAUD OF ALL TIME“.

Jim Clarke
June 18, 2021 3:29 pm

“As we all know, the most important task currently facing the world is the elimination of carbon emissions from energy consumption in order to save the planet from the existential crisis of climate disruption.”

Actually, and scientifically, there is almost nothing LESS important than that, unless you are trying to destroy Western Civilization and enslave the majority of the human race into servitude to your new world order. If that is your goal, then reducing carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is very important, not for the sake of the climate, but for the sake of your tyrannical power trip. Otherwise, it is just an extraordinarily stupid and counterproductive thing to be focused on.

Neville
June 18, 2021 3:50 pm

The Solar and Wind RUINABLES are TOXIC, UNRELIABLE disasters and should be abandoned ASAP and replaced with new Nuclear GEN 4 or smaller modular units or more gas.
The S&W TOXIC disasters wreck the environment ABOVE and BELOW the ground EVERY 20 YEARS.
When will these donkeys WAKE UP???
Just remove the poor, long suffering taxpayer subsidies for S&W and these environmental landfill disasters will quickly disappear.
Wasting endless trillions $ on this delusional nonsense will not change the climate by 2050 or 2100 and beyond.

Philip
June 18, 2021 3:59 pm

Good luck decarbonizing a carbon based universe. 🤣

[More than 75% of the 118 interstellar and circumstellar molecules identified to date are Carbon bearing molecules, and one component of interstellar (IS) dust is carbonaceous. The cosmic evolution of Carbon from the interstellar medium (ISM) into protoplanetary disks and planetesimals, and finally onto habitable bodies is intrinsic to the study of the origin of life.]
ScienceMag.org
Science-18 Dec 1998


Observer
Reply to  Philip
June 19, 2021 7:30 am

It’s almost as if these people hate life itself.

Philip
Reply to  Observer
June 19, 2021 9:08 am

Some, certainly among the humans are the problem crowd, exhibit the self-loathing of those suffering from Narcisstic Personality Disorder. The need to lie and be seen as perfect is because truly Narcissists loathe themselves and think of themselves as defective. You find these people in many verbally and physically violent, groups. CAGW activism, Antifa, BLM.

Neville
June 18, 2021 4:06 pm

And everyone should watch Dr Rosling’s BBC “200 countries in 200 years” DATA video about the REAL planet and start to WAKE UP.
Our poorest continent Africa has increased their population by 1000 million people since 1970 and their life expectancy has increased by 17 as well over the last 50 years. DUH???
Donkey Biden’s EXISTENTIAL threat is just more BS and fraud. And wasting trillions $ on this idiocy will achieve ZIP.

June 18, 2021 4:16 pm

The simple fact of the matter is that intermittent energy, subsidised and mandated, can displace coal but can’t replace it.

https://www.riteon.org.au/netzero-casualties/#217

Not enough people realise that because there is still enough conventional power to get by most of the time. Just allow another year or two!

Peter K
June 18, 2021 4:19 pm

Here is a little gem, that I found at the bottom of a climate change article, by an ABC journalist.

“This story was supported by a climate story grant under the Australia Pacific Climate Partnership, funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade”.

It’s any wonder that climate change is getting worse. . sarc.

Neville
June 18, 2021 4:25 pm

Here’s NOAA’s co2 decadal mean growth rate since 1960.
WAKEY, WAKEY for the Biden donkey should be the highest priority for his so called scientific advisers.But can they understand the graph?
Check out the graph for our wonderful GREENING planet’s co2 data, every ten years since 1960.

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

gringojay
June 18, 2021 5:04 pm

I had some parts left over from a do-it-yourself kit to build an audio amplifier, so used those to make a climate amplifier. But am very frustrated I can’t get rid of white vapor coming out of the audio amplifier, and I can’t get rid of the ground loop noise coming out of the climate amplifier. If I ever get another US $1,400 direct deposited into my bank account from the Big Guy Biden somebody remind me not to spend it doing anything like this again.

778CFBCE-6E43-42FF-986F-4980A612A110.png
Reply to  gringojay
June 18, 2021 6:20 pm

Now that’s funny!

9253c5b2e9520394d06ef32b9764c42b71939dc83beca8333814a4bbed6265ab.jpg
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  gringojay
June 18, 2021 8:02 pm

Well, if that white vapor coming out works like black smoke, it is what makes it run. Because anytime an electronic component loses its black smoke it stops working!

Bruce of Newcastle
June 18, 2021 6:59 pm

“The Inexorable March Toward Zero Brain Cells.”

There, I fixes it.

Last edited 2 months ago by Bruce of Newcastle
Vincent
June 18, 2021 7:56 pm

Fossil fuels are currently a reliable and essential source of energy. However, in a future scenario where the entire world population achieves a minimum standard of living equivalent to the current, average, European standard, and the more developed countries continue to increase that standard and their prosperity, the use of fossil fuels would inevitably escalate, causing yet more pollution and smog which affects people’s health.

Nuclear power is the obvious alternative. As fossil fuels gradually become more scarce and expensive, due to the world economy booming, nuclear power could fill the demand.
But, here’s the problem, as I see it.

(1) Whilst modern technology and advanced emission controls can be used to construct fossil fuel plants with negligible emission (excluding CO2), this adds to the expense of construction. In an ideal world with no corruption, this wouldn’t be a problem because the increased cost of construction, in order to virtually eliminate harmful emissions, would be more than offset by the better health of city dwellers and the reduction of medical costs. Unfortunately, the world is not free of corruption, or putting corporate interests ahead of the general welfare of the population.

(2) Because of this wide-spread corruption, and/or dominance of corporate profits, nuclear power would not be a safe option in many countries. The Fukushima disaster is the most glaring, recent example of the risks. Imagine a world with several thousand nuclear power plants in operation. How often would there be a disaster resulting in significant deaths and widespread contamination of the environment?

Creating a scare about the effects of CO2 emissions might be the best option for a safer and cleaner future. The changeover to a new source of energy, is obviously going to be expensive, with many problems and obstacles along the way. However, the eventual outcome, as technology progresses, might be better than a full reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Christopher Hanley
Reply to  Vincent
June 18, 2021 9:10 pm

According to Wiki there are 455 nuclear electricity plants currently operating safely in thirty countries.
‘About 100 power reactors with a total gross capacity of about 110,000 MWe are on order or planned, and over 300 more are proposed’.
The idea of ‘creating a scare’ is an extraordinarily arrogant attitude towards people as if they were children, they are not (journalists excepted).
What is this ‘new source of energy’ that is expected to replace fossil and nuclear?

Last edited 2 months ago by Christopher Hanley
Leo Smith
Reply to  Christopher Hanley
June 19, 2021 1:10 am

What is this ‘new source of energy’ that is expected to replace fossil and nuclear?

Unicorn Farts, Pixie Dust and batteries made out of Pure Green Unobtanium.

PCman999
Reply to  Christopher Hanley
June 19, 2021 1:23 am

It won’t be fusion any time soon! And certainly not with tritium at $30,000/gram!

Observer
Reply to  PCman999
June 19, 2021 7:38 am

Fusion is the energy of the future!

And always will be…

Observer
Reply to  Christopher Hanley
June 19, 2021 7:37 am

Nonetheless, unless they become a lot more idiot-proof, I don’t want nuclear power plants all over Africa.

Not because I think Africans are idiots, but because most of their polities are highly corrupt and politically unstable. Imagine nuke plants being abandoned in the middle of a civil war, and then one of the cooling ponds springing a leak…

Vincent
Reply to  Christopher Hanley
June 19, 2021 8:18 am

Most of those reactors are in developed countries, with the USA having the largest number (93), and France having the 2nd highest number of 56, although in terms of population size France has the highest number per capita.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/267158/number-of-nuclear-reactors-in-operation-by-country/

The percentage of electricity generated from nuclear reactors, world-wide, is just 10%, so it would take 4,550 reactors to meet the current demand for electricity, and many more to meet future demands.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Vincent
June 19, 2021 1:08 am

What Fukushima ‘disaster’?
The death of no one from nuclear power, in a tsunami that killed 20,000?
‘Contamination levels’ less than an afternoon’s walk on Dartmoor, UK?

haytor.jpg
Vincent
Reply to  Leo Smith
June 19, 2021 7:18 am

I presume you’re joking. Whilst it appears to be true that there is no confirmed evidence of deaths or cancer diseases that have resulted directly from the nuclear radiation released during the accident, that is probably due to the rapid evacuation of all residents from the area surrounding the nuclear reactor. As the cooling of the reactors failed on the first day, evacuations were progressively ordered, due to uncertainty about what was happening inside the reactors and the possible effects.

However, the later environmental contamination was significant and widespread. The following recent article addresses the problems and cost of cleaning up just the immediate area where the power plant is situated. The cost over a period of 30 years into the future, is estimated to be $76 billion.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/why-cleaning-fukushima-s-damaged-reactors-will-take-another-30-years

“We’re still just very near the starting line” for cleaning up after the meltdowns and explosions triggered by the natural disasters, Fukushima prefecture Governor Masao Uchibori said at a 17 February press briefing.
The plant owner, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), envisions roughly 30 more years of work to retrieve undamaged fuel, remove resolidified melted fuel debris, disassemble the reactors, and dispose of contaminated cooling water. The fuel debris and contaminated water pose especially thorny problems that could threaten that timetable. The government puts the cost of decommissioning the four reactors at 8 trillion yen ($76 billion); but the Japan Center for Economic Research, a think tank, estimates the bill could be much more.”

This next article provides a good overview of the disaster and addresses the estimated total cost of cleaning up the surrounding environment and agricultural land, as well as the decommissioning of the nuclear reactor. That total estimated cost ranges between $315 and $728 billion.

https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/White-2021-Fukushima10-BackgroundBriefing.pdf

“In a report released 7 March 2019, the Japan Center for Economic Research estimated that the total cost of the accident, including compensation, decontamination and decommissioning, could reach between Yen 35 trillion and 81 trillion yen (US$315 billion and US$728 billion) depending on the decommissioning scenario, compared with the government’s estimate of about 22 trillion yen.”

Vincent Causey
June 19, 2021 12:22 am

You canna change the laws of physics, captain.

michel
June 19, 2021 3:28 am

The truly insane thing about the Green movement in the West is that it doesn’t seem to realize that those doing 75% of current emissions, which are also those increasing their emissions without a care, just don’t believe there is a climate problem or emergency. They have no intention of lowering their emissions, in fact they plan on doing things which will carry on increasing them.

So the whole Green agenda is a complete fantasy. Even if fully implemented it would have no effect, it would not lower global emissions and would have little or no effect on climate.

Its called being in denial.

June 19, 2021 7:04 am

First they say this: “[R]enewable energy saw a record increase of new power capacity in 2020 globally and was the only source of electricity generation to experience a net increase in total capacity.” Then they say coal capacity increased. Curious.

Also fossil fuel use must have increased tremendously if it only lost a tenth percent share in ten years.

James F. Evans
June 19, 2021 8:27 am

“net zero carbon emission”

Equals rationing.

Communists love rationing because POLITICS decides who gets what and how much.

Communists love to make everything political.

spock
June 25, 2021 3:00 am

What the world needs is the cow fart stopper…works with humans, too! If it will save just one polar bear it will be worth it.

cow fart stopper.jpg
%d bloggers like this: