USA Energy Trends


JULY 2, 2021

By Paul Homewood

Joe Biden has pledged to totally decarbonise the US electricity system by 2035, and to cut emissions by 50% from 2005 levels by 2030. But how does this stack up against what has actually been happening since 2005?

Let’s start by looking at emissions of carbon dioxide:


Between 2005 and 2019, emissions fell by 15%. To hit Biden’s target would need a further cut of 41% from 2019 levels. Yet during Obama’s eight year tenure, he only managed to cut them by 11%.

Meanwhile primary energy consumption is on the rise again, and is back to 2008 levels.


When we look at the energy mix, we find that renewable energy only provide for 6% of US energy consumption, a figure which has barely doubled since Obama took office, despite the billions in subsidies thrown at it.


Indeed, the biggest change in the mix has been the switch from coal to gas. Since 2005, coal consumption has declined by 11.5 EJ a yea, whilst that of natural gas has increased by 9.1 EJ. It would appear that it is this switch that has been mostly responsible for emissions cuts. [If anybody would like to do the calculations, I would be grateful!]

What all of this is saying, of course, is that the chances of Biden hitting his 50% emissions cut by 2030 are almost non-existent.

As for the power sector, fossil fuels still account for 60% of generation, with reliable generation from nuclear and hydro adding another 20% and 7% respectively. In contrast, wind and solar stand at a pitiful 11%. It seems unlikely that much nuclear capacity will be left by 2030, given its age.


Quite how Biden proposes to replace that 80% currently produced by fossil fuels and nuclear with renewable energy within the next 15 years, he refuses to say.

4.6 19 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 3, 2021 6:42 am

Not only can they not get there from here, they are basically going nowhere:

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Wojick
July 3, 2021 1:22 pm

I’m starting to see a lot of articles questioning the feasibilty of windmills to power the grid, and questions are being raised about the resources required to build all these windmills and electric cars. And it’s not just climate change skeptics doing the questioning.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 4, 2021 5:37 am

How much fossil fuel does it cost to produce windmills and solar panels? Do they even recover that amount of fossil fuel energy expended to produce them?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  iflyjetzzz
July 4, 2021 6:11 am

Well, according to the World Coal Association you need some 260 tonnes of steel per typical wind turbine which requires 170 tonnes of coking coal to produce it.

They also note that the need for coal in industrial processes has doubled since the year 2000.

Coal is also the most widely used source of energy in the manufacture of cement, prodigious quantities of which are also needed for each turbine.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  iflyjetzzz
July 4, 2021 7:00 am

Coke (processed coal) is needed for the production of elemental silicon from silicon dioxide (i.e. glass). Refinement, purification, and crystal growing into silicon wafers are also high temperature processes.

Barnes Moore
Reply to  iflyjetzzz
July 4, 2021 7:06 am

To get to a 100% wind/solar driven economy means that wind and solar would need to generate sufficient energy to reproduce themselves – from powering the heavy equipment required to mine, haul, and process raw materials prior to shipment to a manufacturing facility, transport processed raw materials to a manufacturing facility, powering the manufacturing process, transport finished components, site preparation, on-site assembly, on-going maintenance, ultimate decommissioning and disposal. You would also need to factor in how much additional capacity would be required to keep the massive battery banks fully charged to cover for those times with no wind/solar as well as account for all the same factors re: mining/manufacturing, etc. for batteries as for unreliables. Plus all the new infrastructure that would be required for a new grid. The level of ignorance around all this is in a word, breathtaking.

Richard (the cynical one)
July 3, 2021 6:47 am

It’s not that Biden knows and refuses to say. It’s that he knows he can’t and has to not admit that. The only way the house of cards can remain standing is if the illusion of stability is undisturbed by a breath of truth.

July 3, 2021 6:54 am

Quite how Biden proposes to replace that 80% currently produced by fossil fuels and nuclear with renewable energy within the next 15 years, he refuses to say.

Doesn’t BIG infrastructure mean undersea transmission interconnectors to Asia?
Five Asian countries account for 80% of new coal power investment | Coal | The Guardian
That way the US gets to sell excess solar and wind power to Asia for carbon credits so Murricans can afford their solar panels and windmills and get backup while saving the planet. Hey it works for South Australia interconnecting to eastern State coal power.

Reply to  observa
July 3, 2021 8:15 am

PS: My apologies to griff et al for forgetting about the zero emissions Shanghai Teslas that can be had with carbon credit with these innovative Green New Deals.

Reply to  observa
July 3, 2021 8:37 am

Japan and Vietnam have essentially ended coal power expansion these last 12 months, so really it is just 3 nations… with Bangladesh, the Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia announcing plans to cut up to 62GW of planned coal power GEM researchers estimate that these closures would leave 25.2GW of coal power capacity remaining in pre-construction phase in the four countries – a massive 80 per cent reduction from the 125.5GW that was planned there just five years ago, in 2015.

Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 9:06 am


can we have a link please to those assertions?


Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 9:19 am

Like in the USA, natural gas, specifically LNG, is the reason Asian countries like Japan can now eliminate plans for coal fired generation. The Timor Sea gas fields are still largely untouched and awaiting exploration and development of reserves there.
Already the largest floating production platform in the world is anchored in the Timor Sea and sends high pressure gas via 900 km undersea pipeline to Darwin where it is liquefied and put on big LNG tankers for Japan and South Korea.

Not an elimination of fossil fuels by any means, merely just a shift, as is happening in the US power generation sector where cheaper nat gas is slowly replacing coal.

Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 9:43 am


Japan currently gets 26% of their energy from coal, 40% from oil, and 21% fron natural gas. That’s 87% from fossil fuels. They get a further 7% from nuclear and hydro leaving only 6% for wind, solar, biomass, and all other renewables. Hardly a “green” utopia. You’ve been schooled on this before, why do you persist in trying to falsely mislead people into believing that Japan is making advances in cutting CO2 emissions?

Reply to  meab
July 3, 2021 10:05 am

Natural gas is not a fossil fuel. If dependent on dead life to form then we would have a hard time explaining why it is found on planets and moons beyond the asteroid belt.

It is natural gas as it forms in nature naturally.

Reply to  mkelly
July 3, 2021 11:00 am

That methane exists on other planets, in no way shape, or form, constitutes proof that the methane on earth came from the same sources.
Any methane that came to the earth with early comets and asteroids would have been destroyed by the temperatures present at the time.
If any methane managed to survive the temperatures, it would have been forced to the surface because it is orders of magnitude lighter than the rocks and metal also present in the mantle and core. The idea that ancient methane would still be present in the mantle simply doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Last edited 1 year ago by MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
July 3, 2021 12:32 pm

I don’t intend to get in a contest about a topic with which I have very little background but will point out that it is accepted that methane is produced abiotically in the oceans. Perhaps not in the quantities that explain its worldwide abundance but at least it is evident that it isn’t all fossil fuel and certainly no one can produce evidence that process might not be major source.

Reply to  mkelly
July 3, 2021 1:49 pm

Although you are arguing meaningless semantics, your point is correct. It has even been stated that ancient carbonates, under heat and pressure and with water present, can form CH4. And probably account for some Calcium sulfate deposits with the methane diffused away. Salt beds are trapping, gypsum less so.

Reply to  mkelly
July 4, 2021 5:43 am

So … are you saying that natural gas should be considered ‘green’ energy? This is certainly news to me.

Rich Davis
Reply to  mkelly
July 4, 2021 1:59 pm

Which planet or asteroid has over 20% oxygen in its atmosphere?

What do you suppose happens to methane in an oxygen-rich atmosphere?

Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 9:51 am

Griff- I live in Hanoi, Vietnam and Vietnam intends to double power production by 2030. The Power Master Plan currently signed off on by the government includes scores of new thermal plants. I don’t know where you’re getting your information but I’d look for a more reliable source. As an aside, car ownership is growing at nothing short of breakneck speed here in Vietnam. I actually saw my first EV yesterday. Sarc.

Reply to  Marc
July 3, 2021 9:28 pm

Griff has a habit of making things up out of the air and rarely comes back to answer questions.

He is a drive by artist, it is why he is in Moderation.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 11:32 am

So they’re still growing coal power capacity, just not growing it as much? Is that the good news you’re sharing?

Alan M
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 6:21 pm
Reply to  Alan M
July 4, 2021 5:51 am

Thank goodness there are still some countries that will continue to free trapped carbon. I look forward to seeing CO2 levels rise during my lifetime … the greening of the earth and higher agricultural production are great to witness.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
July 4, 2021 6:26 am

The World Coal Association say that coal is the world’s largest single source of electricity and is set to still contribute 22% of electricity in 2040.

In South East Asia they say coal will fuel 39% of electricity in 2040.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dave Andrews
Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 4, 2021 9:56 am

You seem to have missed BobM’s question.

Would you prefer living in 1700 to 1775 when CO2 was so benign, or this terrible time of “dangerous” CO2, 1950-2025?

Intelligent Dasein
July 3, 2021 7:17 am

What a horribly written article. Doesn’t anyone edit anything anymore?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Intelligent Dasein
July 3, 2021 10:24 am

Too many empty vessel trolls these days. At least name one statement you are referring to. These increasing empty strikes actually reflect anxiety that things are falling apart on the GND front.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Intelligent Dasein
July 4, 2021 2:19 pm

A couple of minor typos, what are you talking about?

Carlo, Monte
July 3, 2021 7:22 am

The first two graphs will look very different replotted with the y-axis start points at zero — mostly flat.

Ken Pollock
July 3, 2021 7:22 am

Maybe the President is confused, like Christiana Figueres, the power behind the Paris climate accords. On page 55 of her book “The Future We Choose” she writes “already more than 50% of the energy in the UK comes from clean power”. She meant electricity, of course, and why should one expect someone in such a respected position to know the difference? In reality, that 50% was about 6.8% and then only for a few summer months…
Do we have any chance of a decent future, if our leaders can’t do maths, and believe hype and not scientific fact? Fortunately WUWT, and the GWPF will keep on speaking the truth to power, and maybe one day someone will take notice…

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Ken Pollock
July 3, 2021 8:06 am

Christiana Figueres is not going senile like Biden but has made as ludicrous statements as he has. One would expect someone with a masters degree from the London School of Economics to be able to reason logically – but it seems the standards at the LSE and universities today are dismal in this regard.

Reply to  Ken Pollock
July 3, 2021 8:35 am

Hmm… I think we’re at 42% renewable plus nuclear, electricity wise…

Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 9:13 am

In the UK the vast majority of our renewables comes from burning wood and other organic waste material so is hardly planet friendly

alastair gray
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 9:18 am

On a good day maybe
on a bad day its pretty close to zero Today it is 34%of electricity generation which is about one sixth of our total energy requirement

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 9:22 am

nuclear power is headed for the cliff as no new reactors are being planned in the US or UK It takes at least 20 years from start planning to generators turning to bring just one plant on-line.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 3, 2021 3:28 pm

20 years is for a FOAK plant.

Sadly most FOAK plants are being built in China.

At this point no first world utility company will accept the risks and limitations of Gen III nuclear power. The good news is Gen IV nuclear is progressing to full scale demonstration this decade.

Reply to  Harrywr2
July 4, 2021 10:00 am

It doesn’t matter if the green cabal can tie up any paperwork with lawsuits indefinitely. To actually move forward with nuclear there needs to be a law limiting them as a national security issue.

Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 11:02 am

I see griff still doesn’t know the difference between nameplate power and actual power production.

Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 4:09 pm

Gas, then Nuclear carry the electricity production for the UK , griff.

They are what you depend on

But I’m guessing you know that, but can’t bring yourself to say it.

Last edited 1 year ago by clarence.t
Reply to  clarence.t
July 4, 2021 3:45 am

And continental interconnectors which provide around 10%.

Steve Case
July 3, 2021 7:30 am

What all of this is saying, of course, is that the chances of Biden hitting his 50% emissions cut by 2030 are almost non-existent.

The goal post will be moved by then. Unless the Marxists achieve the world domination that they have apparently claimed is their birth right for the 21st century. And then Global Warming will be forgotten and the news will be filled with stories about enemies of the state being rounded up and sent to reeducation camps if they’re lucky.

Reply to  Steve Case
July 3, 2021 8:34 am

Except there aren’t any plotting Marxists, unless you count the Chinese… and frankly I think they are just a touch capitalist…

Steve Case
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 9:01 am

Have you heard of the Great Reset?

You can google “Klaus Schwab own nothing be happy” and make up your own mind what Schwab and his organization is all about.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 9:23 am

Uighurs and Hong Kong residents would not agree.

Clinton Muennich
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 9:24 am

My primary issue with the claim that the CCP is capitalist in any way is the need to ignore what is actually occurring in their economy. A better claim would be national socialist. The state controls the economy and is the majority owner of businesses. There is no reality of private ownership either. No condition for a free market exists within China.

Additionally, what growth has occurred in China is the result of theft and the reliance on sleeve labor. Neither of those actions would be considered ethical.

Reply to  Clinton Muennich
July 3, 2021 11:04 am

According to the Marxists I have talked to, anything that isn’t pure communism, is some flavor of capitalism. And pure communism has never been achieved.

Last edited 1 year ago by MarkW
Reply to  Clinton Muennich
July 3, 2021 8:06 pm

The free market is what they are getting rid of in Hong Kong – and soon HK will just be another government controlled province of China, no different from the rest of China.

Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 4:13 pm

“Except there aren’t any plotting Marxists,”

Yet there you are ! You and your far-left carers/handlers

Last edited 1 year ago by clarence.t
Reply to  griff
July 4, 2021 12:53 am

Idiot. BLM are self confessed Marxists

July 3, 2021 7:35 am

Joey will be long gone in 15 years…but if you don’t listen to ‘im….the Apocalypse will come….a Hot wind will blow….Joey should put Hunter Biden out front on this one because it’s an ugly thing.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Anti-griff
July 3, 2021 9:25 am

Kamala will be the scape goat. Like with the border disaster, she’s being set up to to take the blame and she knows it.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 3, 2021 9:49 am

The real problem is Biden has declining mental issues and may reach the tipping point sooner than later. When this happens all the Biden people will go from the inside to the outside in the blink of an eye, so if anyone doesn’t think there is a power struggle going on right now between the two camps they are living in a vacuum.

Biden’s group can shift the blame all they want, but if they can’t keep Joe halfway coherent with his intermittent brushes with the public it will all become moot.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  rbabcock
July 3, 2021 1:33 pm

I hope Biden hangs in there because we definitely don’t want Harris as our president. She’s a dictator hiding behind a smile.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 3, 2021 9:12 pm

Cackling Kamala can’t even assemble a functional staff, totally incompetent.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 4, 2021 2:54 pm

I think they’ll keep his corpse warm at least until next November for the midterms, no matter how much he drools in his pudding.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 3, 2021 12:56 pm

…..and deserves it too.

July 3, 2021 7:40 am

Biden nor anyone associated with him knows anything about science or climatology. proven over and over again come-on-man

Reply to  Jim
July 3, 2021 8:45 am

-reading history nothing has changed since written records began, politicians are still the most ignorant, the population is still to stupid to see right from wrong but before social media took over the thinking process the world stumbled we have entered a new orbit of governance where the few control the many it is time for a new world war and then if there is anybody left ( God help this planet if it is only politicians) there maybe a chance to start again.

Reply to  Jim
July 3, 2021 8:09 pm

I wish some reporter would ask Biden if CO2 is pollution, and approximately what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 (or Carbon as they like to call it)!

July 3, 2021 7:57 am

The most important fact about today’s environmental movement, and the clean energy exploitations this book explores is that the United States of America, the largest economy in the history of mankind, representing 4 percent of the world’s population (330 million vs 7.8 billion) could literally shut down, and cease to exist, and the opposite of what you have been told and believe will take place.

Simply put, in the United States, every person, animal, or anything that causes emissions to harmfully rise could vanish off the face of the earth; or even die off, and global emissions will still explode in the coming years and decades ahead over the population and economic growth of China, India, and Africa.

The book “Clean Energy Exploitations” helps citizens attain a better understanding that just for the opportunity to generate intermittent electricity that is dependent on favorable weather conditions, the wealthier and healthier countries like Germany, Australia, Britain, and America continue to exploit the most vulnerable people and environments of the world today.

Reply to  Ronald Stein
July 3, 2021 8:33 am

There are 500 million or so people in the EU and UK, with 4 of the world’s top ten economies.

They aren’t having any issues from going renewable.

Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 8:51 am

The world’s most expensive (unnecessarily) energy can be found in the EU area….energy cost weighs most heavily on lower incomes….want a vigorous economy?….low cost energy is the key. MSRs can provide that low cost abundant energy for an energy secure future.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 9:28 am

France’s nuclear power is saving everyone’s butt in the UK and EU with interconnects.
Putin is laughing his butt off right now once Germany becomes dependent on Nordstream2 gas.

Last edited 1 year ago by Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 3, 2021 11:07 am

France’s nukes, and Poland’s coal plants.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 4, 2021 6:50 am

There are already fears that this winter will see a huge rise in heating bills in Europe as prices of gas on the Dutch gas market, the most important gas trading hub in Europe have reached a record high.

It appears that Russia’s Gazprom is restricting exports to Europe to force a decision on Nordstream 2.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 9:50 am

Where can I buy a set of those blinkers?

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
July 3, 2021 4:23 pm

More like extreme tunnel vision !

Viewing through the bottom of a bottle, perhaps ?

Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 10:57 am

They weren’t having any issues before renewables either.

By the by rising energy costs is an issue. Being told you must spend money you don’t have to get a new heating system is an issue. Being told to purchase a car you don’t want is an issue. Losing your freedom is an issue.

Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 11:06 am

That’s true, if you ignore all the problems, then they aren’t having any problems.

Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 4:21 pm

“They aren’t having any issues from going renewable”

That’s because Gas and Nuclear and French interconnects provide the bulk of the electricity.

See the Orange, grey and pink.. the brown is biomass..

Note how little wind there was for most of the first half of the day.

comment image

Last edited 1 year ago by clarence.t
Iain Reid
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 11:03 pm

I’m sorry but there are very many issues in going renewable for our grid. We are close to maximum penetration now by renewables when they acheive a high output. (Noticeably lacking this last three months). You cannot power a grid with a large percentage of asynchronous renewable generation. It’s technically impossible.It is also very expensive and getting more so.
The idiocy of closing viable thermal stations is beyond belief, and now closing all coal plants a year early is simply more virtue signalling. Beast from the East again, I would remind you coal genertaed a quarter of U.K. power for that period. What will happen when we get the next one? Renewables never generate much in those weather events.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Ronald Stein
July 3, 2021 10:45 am

“still explode in the coming years and decades ahead over the population and economic growth ..

Ronald, unnoticed by most, the population is actually 85% of peak right now. Bangladesh is a perfect example of the idea that birth rate drops with rise out of poverty (GDP growth 15%/a over last 7yrs; birthrate dropped to below 2 in 2020 from 6 in 1950 when Bangladesh was one of the poorest of countries.

July 3, 2021 8:31 am

Well let’s see – Spain gets 42% of its electricity from renewables, Germany 51% and the UK 42%.

The mighty US with all its technical savvy can’t match those?

Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 8:52 am

Energy independence means local energy is best….MSRs can provide that low cost secure clean energy for those who are most intelligent.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 8:55 am

One of the nice aspects of “federalism” is that individual states, or groups of states in the case of power markets, can experiment with different approaches. So far, it looks like CAISO (CA), NEISO (NE) and ERCOT (TX) are leading the rest in terms of renewables, and like your friends in Spain, Germany and the UK, seem to be paying a hefty price for their leadership.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 3, 2021 9:36 am

Texas, despite it wind stupidity, still has reasonable electricity rates exactly because of cheap natural gas and the rapid build out of CCGT and peaker plants in the Permian Basin in recent years.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 3, 2021 10:05 am

All true. I should have noted that “hefty price” can either mean the higher nominal cost of fully-costed renewable energy supply in many cases or the secondary economic impacts of energy curtailment / outages due to the intermittency and/or unreliability of renewables in other cases.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 8:58 am

Look! Squirrel!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 3, 2021 11:10 am

This squirrel has lost it’s nuts.

Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 11:09 am

Not even close to being true.
In griff’s world, making 42% for 5 minutes, once a year, is counted as doing 42% for the whole year.

Reply to  MarkW
July 3, 2021 4:27 pm

See supply graph in my post elsewhere

Its all Gas and Nuclear with some French interconnects and biomass.

Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 1:18 pm

I fail to see the relevance of the comparison between Spain, Germany, the UK, and the US. So first, why does any one country need to “measure up” to another country? And, second, should comparisons always reduce large, complex economies to a single, isolated percentage?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 1:52 pm

With regards to the UK, that is weapons-grade rubbish Griff. Check out the situation right now:
Wind is currently supplying 14%
Solar 0% (always a problem at night)
Biomass, which is supplying 8% is regarded as renewable. How they can consider burning trees that have been shipped across the Atlantic from the US as renewable, I haven’t a clue.

Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 3:58 pm

hey Griff, what are you talking about?:

“Based on data from Red Eléctrica de España, Spain’s electric grid operator, 18% of Spain’s gross electricity generation came from wind energy, 14% from hydropower, 5% from solar, and 2% from other renewable sources in 2016.”

Reply to  Janus100
July 3, 2021 4:01 pm
Reply to  Janus100
July 3, 2021 11:53 pm

The number he quoted has Hydro at 13.6% in as renewable which isn’t correct under the rules.

Last edited 1 year ago by LdB
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 4:26 pm

Gas and Nuclear and French inter connects are what holds the UK grid together.

Electricity supply graph for 2nd July

comment image

Orange = Gas

Grey = Nuclear

Brown = biomass

Pink = French interconnects.

Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 11:48 pm

Griff there is a 13% lie in that Spain figure … they have included Hydro which isn’t renewable under the rules.

The actual numbers were
wind 20.8% + Solar 8.4% = 29.2% Renewable
Hydro 13.6%
Nuclear 21.9%
Gas 16.9%
Coal 2.4%

Please stick to apples for apples comparing.

Last edited 1 year ago by LdB
Frank from NoVA
July 3, 2021 8:31 am

“What all of this is saying, of course, is that the chances of Biden hitting his 50% emissions cut by 2030 are almost non-existent.”

Unfortunately, this is not going to deter the left from trying. By the 1920’s it had already been shown that socialism, aka central planning, was not workable because it lacked the means, i.e., a price system, to efficiently communicate information and allocate resources. Needless to say, the left ignored all this, and has been breaking millions of eggs ever since to make its crummy omelets.

Last edited 1 year ago by Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 3, 2021 9:07 am

Over 50% of Americans believe Joey cheated in the election including 30% of demrats. Demrats like Joey and Piglosi et al are in the business for themselves…the socialist schemes are just to get support from the morons. Socialism….communism…are just forms of dictatorship….there is nothing new in socialism/communism….it has all been gone thru before over and over and over…and always results in FAILURE.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Anti-griff
July 3, 2021 3:02 pm

But only after killing hundreds of millions of people and leaving a mess for capitalism (mostly U.S.) to clean up.

July 3, 2021 8:48 am

The sad part is many people believe “decarbonising” our electrical grid in 15 years is achievable using available technology.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  markl
July 3, 2021 9:33 am

Fraudsters like a certain Stanford CE professor, bought off by Tom Steyer, sold US Democrats’ on the lie they wanted to hear.

Peta of Newark
July 3, 2021 9:01 am

He’s lying by omission and passing the buck – thus perfectly unfit for the office he’s in.

Sack him

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 3, 2021 9:34 am

Democrats are screwed because his replacement is the very unlikable Kamala.

Willem Post
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 3, 2021 2:46 pm

Biden, a life-long grifter, plagiarizer, and touchy-feely sniffer of woman/girls, will be kept on life support to the end of his term.

Harris is totally unsuitable to be even a Senator of any state, except of dysfunctional California.

Gordon A. Dressler
July 3, 2021 9:11 am

Found in the above article: “Yet during Obama’s eight year tenure, he only managed to cut them by 11%.”

C’mon, give credit where credit is due. Barack Obama, as President, effectively did ZERO to cut US emissions. Economic forces (predominately the cost savings of using natural gas to replace coal for energy generation) and existing, pre-Jan 20,1990, EPA regulations to control pollution levels from transportation, power production and manufacturing sectors are the reasons US (CO2) emissions continued to fall over those eight years.

Heck, even Obama’s Clean Power Plan of 2015 aimed at combating anthropogenic climate change (global warming) was first proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) earlier in 2014.

Last edited 1 year ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Gary Pearse
July 3, 2021 10:01 am

“how Biden proposes to replace that 80% currently produced by fossil fuels and nuclear with renewable energy within the next 15 years, he refuses to say.”

You’d think there isn’t one woke person whose even heard of an engineering feasibility study let alone could participate in one. It takes a minimum 10yrs to bring a sizable lithium deposit after discovery to production (12-15 is common). For requirements to replace FF the deposits haven’t been discovered yet!! Adding in the exploration phase to discover enough Li (with financing secured) will take 50-75 years. Maybe the RockerBroFund will bankroll this advanced funding, but no bank will touch it. So we’re too late to complete the replacement in the 21st Century!

Let’s look at magnitudes. In a Nissan Leaf, their first car used a 24kWh battery, which contains 20kg of Li -carbonate (Li²CO³) (3.8kg Li). In a project I worked on, capex $1B, mine, mill and chemical plant, rated production is ~35,000 Mt/y of Li carb (equivalent). This billion dollar op, therefore, would be enough to produce 1.75million cars of 24kWh per year for 30years (Nissan has moved up to 42kWh size at present, Tesla M3 to 85kWh).
My note about the future: except for a few luxury cars, Li supply will restrict power down well below 24kWh size (maybe half this). We are likely to see the vast majority of the tricycle type car.

Chris Nisbet
July 3, 2021 10:56 am

I really wouldn’t be surprised if they decided to reduce emissions by simply shutting the supply off.
If enough of the ‘dirty’ generation is removed, there won’t be a lot of choice about that.
People need to start realising that these nutcases are serious.

Reply to  Chris Nisbet
July 3, 2021 11:11 am

Yes, whether national, international, or global, they are infamous for forcing, braying (e.g. handmade tales) wicked solutions to purportedly hard problems.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
July 3, 2021 12:47 pm

From the data coming out about the “vaccines” these nutcases have already started on a depopulation/eugenics program!
The CDC data shows that pregnant women in the 1st and 2nd trimester are suffering spontaneous abortions at an 82% rate; and the spike protein seems to be accumulating in women’s ovaries as well! The inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology has come out against these experimental injections, saying that they are cytotoxic!
Lots of liberals used to adamantly against GMO foods; now THEY are GMO!

Reply to  Abolition Man
July 3, 2021 1:48 pm

Yes, over 4,000 adverse events reported to VAERS. A higher death rate in full vaccinated who are infected to mutant offspring. More than any vaccine used on widely delivered basis. The vaccines were intended for emergency use in a minority population at elevated risk (e.g. overweight, obese, metabolically compromised, old), but were normalized, coerced, even, for general distribution. Meanwhile, there are inexpensive, effective, low risk therapeutic treatments to prevent infection and mitigate disease progression in 80 to 90% of populations at risk.

Reply to  Abolition Man
July 5, 2021 10:01 am

A.M. do you have a link to anything about that 82%? I can’t find find anything about it other than “fact checks”.

willem post
July 3, 2021 11:20 am

Here is a capital cost estimate to convert the US and the World to renewables, instead of continuing fossil fuels.

Biden’s behind-the scene handlers, such as Schumer, Sanders, AOC, Pelosi, and their DREAMLAND posses in the House and Senate, are proposing a GREEN NEW DEAL, i.e., INFRASTRUCTURES FOR SOCIALISM, that gets us only about 25% of the way.

They have absolutely no clue what resources are needed to go all the way.


World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the US Energy Information Administration, EIA. 
See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint

Most of this growth is expected to come from countries not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.
Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.
China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America, need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive. They would not have signed up for “Paris”, if they had not been allowed to be more or less exempt from the Paris agreements

Obama agreed to commit the US to the Paris agreements, i.e., be subject to its financial and other obligations for decades. 
However, he never submitted the commitment to the US Senate for ratification, as required by the US Constitution. 
Trump rescinded the commitment. It became effective 3 years later, one day after the US presidential elections on November 3, 2020.

If the US had not left “Paris”, a UN Council likely would have determined a level of renewable energy, RE, spending, say $500 billion/y, for distributing to various poorer countries by UN bureaucrats. 
The Council would have assessed OECD members, likely in proportion to their GDPs. 
The US and Europe would have been assessed at 100 to 150 billion dollars/y each.
The non-OECD countries likely would continue to be more or less exempt from paying for the Paris agreements.


The analysis includes two scenarios: 1) 50% RE by 2050, and 2) 100% RE by 2050.
The CAPEX values exclude a great many items related to transforming the world economy to a low-carbon mode. See next section.

50% RE by 2050

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $24,781 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 5.76%/y
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $7,233 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 8.81%/y

100% RE by 2050

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $60,987 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 10.08%/y
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $16,988 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 13.42%/y


World More-Inclusive CAPEX

The above CAPEX numbers relate to having 50% RE, or 100% RE, in the primary energy mix by 2050, which represents a very narrow area of “fighting climate change”. See Appendix for definitions of source, primary and upstream energy.
This report, prepared by two financial services organizations, estimates the world more-inclusive CAPEX at $100 trillion to $150 trillion, over the next 30 years, about $3 trillion to $5 trillion per year
NOTE: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that an average of $3.5 trillion per year will be needed just in energy investments between 2016 and 2050 to achieve the 1.5-degree target.

US More-Inclusive CAPEX
The ratio of World CAPEX for RE / US CAPEX for RE = 16,988/60,987 = 0.279
A more-inclusive US CAPEX could be $27.9 trillion to $41.8 trillion
The US CAPEX could be less, because, at present, the world is adding a quad of RE at about $58.95 billion, compare to the US at about $102.78 billion.
It is unclear what accounts for the large difference. 
Part of it may be due to differences of accounting methods among countries. 

NOTE: The CAPEX numbers exclude costs for replacements of shorter-life systems, such as EVs, heat-pumps, batteries, wind-turbines, etc., during these 30 years. For comparison:
Hydro plants have long lives, about 100 years.
Nuclear plants about 60 years
Coal and gas-turbine plants about 40 years
Wind turbine systems about 20 years
Solar systems about 25 years
Battery systems about 15 years

Gary Pearse
Reply to  willem post
July 3, 2021 12:42 pm

“This report, prepared by two financial services organizations, …”!!!

Willem – these Capex requirements are basically useless number crunching that assumes physical resources are ready and waiting. See my post on the mining side requirements for lithium. It is too late to make the transition before the end of the 21st century.

Willem Post
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 3, 2021 2:39 pm

Of course, I agree.

The Biden dreamers, never engage in A to Z thinking, because they are mostly starry-eyed, philosophical, liberal arts type folks.

In comparison, Trump is a no nonsense, hard-nosed businessman, wise to the world. He totally did not fit into the Washington Scene, but he is exactly the game-changer needed at this time.

He is onto Europe and China. Both try to screw the US as much as possible. Russia is no economic threat.

The physical resources to build, replace after wearing out, and land filling, will be an order of magnitude greater than at present, unless all of us practice navel-gazing most of the day

Dave Fair
Reply to  willem post
July 3, 2021 3:13 pm

There is no way the U.S. Senate is going to be handing over 100-150 billion dollars per year to the UN kleptocrats. All of the “studies” are mental masturbation by rent-seekers.

Willem Post
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 3, 2021 7:42 pm

There are many stupid “greenies”, a la AOC, etc., in the US Senate, that would hand over the money to UN boondogling, do-gooders, but Trump would make such a stink, they would lose their seat in the Senate. That’s is only thing holding them back.

Last edited 1 year ago by wilpost
July 3, 2021 11:41 am

Has the latest Soro’s grant come through?
griff has suddenly become a lot more active.
Or did someone else’s griff shift start?

July 3, 2021 1:40 pm

The Green blight is a mythical pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, a prideful investment for a religious minority, and a profitable investment for the 1%, but in secular terms is a “burden” for the environment and society.

Eric Elsam
July 3, 2021 1:51 pm

C’mon, man. Ya gotta believe!

July 3, 2021 2:06 pm

Joe Biden will never say how he plans on providing anything. Joe Biden has no plans other than to sign legislation to spend more money.

If readers will recall, his only campaign promises at any time were to “build back better”. He never bothered to say how.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Doonman
July 3, 2021 3:15 pm

Yep, socialism will build back better than capitalism.

July 3, 2021 5:26 pm

Whisper, whisper ” I’ll spend whatever trillions I can to make my promises appear truthful “

Kit P
July 3, 2021 5:58 pm

The most expensive and worst environmental impact is the MWh that can not be delivered when needed. An example would be dumping milk because of a rolling blackout.

Most places know this without learning it the hard way.

The amount of nuclear generating capacity country (or US state) has depends the availability of fossil fuel. The exception to this rule occurs when a country figures out that making electricity with nuclear leaves more fossil fuel to export.

Since nuclear reactors produce lots of electricity and last a long time, the time to build them is not really a factor. I calculated how long it would take to build the solar PV to make amount of electricity as the last nuke I worked on.

85 years!

What does that mean? I have figured out the life of solar PV is five years or less. Basically the attention span of someone like Griff.

The life of a nuclear plant depends the cost of maintaining it compared to building a new one. Many nuclear plants are planned in the US. I have read the EIS. Utilities have the paperwork just waiting to be dusted off.

Reply to  Kit P
July 4, 2021 6:51 am

The life of solar PV is 20 to 25 years, with little fall off towards the end of that span. As you can easily find from multiple examples in real life.

As to nuclear, please do check out the build time for the EDF reactors in Finland and Flammanville, France

Kit P
Reply to  griff
July 4, 2021 10:45 am

Griff what is the point of advocating something if it does not work?

I know how things work because I check.

I have 60 watts of PV. They maintain batteries when not in use. As a result, my lead acid batteries last longer. Saves money and good for the environment.

40 watts are on the roof on my MH which is about 25 years old. I have never checked to see how well the work because I do not care. Since retiring, I am not at my boat 6 months year. Each fall I measure the voltage to see if the PV is working. I have to replace them after a few years.

Solar PV is Mickey Mouse. It is a fantasy. That fine except on cold winter nights. I have found numerous examples of PV that does not work. Found zero examples of solar coming closed to design expectation.

As I stated, build time is not a factor for nukes because they last much longer than it takes to build them.

The French are arrogant cry babies. The French reactor designer was in trouble from the start with regulators in different countries even in France. In the US, they failed to get a design certification for the EPR.

I know because I ended up working for the French when they bought the design company I worked for.

But we are talking about the US. I own a house in the Nevada desert. Scam artist come to the house promoting solar. If putting solar on the roof of my house was a good idea, I would be calling them.

Barry Sheridan
July 4, 2021 12:12 am

Almost every western country is dominated by politicians who prefer fantasy to reality. This plays well with brain washed university types, people who have yet to realise what life will be like when the lights go out. They will find out.

July 4, 2021 4:47 am

“…a figure which has barely doubled since Obama took office, despite the billions in subsidies thrown at it.” – article

Why is this not a surprise? And in the “what about” category, cutting emissions by 50% might proceed more rapidly and efficiently if we simply shut down modern civilization world wide. That might not sit too well with people who have more money than good sense, but maybe putting carbon-collecting stuff on their personal stuff like overdone housing and overpriced vehicles could be a good start.

We all have “dreams”, don’t we?

John Savage
July 4, 2021 6:43 am

Beware the definition of “renewables” in news stories. The EIA classifies hydro, biomass (wood and trash burning), wind and solar as “renewables.” The first two account for the overwhelming proportion of generation, but note that burning stuff for power still emits CO2.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights