Peak Coal?

Guest “Sometimes an annoying comment inspires a post,” by David Middleton

Note: If you are having difficulty seeing any of the images, I reposted them in this comment. I think it’s a Chrome and/or WordPress issue and/or feature.

If I had $1 for every time I’ve heard someone say, “coal is dead” or “coal use peaked in 2014,” I wouldn’t have to find oil & gas for a living.

In my post yesterday regarding an unexpected sudden resurgence in coal demand, once again dooming the climate, one commentator claimed that nothing in my post refuted the notion that coal demand peaked in 2014 and was in terminal decline. (I hate run on sentences!) This is true, nothing in that post refuted that notion because it wasn’t the subject of that post, making the comment a Strawman Logical Fallacy.

Torching a Strawman

This is from the Energy Information Administration’s 2020 International Energy Outlook, published in October 2020:

Figure 1. Primary energy consumption, line chart, as it appears in IEO2020, plus 2014 & 2048 annotations added by this author.

It’s important to note that the EIA lumps hydroelectric in with renewables. If I was putting the chart together, I would have segregated them. I would have also not included biofuels with petroleum liquids… But you couldn’t see their contribution to the chart even if you segregated them.

While the original title highlights the projected increase in renewable energy, note that no other energy sources significantly decline over the full projection period, not even coal, which was then projected to top its 2014 peak by 2048.

If I plot the exact same data as a stacked area chart (like I would plot production data from an oil field), I get a totally different headline.

Figure 2. Primary energy consumption, stacked area chart. EIA chart modified by this author.

The forecasted growth in renewables is impressive. It almost offsets the total rise in demand. However, renewables aren’t expected to replace anything in the EIA’s base case forecast. The expectation was for renewables to not quite cover the increase in total demand.

Renewables aren’t even doing that because…

Texas Railroad Commissioner Wayne Christian had a new nickname for renewables while speaking at NAPE:

“We have been spending so much time in supporting wind and solar — the unreliables — that we have let the pilot light go out on our reliables.”

#NAPE#renewables#windenergy#solarenergy#OOTT#ONGT#NatGas#Houston#txlege

Sergio Chapa, Energy Reporter at Bloomberg News

Wayne Christian is the Chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission, the agency charged with regulating oil & gas drilling & production in Texas. (I don’t know who regulates railroads in Texas.)

With unreliables failing to keep up the sudden resurgence in energy demand…

Let’s roll forward to April 20, 2021

Coal close to 2014 peak

Global coal demand in 2021 was forecast to rise 4.5% year on year, approaching its 2014 peak, the report said. Over 80% of the growth would be concentrated in Asia, China alone accounting for over 50% of the increase in coal burn.

“The expected rise in coal use dwarfs that of renewables by almost 60%, despite accelerating demand for renewables,” the IEA said.

Coal demand in the US and the EU was seen staging only a partial recovery, remaining well below pre-COVID-19 levels and in structural decline.

S&P Global/Platts

On to July 8, 2021

American coal production this year will swell 15% to meet stronger demand for electricity at home and abroad, according to the U.S. Energy Department’s July outlook. That would be the most since at least 1990 and nearly double the 8% increase projected in May, when the economic rebound was still in earlier stages of recovery.

Bloomberg Green

Next on to July 15, 2021

However, coal-fired electricity generation is set to increase by almost 5% this year and by a further 3% in 2022, potentially reaching an all-time high, according to the Electricity Market Report. Gas-fired generation, which declined 2% in 2020, is expected to increase by 1% in 2021 and by nearly 2% in 2022. The growth of gas lags that of coal because it plays a smaller role in the fast-growing economies in the Asia Pacific region and it faces competition from renewables in Europe and North America.

IEA

And then to August 13, 2021

The coal price has skyrocketed in 2021 – what does it mean for net zero?
August 13, 2021

Michael Tamvakis
Professor of Commodity Economics and Finance, City, University of London

It is only a few days since the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) signalled the dire consequences of human-induced climate change. At the heart of this stark warning by UN Secretary General António Guterres and the scientists behind the report was the urgent need to heavily reduce coal in the energy mix.

Yet in the run-up to publication, and absent from mainstream news headlines, was the steady ascent of coal prices, past US$100 (£72) per metric tonne in June and then past US$130 in mid-July to over US$170 today. This is almost four times the price last September.

The rise in prices can be attributed squarely to a resurgence of demand after the depths of the pandemic – especially in emerging Asian markets such as China and India, but also in Japan, South Korea, Europe and the US. Electricity demand, which remains closely linked to coal, is expected to have increased by 5% across 2021 and a further 4% in 2022.

[…]

Stubborn coal

Coal has two main uses, electricity generation and steel manufacturing, with the former responsible for about two-thirds of what is consumed. The faster we can remove coal from electricity generation, the higher the likelihood of achieving the Paris Agreement targets.

Yet coal seems to be resilient, if not stubborn, when it comes to its elimination. Since 2010, the percentage share of natural gas in total global electricity generation has stayed the same at 23% even though the world’s power consumption has risen by about a quarter. The percentage share of renewables, excluding hydroelectricity, has tripled and its actual generation in terawatt hours (TWh) has quadrupled. Meanwhile, coal has lost share, down to 35% from 40%, but it remains way ahead of natural gas, its closest competitor, and the amount of coal that we burn for electricity has gone up overall.

The reality is that coal makes good business sense. Coal-fired power plants have long been big enough to make the building costs economically viable, with the largest plants boasting a capacity of 5GW. The fuel is relatively cheap most of the time, and the biggest consumers, China, the US and India, all enjoy politically safe supplies.

Coal-fired generation is steady and predictable, making it suitable for ensuring the minimum level of electricity a country continually needs – known as the baseload. 

[…]

The Conversation
  • The reality is that coal makes good business sense.
  • “What does it mean for net zero?”

It means…

https://www.soasta.com/blog/cant-get-myths-testing-production-2/

But… You weren’t going to get there anyway.

And finally on to Wednesday…

Climate Doomed by Coal… Again

While we won’t have full year 2021 coal production and consumption numbers until sometime next year… Just follow the money…

Figure 3. International Monetary Fund, Global price of Coal, Australia [PCOALAUUSDM], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCOALAUUSDM, August 24, 2021. FRED

And now for the annoying comment…

The IEA thinks that coal use peaked in 2014.

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-coal-consumption-1978-2020

Now, I didn’t see any contradictory 2021 data in the body of your post, but I didn’t open up every link either. So, if you have a 1 year counter trend, would you please point it out to us?

Big Oil Bob

At the time, the annoying comment was this:

Figure 4. A Strawman Logical Fallacy. At no point in the post did I claim that global coal consumption had increased relative to some point in the past.

Now, the annoying comment is this:

Figure 5. A torched Strawman.

This just in…

Aug 26, 2021, 09:32am EDT
China Drives Dramatic Rise In Global Emissions In 2021

David Blackmon, Senior Contributor, Energy

A few weeks back I wrote a story that proposed that we all quit talking about so-called “peak oil” demand since, according to various sources, the world has not yet even managed to achieve “peak coal” demand.

[…]

An August 25 story in the Axios Generate newsletter cites a new report from Ember, titled “Building Back Badly: Global Power Sector Emissions Soar.” Ember, an environmentalist think-tank based in London, finds that global carbon emissions have risen to new highs during 2021 as national economies recover from the COVID pandemic. The study finds that global carbon emissions for June, 2021, were 7% higher than levels seen during June, 2019.

[…]

As reported by Axios, two additional key findings in the report are:

*The data shows that while 57% of the growth in electricity demand came from wind and solar power, a large fraction — 43% — has been met by firing up carbon-intensive coal power plants, especially in China, Bangladesh, Mongolia and Vietnam.

*No single country out of the 63 nations analysts examined has achieved a “green recovery” for the electricity sector, which features higher electricity demand and lower emissions.

[…]

Forbes

This deserves repeating…

No single country out of the 63 nations analysts examined has achieved a “green recovery” for the electricity sector, which features higher electricity demand and lower emissions.

It looks like we’re going to have to kick CCS/CCUS business into overdrive sooner than expected.

4.8 24 votes
Article Rating
213 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Vuk
August 27, 2021 2:36 am

Peak Oil & peak coal might be decades or even century away, but after yesterdays performance peak Biden is well over and peak Kamala is approaching fast. Sad, but such is the world we live in.

Derg
Reply to  Vuk
August 27, 2021 2:55 am

I miss the peaceful times of Trump.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Derg
August 27, 2021 6:41 am

“Do you miss me yet?” — DJT

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 27, 2021 2:12 pm

Trump had 50,000 people attending at his rally last Saturday in Georgia. They all looked like they missed him very badly. They were holding signs that said: “Save America”. It was the Save America Trump rally.

I’m curious to see what happens at his next rally. After this fiasco in Afghanistan, Trump might get 200,000 showing up begging him to run again.

Trump will run again.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 27, 2021 6:15 pm

On an interesting note, Simon has not presented his visage here in defense of his Great Leader, Creepy Dementia Zhou, since this Afghanistan FUBAR started.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Derg
August 27, 2021 10:58 am

Well, if you ignore the “mostly peaceful ‘rallies.'”

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 27, 2021 11:46 am

One rally, and most of the people who made problems weren’t even part of the rally.

Derg
Reply to  MarkW
August 27, 2021 1:19 pm

FBI 😉

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Derg
August 27, 2021 2:12 pm

Yeah, really!

Derg
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 27, 2021 1:20 pm

No kidding Clyde, Obama/Biden rallies burned cities

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Derg
August 27, 2021 3:58 pm

I did not mention Obama or Biden. I was referring to the Summer-long BLM protests.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 27, 2021 3:56 pm

I should have said “‘mostly peaceful’ BLM demonstrations.”

They served as a precedent for what happened in DC because there was little effort to suppress the (much greater) violence and the message was that such behavior was acceptable.

H.R.
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 27, 2021 5:28 pm

That’s what I gathered, Clyde. Yeah, It’s hard to convey some things online in writing. Woulda been cleared up right away in pub conversation.

(There’s a clip of a reporter in front of a whole block going up in flames talking about, “Mostly peaceful demonstrations.” What a shill! What a dufus galloot! What a maroon! He thought no one noticed the flames in the background?!?)

TonyG
Reply to  H.R.
August 29, 2021 8:42 am

He thought no one noticed the flames in the background?!?

He rightly expected many would ignore them.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Vuk
August 27, 2021 3:33 am

Vuk,
If Bai Den attempts to deal with the Interplanetary Climate Crisis in a similar fashion to how he handled the Afghanistan withdrawal, he will start demolishing US coal mines; probably with the miners still inside! The levels of incompetence and delusion being revealed by our political elites is quite astounding to witness; I recommend that everyone look into the phenomenon of mass psychosis to better understand what is occurring!
While we may not ever experience peak coal, as our technology takes us to new energy sources and systems (hopefully lots of nuclear;) there seems little hope that we have yet reached peak ChiCom 19! The same delusional incompetents have apparently become adherents of PCCM; Perpetual ChiVi Creation and Mutation! Fortunately, the vexxines appear to be so safe that the CDC has decided to shut down VAERS, as there are no longer ANY deaths or injuries to report!

Steve B
Reply to  Abolition Man
August 27, 2021 3:50 am

What if that incompetence and delusion is actually intentional? Think about it – it was planned.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Steve B
August 27, 2021 4:33 am

Steve B,
While you may well be right, but I am always loathe to ascribe to evil intent what may well be incredible imbecility! It is difficult to see how anyone with a brain can believe in the Progressive dogma; they appear to be taking advantage of every crisis, but their handling is so inept that they policies are backfiring!
Perhaps the latest study out of Vietnam, showing that the vexxinated have 250 times the viral load of those that refused to take experimental genetic modifying injections, will begin a major pushback against the tyranny and anti-science stances of our public officials!

TonyG
Reply to  Abolition Man
August 27, 2021 12:12 pm

“I am always loathe to ascribe to evil intent what may well be incredible imbecility”

I take generally the same position, but there comes a point where someone is so wrong so much that there remains no other reasonable conclusion.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  TonyG
August 28, 2021 3:54 pm

Once is an accident; twice is happenstance; three times is enemy action.

John Endicott
Reply to  James Schrumpf
August 30, 2021 5:23 am

There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on – shame on you. Fool me – you can’t get fooled again.
-George W. Bush

arn
Reply to  Abolition Man
August 27, 2021 4:17 pm

The chance to become the president of the USA is maybe 1:50million.
It is absolutely impossible to achieve this with incredible imbecility.

It is even more impossible that father & son can become presidents as the bushs did.
Especially if one of them is an incredible imbecile.

Now how can it be that 2 of the dumbest people on earth can become the 2 most powerful people?

Simple answer- it cant.
As long as i play the idiot i can get away with anything and people will forgive me..As soon as people think I’m smart
they will consider anything wrong that happens as result of calculated evil intention.
Make people think you are stupid and wrap your ideas in good intentions and you can fool the useful idiot forever.

Reply to  Steve B
August 27, 2021 4:34 am

As was the PLAndemic an element of the intention.

Reply to  Doug Huffman
August 27, 2021 2:01 pm

The Demonrat party is the PLAndemic.

Scissor
Reply to  Steve B
August 27, 2021 5:09 am

Weapons makers’ revenue depends on delivery of weapons and armament and such weaponry was being flown into Kabul even up to the point of military departure.

Similarly, hospitals received bonuses of over $30k for placing covid patients on ventilators.

What could go wrong?

Vuk
Reply to  Scissor
August 27, 2021 9:18 am

armament and such weaponry was being flown into Kabul even up to the point of military departure.”

Until last week Talibans were disparate groups of country yobbos lightly armed, mainly with Kalashnikovs.
Today tanks to the Biden’s ‘generosity’ Talibans are major Islamist army in possession of the vast amount of hardware left including:
200 airplanes and helicopters
75,000 military vehicles
600,000 small arms and light weapons.
Other assets include night-vision goggles, body armour and medical supplies.
All put together worth up to $85 billion.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/08/26/taliban-now-has-access-85-billion-american-military-equipment/

… and Donald Trump was impeached for making a phone call !
World has gone mad.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Vuk
August 27, 2021 9:42 am

Could it be that they made a secret deal to allow the Taliban to take over, in return for having them go after Al Qaeda and ISIS? The Taliban (Sunni/Saudi) are enemies (technically) of Iran (Shi’a) and it could be a bizarre containment strategy.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
August 27, 2021 10:53 am

I was always a fan of the notion that we just leave them be to kill each other, until they’re doing it with rocks and sticks.

Then leave them there.

MarkW
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
August 27, 2021 11:47 am

That would be viable if they would limit themselves to just killing each other.
The problem is that they keep getting it into their head that they need to kill everyone else as well. Then they proceed to try and do that.

Vuk
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
August 27, 2021 11:37 am

But aren’t Al’Queda and Isis good guys, they dispose once for ever of poppy growers. heroin pedlars and users, I suppose not.
Looking at it, the USA made a mistake not helping but instead impeding USSR’s effort to stay there.

MarkW
Reply to  Vuk
August 27, 2021 11:48 am

If the USSR had been successful in Afghanistan, it’s final collapse would have been delayed by decades. At least.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
August 27, 2021 2:19 pm

The Taliban *are* Al Qaeda and ISIS. Birds of a feather, flock together.

Reply to  Vuk
August 27, 2021 9:43 am

I understand that because of Biden”s extreme generosity, the Taliban is planning on opening a nation wide series of military surplus stores.

philincalifornia
Reply to  John VC
August 27, 2021 4:58 pm

Will they be LGBTQ-inclusive ?

John Endicott
Reply to  philincalifornia
August 30, 2021 5:26 am

I’m sure they’ll gladly behead the LGBTQ same as anyone else. May even be inclusive enough to move them to the front of queue.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  John VC
August 28, 2021 3:57 pm

They could make a crap-ton of money selling 9mm and 5.56mm ammo back to civilians in the States.

Richard Page
Reply to  Vuk
August 27, 2021 10:19 am

For the last 20+ years the Taliban have been equipped with artillery, armoured vehicles seized from the Russians as they left or bought through Pakistani suppliers. The US vehicles and weapons do not represent much of an increase in Taliban firepower. The electronic equipment, however, will fetch serious money on the international markets and might be a significant loss. It’s not all the Taliban though – the Afghan army was given 8 ScanEagle drones which they never used, just boxed up then ‘lost track of’ – I’m betting someone made a fair bit of money long before the Taliban showed up.

MarkW
Reply to  Vuk
August 27, 2021 10:29 am

Allegedly making a phone call.

Bryan A
Reply to  Vuk
August 27, 2021 12:38 pm

We should plant explosives on All our remaining assets in Afghanistan and, on the last day, make.them All unviable

Richard Page
Reply to  Bryan A
August 28, 2021 12:39 am

The big problem with that is the US doesn’t have any assets in Afghanistan any more – they are now the Talibans assets.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Vuk
August 27, 2021 2:18 pm

“200 airplanes and helicopters
75,000 military vehicles”

That means the United States will have to purchase enough bombs to knock out 75,200 pieces of American equipment. Assuming Biden has the guts to destroy them, which isn’t certain.

If it was me running the show, I would tell the Taliban to abandon all American vehicles and aircraft because the U.S. is going to destroy every one we can find sitting out in the open.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 30, 2021 5:30 am

And you know what the Taliban will do when told that? Park the US equipment in the middle of densely populated civilian area.

Robert Alfred Taylor
Reply to  Vuk
August 27, 2021 2:27 pm

I know this is too late in this thread to be noticed, but in any case:
I fear we are setting up for a major war. The US administration and military is humiliated, and needs to regain face domestically and internationally. Unfriendly powers see the US as incompetent and unwilling to act militarily. They are already pressing their advantage. The Democrats’ agenda is always driven almost entirely by domestic politics. Some time in the not too distant future, this could result in the administration being pressed beyond what is acceptable domestically, and ∙ ∙ ∙ war.

MarkW
Reply to  Robert Alfred Taylor
August 27, 2021 4:31 pm

Historically, appearing weak has always resulted in aggression.
That’s a lesson leftists have to re-learn over ad over again.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Vuk
August 27, 2021 10:03 pm

I seriously doubt they could fly any of the aircraft at all, much less effectively. Ditto goes for some of the more sophisticated vehicles.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
August 28, 2021 3:59 pm

Yeah, but they can sell ’em to our enemies.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Vuk
August 27, 2021 10:05 pm

Also, much ado was made about the NV goggles, but they need batteries, probably very specific types of batteries. The ones I used in the early 80s (ANPVS-5), required a battery you couldn’t buy over the counter. So, at best, they’ll be able to use them a few times.

Walter Pate
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
August 28, 2021 2:03 am

They will just sell our technology to the Chinese Communist Party…. but then again they may have already stolen it via chips from China or the massive spying operation they have been running for decades. Read: “The Hundred Year Marathon” we are in a war we are not even aware of…

Jeff corbin
Reply to  Steve B
August 27, 2021 7:12 am

Mass hysteria is not mass psychosis. Hysteria has delusion like features as systemic fear informs self-righteous action. I work in health care. Normally cogent professionals are not reduced to lies and gross exaggeration, (e.g. ‘there are 200 people with covid in our hospitals’, but there were only 12). I am a clinical data guy. I can see the truth in black and white. I have constantly had to stand for the truth in numbers becoming unpopular in my place of work. The phenomena of lying during the pandemic is very strange. They are not aware they are lying but see themselves as doing the good and self righteous thing. In a sense, it is a delusion that is driving the lying but the root is hysteria. Psychotic delusions are at their root bizarre and easily cast off by those who are not mentally ill. The delusion driven by mass hysteria paired with self- righteous action is very contagious, even if it the self righteous action is wrong headed and useless. If truth is not necessary to establish a problem, then truth is not necessary for the solution because the solution and the problem are both existential not teleological…all that matters is the agenda. Psychotic delusion is far less contagious. A full court press of media based propaganda paired with censorship is what has created mass hysteria, which is self-perpetuated and rooted deep by self righteous action. This is no brainer stuff to experts in mind control, propaganda, bioweapon warfare and the world’s intelligence communities. Someone thought we needed a good ole fashion pandemic. We have been burnt by both ends of the candle. ‘If I do all the right things and make sure everyone else does, then I will be safe and so will my loved ones’….. but we have been doing the wrong things. Cloth and surgical masks clearly don’t work. The Koreans new this more than a year ago. The full court press by the WHO pandemic system began with H1N1 in 2009.. Gates Foundation was a big part of the push, (https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/A-Better-Response-to-the-Next-Pandemic….. 2010), (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/27/bill-gates-in-2018-world-needs-to-prepare-for-pandemics-just-like-war.html), https://web.archive.org/web/20100208182828/https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/05/world-health-organization-swine-flu-pandemic-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento.html The question totally legit: Was the virus planned and was the response planned to leverage the virus politically? If so, something far more powerful than the presidency and our political system has been unleased. Apparently the Chinese are planning to leverage coal grid solutions and not high tech. Sounds like peak nothing to me.

Jeff corbin
Reply to  Jeff corbin
August 27, 2021 7:38 am

sorry, I need to take more time with my post ands make them clear and concise. I meant to say that I have witnessed cogent professionals engaging in lies and exaggeration who believed what they were saying is true about the pandemic. I think this is due to the existential nature of systemic fear induced by propaganda. If the problem is false, the solution does not have to be true nor good if the self righteous/existential dynamic is underway. It’s a great way to generate lost of cash. The self righteous action begets lies because the agenda is existential not teleological. This dynamic has been induced by the propaganda and is what is perpetuating the non-clinical non psychiatric-insanity.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff corbin
August 27, 2021 10:08 pm

You might try multiple paragraphs, instead of one long one.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
August 28, 2021 4:00 pm

Yes. For me, it tends to very much reduce the author’s credibility.

John Endicott
Reply to  James Schrumpf
August 30, 2021 5:34 am

For me it’s no so much that it reduces the author’s credibility as it reduces my willingness to slog through it to see what the author is even saying. Walls of text just turn people away before credibility can even be assessed.

Reply to  Steve B
August 27, 2021 8:43 am

The Dems nominated him and voted for him while it was obvious he was becoming senile.

Walter Pate
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
August 28, 2021 2:04 am

It’s called Trump Derangement Syndrome…

Jeffery P
Reply to  Steve B
August 27, 2021 8:51 am

Rule of thumb — never assume malevolence when simple incompetence gets the same results.

The left lives in a world of delusions.

The problem President Occupant is his over-inflated ego and compensation for his inadequacies.

jdgalt1
Reply to  Jeffery P
August 27, 2021 9:23 am

No, the problem with Anti-President Biden is that he and his son are on Red China’s payroll.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  jdgalt1
August 27, 2021 2:24 pm

Among others.

DonM
Reply to  Steve B
August 27, 2021 10:17 am

SHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhh …. let me tell you a secret. If we suppress the work force, then the employers will need to offer a higher wage to find workers. If that we do it for long enough and hard enough we will be able to implement a $15.hr minimum wage without any significant complaint … because everyone is already offering $15/hr.  That’s the secret. shhhhhhhh. Then we can claim we helped everyone.

(the other secret is that inflation will negate everything, but our constituents are to ignorant/stupid/dumb/conniving to know or care that the higher minimum wage really doesn’t help in the long run.)
 

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DonM
August 27, 2021 11:05 am

… know or care that the higher minimum wage really doesn’t help in the long run.

Most people have trouble thinking more than 2 or 3 days into the future. That is why the US savings rate is so low, even among families earning over $100,000 per year.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 27, 2021 2:04 pm

I had a guy tell me, he was working at a steel mill in Central Texas when President Truman signed the first minimum wage law, just about everyone in the plant got a 50% raise ‘cuz the minimum wage was set at $0.75/hr and they were all making $0.50/hr. He says they all felt rich for about 6 months, then they learned how to spend that money (he didn’t mention inflation but I’m sure it was there too) and everyone was just as broke as they had ever been, praying for the next payday so they could buy food for the table, pay the bills and etc.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  DonM
August 27, 2021 10:10 pm

The floor will rise to meet the minimum. So no net change.

beng135
Reply to  Steve B
August 27, 2021 12:41 pm

Dismantling America as Obama & apparatchiks promised. Joe has always been expendable so that Camelion can take over w/Pelosi as Veep to take over for her when she screws up. All in the plan.

Last edited 24 days ago by beng135
Walter Pate
Reply to  beng135
August 28, 2021 2:06 am

It’s pronounced: Camel Toe.

Walter Pate
Reply to  Walter Pate
August 28, 2021 2:07 am

and she used it to get to where she is now…

John Endicott
Reply to  Walter Pate
August 30, 2021 5:37 am

Some people raise themselves up by their bootstraps, she rose herself up by her kneepads.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Abolition Man
August 27, 2021 1:54 pm

The levels of incompetence and delusion being revealed by our political elites is quite astounding to witness…

I submit to you, if this Administration were merely incompetent, chances are we would see something most of us could call success about half the time. Since we don’t, the only logical conclusion is the destruction is intentional and deliberate.

Scissor
Reply to  Vuk
August 27, 2021 5:03 am

Biden seems intent to spread ME peace throughout the world. He’s always had an anti-Midas touch.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
August 27, 2021 2:30 pm

Everything Biden touches turns into disaster. Real disasters, that ruin the lives of millions of innocent people.

Worst President Evah! In only eight months in office!

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 30, 2021 5:39 am

And Jimmy never thought he’d live to see the day that title passed onto someone else.

Reply to  Vuk
August 27, 2021 7:49 am

In 1860s boom in commodities, England’s leading economist Stanley Jevons had a personal vision.
The world would soon run out of coal, and civilization would collapse.
All backed with impressively detailed calculations of coal reserves in Great Britain and northern Europe.
In it he points out that to fully understand the threat required a certain intellect.
The book was called “The Coal Question” and published in 1865.
And in reviewing other periods of soaring commodities, intellectuals get weird.
The wild commodity boom to 1920 produced President Wilson and Lenin.
And today’s world of wild prices is associated with any number of weird “intellectuals”, from Greta, to Al Gore to most of today’s media and their Democrat Party.

Vuk
Reply to  Bob Hoye
August 27, 2021 8:29 am

Adolf H, heard of peak oil and sent his army all the way across USSR to get down to Baku in Azerbaijan, he would have done better job if he invaded the North Sea. /sarc

Drake
Reply to  Bob Hoye
August 27, 2021 10:33 am

Wilson became president in 2013. Wilson, like Clinton, was a 2 term president who never received 50% of the votes cast.

MarkW
Reply to  Drake
August 27, 2021 11:50 am

Did you mean 1913?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW
August 27, 2021 10:12 pm

“Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.”

-Ford Prefect

John Tillman
Reply to  Vuk
August 27, 2021 11:24 am

We are nearing Peak Stupidity. I hope.

MarkW
Reply to  David Middleton
August 27, 2021 11:51 am

Finite I agree with.
Recoverable? Why?

Mr.
Reply to  David Middleton
August 27, 2021 2:10 pm

Einstein?

John Tillman
Reply to  Mr.
August 27, 2021 3:44 pm

Genau!

James Schrumpf
Reply to  David Middleton
August 28, 2021 4:09 pm

What if the Earth makes petroleum like a maple tree makes syrup?
😜

Last edited 23 days ago by James Schrumpf
Joe Shaw
Reply to  John Tillman
August 27, 2021 5:14 pm

Every prediction of Peak [whatever] has proved wrong. Sadly I expect that there are vast reserves of stupidity waiting to be tapped.

Progressive capture of US / western education systems has done more to enhance stupidity production than fracking has for hydrocarbons.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Tillman
August 30, 2021 5:41 am

There is no peak to an infinite resource like Stupidity.

Vuk
Reply to  Vuk
August 27, 2021 2:33 pm

East European press (source not named) is reporting that Taliban has asked of the USA to keep their embassy in Kabul open after August 31st.

spock
Reply to  Vuk
September 8, 2021 5:11 am

according to this book, peak oil and coal is thousands of years away.

The moral case for fossil fuels

Leo Smith
August 27, 2021 3:00 am

Peak coal isnt really that interesting an issue. Britain experienced peak coal years ago. Probably around 1960.

USA probably hasn’t got there – a lot depends on whether or not nuclear power – which is a direct replacement for it in energy generation – and steelmaking, grow, and decline respectively.

In this respect the USA is fortunate. At some point the cost of renewables will drive the political process towards another technology – whether it is coal or nuclear in the short term actually makes very little difference – it has the ability to go either way or in fact both for many years to come, having excellent coal reserves.

That it will happen is a foregone conclusion. Coal is not being laid down at the rate it is being burned. Ergo at some point the price will simply keep rising until alternative products and technoligies replace it.

Elsewhere the situation is more ‘nuclear, or nothing’ . This is certainly the case for Japan, The United Kingdom, and many European countries. It is very much the case for the oil states that are facing long term decline in oil production. And SE Asia which has no coal of its own, too.

The USA can chose to stay coddled by its coal reserves, or join the nuclear renaissance that has to happen if Western lifestyles and post industrial civilisation are to survive. It probably doesn’t matter which it picks. If it falls behind the rest of the world in nuclear development, it will, I am sure, do what it normally does. Wait till there is a clear winner, and buy it. If the Chinese havent done that already…

Last edited 25 days ago by Leo Smith
Ron Long
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 27, 2021 3:32 am

Leo, as the ex-President of a uranium exploration company, I share your support of nuclear power. However, I believe you should not have left fracking gas out of your comments. A utility company facing a choice between constructing coal, gas, or nuclear power plants would consider both economics and permitting issues, and go with gas more often than the others. Second choice would be coal. Thanks to China Syndrome Jane Fonda, who attacked our country twice, nuclear is a difficult issue, and not likely to survive most “fatal flaws and critical paths” corporate reviews..

Abolition Man
Reply to  Ron Long
August 27, 2021 4:01 am

Ron,
While Hanoi Jane was able to build impediments to nuclear power, based on her Hollywood movie script; I believe a lot of her followers have reached or exceeded their sell-by dates! We should be looking at the possibility that the adults will be able to regain control of the asylum, and start planning for an American nuclear build out similar to the what the French did in the 1970s!
I don’t know about you, but I’m quite tired of having to look to the French for leadership on the battlefield and in energy production! We should let them get back to what they do best; wines and regional cuisine! I wouldn’t mind a Brigitte Bardot 2.0!

Last edited 25 days ago by Abolition Man
Reply to  Abolition Man
August 27, 2021 4:36 am

The progs are developing alcohol free wine, as another source of ethanol fuel.

Cultures that burn food as fuel are doomed, doomed I say!

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Doug Huffman
August 27, 2021 5:53 am

I said that the first time I saw a corn-burning stove for sale! It is immoral to burn food when there are so many other, better, sources of fuel available.

Drake
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
August 27, 2021 10:39 am

But burning corn only negatively affected the people of Africa who, in some countries, use corn as their primary food source, so since they are POC, the libs had no problem with that plan.

Just trying to follow their spiritual leader Margret Sanger. Go Planned Parenthood! Funded by liberals and supported by Democrats to abort COC (children of color) in an inner city near you.

TonyG
Reply to  Drake
August 27, 2021 12:51 pm

But burning corn only negatively affected the people of Africa

Mexico too. Corn tortillas, for example.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Abolition Man
August 27, 2021 5:20 am

Nuclear is no longer the energy technology that dare not speak its name in the UK…Among the Useful Idiots with some technical nous, it is recognised as a better alternative than RenewableEnergy, but the damage done by irresponsible cold war scaremongering persists. People still think that hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of Chernobyl.

I can’t answer for US politics, but in the UK there is beginning to be a whisper that ‘we can’t do NetZero™ without (some?) nuclear power’.

In this sense we have the delicious prospect of the green blob being hoisted by its own petard: having bigged up CO2 to sell renewables, when renewables fail to deliver, nuclear becomes the only serious zero carbon option...

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Abolition Man
August 27, 2021 11:03 am

If you think about it the movie The China Syndrome was truly ironic; though it was an anti-nuclear film at its roots, in the end the feared malfunction occurred, the safety systems did their job, and the event ended without any serious incident.

MarkW
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
August 27, 2021 11:52 am

Clean up on aisle 3.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Abolition Man
August 27, 2021 2:13 pm

Despite the history of nuclear, all it would take is a President with a little testicular fortitude to direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (whatever the hell their real name is now) to develop a 1-stop 90-day approval process. This could be accelerated by “modular nukes”, made entirely in a plant and shipped on trailers to the site (if you really must be paranoid, ship the fuel separately, but it might be better to build the unit complete with fuel, and then keep very careful security on it), the plan per model remains the same and needs approval only once. That would get things off the ground!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Abolition Man
August 27, 2021 2:33 pm

“don’t know about you, but I’m quite tired of having to look to the French for leadership on the battlefield and in energy production!”

Isn’t that the truth!

Walter Pate
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 28, 2021 2:18 am

The US Navy has been using safe nuclear for many decades. it can be done correctly even with old technology if engineered correctly. https://rickover.com/

Leo Smith
Reply to  Ron Long
August 27, 2021 5:10 am

Ron, you are totally correct. But the same applies to gas as coal. Without getting involved in arguments about how its formed, less is being made than we are using.

And the economics are different for all power plants:

Nuclear tends to be the highest capital cost and the lowest fuel cost which makes it absolutely profitable in 24×7 baseload mode. Its slowness in responding to control rod changes also limits its use in fast load following.

Coal, is – especially with scrubbers – quite expensive to build, but coal is still cheap, so it makes a very good winter baseload option. It also takes a long time, like nuclear, to respond to large changes in demand. Coal and nuclear really fill the same baseload niches.

Gas is radically different – all oil fired power stations in the UK have been closed because oil is so expensive, but gas is still cheap enough to compete. Gas is fast to come online and as far as the gas turbines go, fast to respond to demand changes: open cycle (just gas turbines = jet engines) set are fast to spin up and cheap to build. Combined cycle turbines with steam plant on the exhausts feature far higher efficiency, but are slow to get up to heat and more expensive to build.
Because gas is quite expensive relative to coal, it is not worth running gas power stations at times of low demand where the spot price of electriciry falls below the cost of the gas used to generate it.

Britain has evolved to use all of the above in a reasonable balance : you really need both the baseload chuggers – coal or nuclear – and the gas plant to modulate supply to meet shorter term demand . Unless you have substantial hydropower which does the same job.

(renewables just add more demand variation to the grid militating the use of more gas to balance and pushing the cheap generators – coal and nuclear – off the grid)

So while gas is a big player, it doesn’t fill the same niche as coal and nuclear.

Walter Pate
Reply to  Ron Long
August 28, 2021 2:12 am

Let’s add in Bruce Springsteen & other useful idiots besides Hanoi Jane..

Richard Page
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 27, 2021 10:32 am

No. The UK reached peak economically viable coal in the 1960’s. There’s still a lot of coal underground but it’s cheaper and easier to import it at the present time.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Richard Page
August 31, 2021 12:24 pm

But is it “…cheaper and easier…” because of actual technical impediments, or only because the UK regulatory structure has impeded accessing it?

Bruce Cobb
August 27, 2021 4:33 am

The Faithful of the Climate Taliban need to Believe in “peak coal” because otherwise, the cognitive dissonance becomes too great to bear. On the other hand, and time will tell, but perhaps we will soon reach (if we haven’t already) Peak Laughables.

Sara
August 27, 2021 5:15 am

After the debacle at the airport in Kabul yesterday, I do not give a flying frack in space if the Chinese mine A-Stan to a flattened pancake and turn the entire place into a chemical dump of a floodplain. Somewhere under all that dirt there is more coal, in addition to all those rare earth minerals that China wants.

Oh, I know – that is SO mean and spiteful of me, but this debacle called an evacuation that has been going on is enough to make anyone toss their lunch. But then, if you hire an incompetent ass to work for you, you get what you hired, so don’t complain to me about it.

And if the Chinese do take over Afghanistan and grind it flat, fine by me. They can have it.

Thank you for listening. I feel much better now. Have a nice weekend.

Last edited 25 days ago by Sara
fretslider
Reply to  Sara
August 27, 2021 6:14 am

 this debacle called an evacuation 

Could have easily been avoided.And that is the bottom line.

AndyHce
Reply to  fretslider
August 27, 2021 11:40 am

I don’t say this as a Biden fan but it seems to me that the only way to have avoided the mess, since Americans were warned to leave months ago but didn’t, would have been bootjacks at the door in the wee hours of the night, a rough ride in cattle pen trucks, then marched onto planes and boats at gunpoint, never to be seen again (in Afghanistan) for all the American slackers.

As far as removing a few hundred thousand native residents, how could that have been done without begetting violent reprisal (and letting in a few double handfuls of sleeper agents)?

MarkW
Reply to  AndyHce
August 27, 2021 11:54 am

The withdrawal was completely rushed and botched.
Witness all the equipment that was left behind.
Had they done a staged withdrawal, no equipment or people would have been left behind.
But it was more important to be seen as getting out NOW.

The withdrawal from embassy was so rapid that lots of important documents were left behind, including complete lists of anyone who had ever worked for or with the Americans.

As for the Afghanis, we promised them safety if they agreed to work with us.

Last edited 24 days ago by MarkW
Sara
Reply to  MarkW
August 27, 2021 5:03 pm

Please see my comment below about how this compares to the evacuation of Saigon. Same stupid crap, deja vu all over again.

TonyG
Reply to  AndyHce
August 27, 2021 1:01 pm

Andy,

Getting awfully close to victim-blaming here.

First, those who remained believed what they were told that it was unlikely the Taliban would overrun the country, and also that there would be no circumstance you would see rooftop evacuations. They had been convinced that things would be orderly.

As for actually DOING it: Maybe sending in more troops to secure the airport and provide escorts for those remaining would have been a good start? And keeping them there until the evacuation was completed?

I won’t put that all on Biden, though – where TF were our military leaders in planning this mess?

Richard M
Reply to  TonyG
August 27, 2021 3:14 pm

where TF were our military leaders in planning this mess?

The military leaders were against the Biden surrender almost completely. Every bit of this disaster is squarely at the feet of the demented one, his puppet masters and those who put him in office.

The other major disaster is the flood of covid positive migrants which has created another US covid spike. It is producing over a thousand deaths every day at this time. Biden is responsible for a high percentage of those deaths as well.

Biden is already the worst mass murderer of innocent American citizens in history.

TonyG
Reply to  Richard M
August 27, 2021 3:26 pm

“The military leaders were against the Biden surrender almost completely.”

That’s news to me. Literally. I will look into it more. Last I heard they were whining about CRT and mandated vaccinations. Apparently I missed something.

Abolition Man
Reply to  AndyHce
August 27, 2021 1:47 pm

Giving up Bagram AFB, an easily defended, two strip airfield, is the biggest blunder of this whole $hit$how! Massing tens of thousands attempting to flee Taliban control in the middle of Kabul is like pouring a bucket of blood in the ocean before going for a swim!
CJCS Milley testified before Congress that Bagram wasn’t needed; the facts indicate that Milley is unneeded! Maybe he can spend more time studying white rage and his other ChiCom agitprop, now that he’s turned the Taliban into the best armed and equipped terrorist organization in the world short of the PLA!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Abolition Man
August 27, 2021 2:44 pm

“CJCS Milley testified before Congress that Bagram wasn’t needed; the facts indicate that Milley is unneeded!”

From what I hear, Milley lied to Congress if he said Bagram wasn’t needed. The word is the U.S. military, including Milley, and the State Department, advised Biden not to pull out all the troops from Afghanistan.

Supposedly, Biden gave the military a limit as to how many troops they could keep in Afghanistan and the military said that number was not enough for them to be able to defend the Bagram airbase, and Kabul, too, but Biden would not increase the number so the military was forced to abandon Bagram airbase.

It was an arbitrary decision on Biden’s part made, imo, to guarantee that U.S. troops would have to leave the country. What it also did was guarantee that the Afghan army would collapse after losing the only leverage they had over the Taliban, the American forces at Bagram airbase.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 27, 2021 4:51 pm

Both Milley and that idiot SecDef Austin should have resigned a week ago.

bill Johnston
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 28, 2021 7:31 pm

Another possibility is that biden* wanted to leave Bagram is because that was in the plan by President Trump. And biden* is hell-bent on erasing any and all vestiges of Trump. From Keystone, to the border, to immigration , to Afghanistan. All Trump and all going away.

Sara
Reply to  Abolition Man
August 27, 2021 5:01 pm

Milley is a chair warmer and a luncheon speaker. His idea of “strategic withdrawal” is not something one can mention in polite company.

Hindsight is always 20-20, but this is far too close to the idiotic withdrawal from Saigon in 1975, which was delayed and put off because the US ambassador in Saigon kept telling Pres. Ford that nothing was going on at all, despite the southward bound NVA shelling villes, roads and bridges and then rolling tanks into Saigon. Ford was naive enough to believe him. I had already left the Navy and got to watch that debacle on the news every freaking night. It underscores my complete contempt for Milley and the other occupant of government offices.

AndyHce
Reply to  Sara
August 27, 2021 8:03 pm

I only know what I hear, maybe it is all lies, but …

(1) Is it not true that (not serving military) Americans were advised to leave months earlier, when there was no Taliban pressure, but a few tens of thousands decided to stay anyway? Were all the non-military Americans actually lied to and told they could stay as long as they wanted without facing any difficulties? Do they not own the major responsibility for their own danger and the resulting chaos their continued presence caused?

(2) Is it not true that there were 300,000 trained and extremely well equipped Afghan troops that were expected to hold their government together? So it turns out that the Afghan army was useless but should that have been expected? Is so, by what information? If known, weren’t all the reasons for being there in the first place the real lie?

It seems obvious that leaving behind all the military equipment was deliberate. No one could have believed that so much heavy material could be evacuated on the schedule set for departure.

As for leaving behind documents and dangerous information, that too seems like it had to be deliberate. American government personnel stationed there didn’t seem to be under emergency evacuation pressures as part of any plan. They may have been part of the general melee in the end but, minus ISIS, the Taliban haven’t been trying to attack them. They should have had the sense and resources to do a better job if they intended to. Again, a major part of this comes down to the fact, or fantasy, that the Afghan government the U.S. built was going to be in charge. It is easy to see that it didn’t work out but to whom was it obvious that it would just evaporate the way it did?

Sara
Reply to  AndyHce
August 27, 2021 4:52 pm

Oddly enough, AndyHce, I agree with you. We should have bailed out months ago, and I know it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Sara
August 27, 2021 11:20 am

We’ll be damned lucky if some crazy doesn’t manage to get on one of the evacuation planes wearing a suicide vest, or use a SAM outside the airport, and take down hundreds of people!

It is a rout, not unlike what happened at Dunkirk. However, it need not have happened.

When something is rushed, it provides opportunities for error. The evacuations should have been started 100 days ago before the Taliban took control of the countryside. Biden should go down in history as the president that lives in infamy.

But then, it is really the MSM, which ignored the signs of dementia and incompetence, put ideology ahead of reality, and promoted Biden by not telling the public the truth, that should take ultimate responsibility for this debacle!

Last edited 24 days ago by Clyde Spencer
AndyHce
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 27, 2021 12:02 pm

The soonest projection for the Taliban to maybe take over was at the end of this year. There was a ready built government, adequately armed, that was supposed to be in control.

Abolition Man
Reply to  AndyHce
August 27, 2021 1:50 pm

That’s what the analysts and brass in DC claimed; the soldiers and agents on the ground were not nearly so naive!

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  AndyHce
August 27, 2021 2:20 pm

That’s the story The Administration put out, but that is not what IC was telling him. There are copies of correspondence detailing how the Taliban was rapidly overrunning anyplace the Allied military departed, and the new government wouldn’t last. The Administration chose to ignore it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  AndyHce
August 27, 2021 3:08 pm

“There was a ready built government, adequately armed, that was supposed to be in control.”

The Afghan army was in control as long as they had the support of the U.S. military behind them. Then Biden pulled the rug out from under them by abandoning Bagram airbase, the place where the Afghans got all their air support.

It was inevitable that the Afghan army would collapse, given the circumstances.

And as an aside: You know what causes “Forever Wars”? It’s very simple. The forever wars always occur when the U.S. allows the enemy to have a safe haven where they can retreat, rebuild, rest, and then attack again.

North Vietnam was never attacked by American troops. If it had been, the war in Vietnam would have been over six months after the U.S. invaded.

The same thing with the Taliban. The Taliban are allowed to run and hide in Pakistan, where they can rebuild, and rest and then come back again to attack the U.S.

These kinds of limited actions can go on forever, and they are caused because our politicians are hesitant to pursue an all-out war to its conclusion, for political reasons.

So we dilly and dally for years and years, and then have to listen to the “forever war” complainers whining and crying that our enemies can’t be defeated.

It doesn’t dawn on them that if we go in there in their safe havens and wipe them out, they won’t be a problem for a long time to come, if at all.

Recall Germany, and Japan. It took an all-out war, but we’re friends now. Well, up until Biden screwed the relationship up, with his disastrous Afghanistan stupidity. What a fool!

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 31, 2021 12:32 pm

Ever since WW-II, every U. S. military engagement has come with “Rules of Engagement”. Say What? Screw that! If I were commander in chief, the only orders, or Rules of Engagement I would provide would be one word: WIN. And any president that accedes to the demands of the lunatics in Congress and the Lame Stream Media is setting himself up for failure. So, it might be ultimatum time. CIC says, troops are going in. Congress says, they must abide by these ROE, and CIC responds, you mean we’re not going in. End of story.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  AndyHce
August 27, 2021 4:00 pm

The intelligence community obviously failed in their assignment if that is what they were telling the White House! If not, then the responsibility is on Biden.

Last edited 24 days ago by Clyde Spencer
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 27, 2021 2:53 pm

“The evacuations should have been started 100 days ago before the Taliban took control of the countryside. Biden should go down in history as the president that lives in infamy.”

The withdrawal would not have happened at all under the Trump plan for Afghanistan.

One of the main requirements for the Trump plan to continue, was that the Taliban had to renounce terrorism and had to enter into a power-sharing agreement with the Afghan government. That never happened, so if Trump had been re-elected, we would still be in Afghanistan until those requirements were met.

Biden lies and claims Trumps deal with the Taliban locked Biden into the deal. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It would have been a good thing for us had Biden been locked into Trump’s original deal, because then Biden would not be able to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan until the Taliban had met all requirements of Trump’s deal..

Instead, Biden threw Trump’s deal in the trash and just abruptly ordered a pull-out of all U.S. troops with obviously no planning going into it, and now he has the U.S. military cornered in the Kabul airport looking out for suicide bombers.

I don’t think Biden could have done a worse job.

Last edited 24 days ago by Tom Abbott
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 27, 2021 4:54 pm

The difference between now and 1940 is that Dunkirk was ultimately a victory for the UK because they rescued a trained army that was sorely needed to defend the home island, even though they lost all equipment.

WXcycles
Reply to  Sara
August 27, 2021 4:58 pm

Why would the Chinese be any more welcome or successful there than NATO states? There’s a border between China and Afghanistan for a reason, the Chinese know to stay out of there. Even the Pakistanis can’t stand the Chinese, so why would the Taliban care what they want?

Bottom line is:

If you are not an Islamic State they’ll attack you to make you one. And if you are an Islamic State they will still attack you because you’re not the right sort of Islamic State and this will not do.

What hope does China have but stay out or fight them? The Chinese are just the sort of country to feel they can go in and forcibly systematically change the culture and what’s allowed and they’d be even more brutal than the Taliban.

For now the Taliban and China have a lot of common interest, but that will change. The Chinese will be itching to find a place to sharpen their military skill, and a direct land connection to Iran will be very tempting to China and Iran. Either the Taliban play ball and make money off it, or there would be more war. Except Iranian IRGC always takes over a country they use as a strategic foothold and thoroughfare towards the goals of their global “Islamic revolution”. They don’t just want a thoroughfare they want the whole thing – and permanently.

Joe Shaw
Reply to  WXcycles
August 27, 2021 5:25 pm

“Why would the Chinese be any more welcome or successful there than NATO states?”

Exactly. Hopefully someone is working on the Information Ops campaign to convince China that they can’t really be considered a world power until they have had a go in the rock pile.

John Endicott
Reply to  Joe Shaw
August 30, 2021 5:54 am

LOL. “you can’t be considered a world power unless you’ve spent a few years trying to control Afghanistan”.

Duane
August 27, 2021 5:45 am

Coal use for power generation is definitely not peaked in the developing world or in China, which is a developed nation by any rational definition today. But it is past its peak in the United States and in most of Europe. Mainly because there are few orders for new coal plants, with most new plants being gas fired due to the cheapness and readily available fracked natural gas supplies. If you’re an American or European utility, you don’t order new coal plants any more.

rbabcock
Reply to  Duane
August 27, 2021 5:58 am

If you’re an American utility, you can’t order a new coal plant in most of the states anyway.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Duane
August 27, 2021 7:54 am

Not true. On a level playing field, coal could certainly be competitive with NG, but the War on Coal put coal at a huge disadvantage. Furthermore, NG is not available everywhere. So sure, coal is down now, but only because of anti-coal hysteria. It would probably take two successive pro-coal administrations to bring coal back to its rightful position as a competitor to NG, which, without coal keeping it in line, has a tendency to have wild price spikes.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 27, 2021 11:26 am

… but only because of anti-coal hysteria.

Just like anti-nuclear hysteria. It is a sad commentary on the state of our ‘advanced’ societies that our actions are driven more by emotions than objective analysis.

ResourceGuy
August 27, 2021 5:54 am
August 27, 2021 6:12 am

Figure 1. Primary energy consumption, line chart, as it appears in IEO2020, plus 2014 & 2048 annotations added by this author.

Straight line future estimations are the sign of amateurs; too lazy to find and identify projects under development and planning.
Instead they use a straight percentage increase as their estimate, then apply ‘ad infinitum‘.

Similar problems with their graphed natural gas, coal and petroleum estimate lines.

Typical EIA incompetent sloppiness.

ieo2020_line_v_stack_page_1.png
MarkW
Reply to  ATheoK
August 27, 2021 6:26 am

Speaking of straight line future estimations, I just love how they assume wind and solar are going to keep growing at exactly the same pace as it has in recent years.
Let’s completely ignore all the problems that have been cropping up as the share of power being generated by unreliables gets out of the trivial range.
Let’s ignore the growing political push back.
We aren’t at peak unreliable yet, unfortunately. But it’s not far off.

Drake
Reply to  MarkW
August 27, 2021 10:52 am

To your point Mark, it doesn’t seem that they took the replacement of existing fields that will be taken offline due to age into account.

Sometime soon industrial production required to ADD to unreliable electricity generation would need to double the current production.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
August 27, 2021 11:31 am

Let’s ignore the growing political push back.

Not to mention that much of the most suitable land for renewables has already been developed. As less suitable and more expensive land becomes necessary to continue the growth curve line, the expansion will slow. The more expensive land will cause the rates to go up, further negatively impacting the growth.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
August 27, 2021 11:33 am

David,
Is your article missing Figures 2, 3, and 4?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
August 27, 2021 4:08 pm

I’m using Firefox. I need to do an F5 key at each figure to display them.

AndyHce
Reply to  ATheoK
August 27, 2021 11:51 am

How the heck can one cancel a reply that was clicked on in error? Very annoying!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  AndyHce
August 27, 2021 3:27 pm

I just don’t write anything and move on. It doesn’t seem to mess up anything.

MarkW
Reply to  AndyHce
August 27, 2021 4:46 pm

Hit Reply again.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  AndyHce
August 27, 2021 4:57 pm

Just reclick the reply button, the edit box goes away.

Steve Oregon
August 27, 2021 6:18 am

“It’s important to note that the EIA lumps hydroelectric in with renewables”
Because it suits the Climate Crusade states like Oregon remove hydro from renewable classification so they can push a renewable source level goal which they long ago met with hydro.
Public deceit is always the weapon of choice by our activist bureaucrats, politicians & academia.
https://www.oregon.gov/energy/energy-oregon/Pages/Renewable-Portfolio-Standard.aspx

Jim
August 27, 2021 6:58 am

I give coal 10 years, by then it will be #1.

starzmom
Reply to  Jim
August 27, 2021 7:36 am

It is already #1 in the Southwest Power Pool. The capacity still exists, and despite building zillions of windmills up and down the plains states, the wind just doesn’t blow consistently enough. Gas is here too, but that is used to step in when the wind drops off, so it isn’t the baseload. At any given time, the generation mix is coal, natural gas and then wind, by percent of generation. Sometimes wind and nat gas are reversed.

Rud Istvan
August 27, 2021 7:09 am

I ran the numbers in essay Clean Coal in ebook Blowing Smoke. In sum, CCGT costs less than half the capital of Super critical coal, and is 61% efficient versus SCS at 41% (Turk in Arkansas using powder River coal). So at any natgas price less than about $8mbtu, the economic choice is CCGT.

oeman 50
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 27, 2021 7:53 am

I attended a presentation by a utility expert about 12 years ago and he clearly stated the cost of power from a CCGT was the lowest and that was before the frack boom was fully underway. He also said CCGT was 1/3 the cost of offshore wind! So what are we doing here on the east coast? Going all in for 1,000s of MW offshore wind from Virginia to Massachusetts, driven by government mandates.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 27, 2021 8:33 am

Here in the US, going with wind, solar, or nuclear for power generation — as opposed to natural gas — is strictly a public policy decision.

IMHO, we will not see a major resurgence of nuclear power in America unless and until the federal government intervenes in the energy marketplace to raise the price of natural gas and to directly constrain its supply.

The argument is being made here and there by a few voices in the industry that the costs of nuclear must be reduced to a level which makes it directly competitive with natural gas, while still maintaining full compliance with the NRC’s current regulatory requirements.

Now that’s a tall order, to be sure. But is reaching that goal impossible?

We will have a better handle on this question if NuScale can get its Idaho SMR project completed on cost and on schedule by 2029. The experience gained with that first SMR plant will give us the data we will need to figure out where additional cost savings are to be found in building and operating a 4th Gen nuclear power plant.

Drake
Reply to  Beta Blocker
August 27, 2021 11:00 am

And NuScale size reactors CAN be built on an assembly line and transported by rail.

If they get the design right, then factory production of ALL components can be from fully interchangeable parts. THEN a build out of nuclear base load power production could be completed rapidly as wind and solar are retired. Natural gas will continue to perform in the “response to variability of demand” function.

Steve Oregon
August 27, 2021 7:48 am

Riddle me this.

What happens if technology advances makes coal power plants zero emissions?
Is that celebrated or a bummer for the Climate Crusade?

griff
Reply to  Steve Oregon
August 27, 2021 8:01 am

Zero CO2 or zero particulate?

Well nobody is going to build any more coal in N or S America, the EU, much of SE Asia any more. So nobody will be inventing or deploying a zero either coal plant

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
August 27, 2021 10:35 am

Delusional much, Griffy?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 27, 2021 10:42 am

griff really does believe that his backers are going to be in power forever.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
August 27, 2021 11:40 am

Where can I buy one of your infallible crystal balls? It would be of great advantage for future investing.

Whenever I run across someone as confident as you are about the future, I’m immediately suspicious that they are a conman, are employed as a marketing person, or are simply out of touch with reality. A sane person rarely has your level of confidence about the unknowable. Did you dump all your Betamax stock and buy VHS in time to make a killing?

Steve Oregon
Reply to  griff
August 27, 2021 11:44 am

Your reply didn’t answer my question.
Instead you decree zero emissions coal plants will always be impossible.
Is that some kind of RealClimate tactic you’re using?

Lrp
Reply to  griff
August 27, 2021 12:13 pm

You’re just spouting your usual nonsense as usual. Address the hypothesis or shut up.

bigoilbob
August 27, 2021 7:58 am

While the original title highlights the projected increase in renewable energy, note that no other energy sources significantly decline over the full projection period, not even coal, which was then projected to top its 2014 peak by 2048.”

So, in 27 years coal use will – finally – meet it’s 2014 peak. Quite the resurgence there

The rest is just the usual cherry picked happy face one time events, mostly highlighting short term (per IEA) increases from the pandemic.

But at least you aren’t stuttering about “Bbbbuttt, that’s not what I said!” (when you plainly did). So, there’s that…..
comment image

Derg
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 27, 2021 10:17 am

I love coal and other fossil fuels.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 27, 2021 10:44 am

I don’t know if bob is seeing things, or just thinks he is.
On a side note, Brownie did do a heck of a job.
They were onsite in New Orleans in 2 days, when the operational standard is for them to arrive in 3 days.
Only idiots, and socialists (I repeat myself) believed they should been on hand before the rain stopped falling.

Drake
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 27, 2021 11:03 am

So again BOB, who will pay to retire all the unreliable power fields when they d!e?

Just asking.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Drake
August 27, 2021 12:01 pm

Aksed and answered. Repeatedly. BUT FYI IMO, unlike the hydrocarbon fields and coal mines, they should be bonded sufficiently to cover those (much lower) costs.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 27, 2021 4:52 pm

In your opinion? In other words you have no actual data. Just your opinion of what ought to be.

If you think that it is cheap to remove the concrete pads that anchor wind mills, then you know even less than you have indicated so far.
Ditto, how do you recycle the toxic materials that are used to make solar panels?

Sealing wells has been required for oil companies for decades. Something you should already know.
Ditto, remediation after strip mines are finished.

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
August 27, 2021 6:54 pm

“If you think that it is cheap to remove the concrete pads that anchor wind mills, then you know even less than you have indicated so far.”

An order of magnitude cheaper than modern well abandonments/site restorations. They are inert, often usable (the sites will be used over and over, unlike hydrocarbon sites), and can often be buried in place. OTOH, the current CONUS P&A liability stands at ~$60B. This is an old figure, and does not account for the Trumpian YUGE costs of abandoning modern, high angle, long, multilateral wells, with dozens of zonal isolations required if you wish to drill any economic offsets.

“Sealing wells has been required for oil companies for decades.”

Current P&A rules are a joke. Bonding requirements are for a tiny fraction of actual costs. You live in wish world.

https://carbontracker.org/reports/its-closing-time/

There’s no money set aside to cover retirement costs, and lax regulations are to blame.”

  • The industry is legally obligated to Plug and Abandon (P&A) oil and gas wells, but it has not set aside the resources to pay for this. This is because financial assurance requirements for oilfield asset retirement obligations have to date been a race to the bottom.
  • States have inadvertently created a moral hazard: it’s always in the operator’s financial interest to delay permanent abandonment of wells as long as possible, often by selling late-life and marginal assets to weaker companies.
  • As a predictable result, inventories of largely self-bonded idle wells, some that have been nonoperational for more than 100 years, have ballooned. This trend will only accelerate as the industry enters a state of permanent decline.
  • Covid-19 has temporarily shut-in tens of thousands of producing wells. The energy transition may destroy any chance for the reactivation of these and hundreds of thousands more idle wells.
  • The industry’s asset retirement obligations (AROs) are accelerating, and the ultimate cost to permanently retire the millions of producing, idle and orphaned wells in the U.S. in accordance with the law will be much greater than expected.
  • Current liabilities are calculated based on an average cost of $20-40k, but the actual expected cost for a modern shale well is closer to $300k.
  • Industry – not just a few insolvent companies but the entire U.S. oil and gas industry – may not have sufficient revenues and savings to satisfy liabilities for hundreds of billions of dollars in self-bonded AROs as they come due. Industry-funded orphan well programs are barely a drop in the bucket.
  • Self-bonded AROs have left industry and oil-producing states in a deep hole. If millions of wells with no future beneficial value are to be plugged as the law requires, it will mostly be at taxpayer expense. If instead, they are not plugged, the price will be paid by landowners, citizens, and the environment.
  • By continuing to extend free unsecured credit for AROs, states are subsidizing oil and gas to the detriment of their citizens, the environment, and the competitiveness of renewable energy needed to combat climate change.
bill Johnston
Reply to  MarkW
August 28, 2021 7:43 pm

It is not cheap to remove the concrete pads. Which is why the top of the pad is located 40-48 inches below ground level. At that depth, they do not interfere with farming or other land uses. They are covered over and the developer says goodbye.

Bryan A
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 27, 2021 4:32 pm

That’d be a 27 year long hide and don’t peak for coal. Perhaps, like GW, PeKing Coal is simply on a hiatus

griff
August 27, 2021 8:00 am

Coal is dead, outside China. you get 50 cents for that!

Meab
Reply to  griff
August 27, 2021 8:37 am

griffter, there are currently over 400 coal plants in various phases of construction in a dozen countries including Japan, India, and China.

MarkW
Reply to  Meab
August 27, 2021 10:45 am

griff believes what his handlers tell him to believe.

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
August 27, 2021 11:46 pm

Handlers=Marionette Masters

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
August 27, 2021 8:40 am

Griff, check out SteamH and then get back to us. Already in use in China and in GERMANY!
https://papundits.wordpress.com/2021/06/1…-steamh-the-future-for-coal-fired-power/
https://www.modernpowersytems.com/feat…s/featuresteamh-raising-the-bar-6197154

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
August 27, 2021 8:51 am

Griff, check out SteamH already in use in China, Malaysia and Germany

Mr.
Reply to  griff
August 27, 2021 9:27 am

Best “Baghdad Bob” impersonation you’ve done this week, Griff.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 27, 2021 3:40 pm

“No… Baghdad Bob is now the Pentagon spokesman.”

That made me laught!

I don’t envy the Pentagaon Spokesman, Admiral Kirby’s position. He trying to make Joe Biden’s delusional actions, seem normal and correct. An impossible job.

starzmom
Reply to  David Middleton
August 27, 2021 4:16 pm

I thought Baghdad Bob was the White House Press Secretary with a gender change. Can’t hardly tell them apart.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  David Middleton
August 27, 2021 4:59 pm

Another DoD clown who should resign forthwith.

John Endicott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 30, 2021 6:01 am

so Baghdad Bob is now Kabul Kirby!

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 27, 2021 10:44 am

And griff also believes wind and solar can power an industrial society.

bigoilbob
Reply to  griff
August 27, 2021 12:16 pm

True. But given the size and pops of India and China, I can see how folks can project growth. Cola biz thrives under conditions of totalitarian rule and/or endemic corruption. Ben Dover environmental, safety regs, no labor rights, $ going to the right functionaries, etc.

bigoilbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 27, 2021 12:33 pm

Also, India and China might think that it’s finally their turn.

Average 1960-2018 carbon emissions (tons*person^-1*year^-1)

US – 18.6
China – 3.1
India – 0.9

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 27, 2021 4:56 pm

So you admit that the growth in the coal industry in China and India refutes your earlier claim of peak coal?

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
August 27, 2021 6:58 pm

Not per the IEA. What I said was that I could easily imagine coal growing under totalitarian and/or endemically corrupt regimes. Folks will hide indoors with special air filters for significant parts of they ear, whether they like it or not. Pollution and AGW magnification will be communized worldwide by air currents.

Apparently you think that’s a good thing….

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 27, 2021 4:55 pm

The delusion is strong with this one.
Coal only thrives under totalitarian conditions. Sheesh, I’ve never had any respect for bob’s intelligence, but this is a new low.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
August 27, 2021 12:22 pm

Your champion, Germany, has 74 of them, Japan 87, etc.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
August 27, 2021 9:46 am

A bigger issue is peak energy, not peak coal or gas. Unless there is a nuclear technology breakthrough with fuels that do not include (very rare) uranium, global energy production will peak in 2070.

As the Greens are dead set against nuclear power of all forms (because it involves the word “nuclear”) and hope we will all “do without”. it is unfortunate that agriculture depends on energy inputs for growing and distribution and always will. By 2100 the big delicacy will be rat soup.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
August 27, 2021 11:48 am

By 2100 the big delicacy will be rat soup.

Let’s hope so! It would be preferable to locust soup.

I haven’t tried it, but rat probably tastes a lot like rabbit.

John Endicott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 30, 2021 6:03 am

Which taste like Chicken. 😉

fred101
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
August 28, 2021 7:22 am

The breakthrough for fission-based systems is known NOW. Its termed breeder reactor approaches significantly extend the reserve limitation in fissionable uranium by many factors. Of course, nuclear weapon issues not only remain but are argued to be enhanced by breeder issues. ps.In addition of coal (the largest mine in AU, with roughly 100 years ability for production at current rates opened only a couple of years ago, AND the AU is holding its uranium resources essentially unused presently. Instead, they are having significant problems with wind and solar replacement of fossil power generation due to no planning about grid distribution needs and renewable growth as coal use is forced to go offline to reduce national carbon emissions

August 27, 2021 9:49 am

Just like nuclear power, the Green Ecotards will fight CCS tooth and nail with regulatory and legal roadblocks at every turn. The obvious reason is that Climate Change and net zero have nothing at all to do with climate or emissions in reality.

CCS at national scale would require many new pipelines built to transport the captured CO2 to injection wells from where the generation stations are located (dispersed across the nation). Already the Ecotards fight every new pipeline now tooth and nail. They’d do the same for CO2 CCS pipelines because that would mean more coal and natural gas could be burned.

The real goal of climate change policy is political control and concentration of political power into an elite ruling class. This is happening across the once Western Democracies that were once Constitutional Republics. We still have a thriving but declining middle class that is under direct assault from the COVID power grabs by the Leftist-Marxists that will soon pivot to self-inflicted climate scam energy poverty for the middle class. The goal is to eliminate individual rights and freedoms and reduce the middle class to indentured serfdom. Any doubt of that in UK, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia is erased when one sees what is happening under COVID lockdown controls of a once free people. In the US, the Congressional Democrat’s $3.5 Trillion socialist reformation spending plan would destroy the middle class in the US, by design.

Last edited 24 days ago by joelobryan
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 27, 2021 10:49 am

“The real goal of climate change policy is political control and concentration of political power into an elite ruling class.”

Well said, as usual. At rate we’re going, I reckon we’ll probably only get one electoral cycle to stop the rot at the national level. This will require a no-nonsense administration and Congress that will “stay” the GND, while taking the scientific method seriously enough to support a “red team” capable of publicly exposing the junk science and fraud behind climate alarmism.

AndyHce
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 27, 2021 12:05 pm

Government is largely about who will get the money, not that other nonsense you think it should be doing.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 27, 2021 11:57 am

The carbonation reaction of minerals like olivine or serpentine with CO2 is exothermic. If we are smart about it, we might be able to extract additional heat from the sequestration site(s) to help compensate for the cost of capturing and transporting the CO2.

But then, if you are right, that would be opposed by those who have a political agenda. Thus, opposition to rational energy policies becomes a litmus test for the real motivation of progressives.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 27, 2021 4:11 pm

I see that I got a down vote. I presume from at least one of the professional trolls. Do you have the fortitude to explain why?

AGW is Not Science
August 27, 2021 10:49 am

It looks like we’re going to have to kick CCS/CCUS business into overdrive start ignoring “net zero” mass stupidity sooner than expected.

Fixed that for you.

AndyHce
August 27, 2021 11:02 am

“It looks like we’re going to have to kick CCS/CCUS business into overdrive sooner than expected.”
An energy intensive undertaking that will drive up power demands even faster — and a totally useless, even insane, undertaking.

AndyHce
August 27, 2021 11:58 am

For this article, and several others during recent days, several of the figures do not appear. There is a vertical text stack in a large, otherwise blank, space that may have been intended as the caption, but no image and no link to an image. Is this a general problem or only mine?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 27, 2021 3:46 pm

After I looked at your post long enough, the Figures all appeared. But they didn’t appear at first glance. Maybe there is a holdup on loading the images somewhere.

I couldn’t see any images at the top of this post at all.

I’m using the Firefox browser.

Last edited 24 days ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
August 27, 2021 2:03 pm

From the article: “(I don’t know who regulates railroads in Texas.)”

I had to go look this up.

https://www.rrc.texas.gov/about-us/faqs/railroads/
What, No Railroads?
Who regulates the railroads in Texas?

The Railroad Commission of Texas no longer has any jurisdiction or authority over railroads in Texas, a duty which was transferred to other agencies, with the last of the rail functions transferred to the Texas Department of Transportation in 2005.

When the Railroad Commission of Texas was created in 1891, the agency was charged with oversight of the rail industry. Over the course of history, the Railroad Commission of Texas’ duties have evolved and all rail functions have been transferred to other agencies. Legislation has been introduced to change the name of our agency to better reflect our current jurisdiction, but to date such legislation has not been passed.

end excerpt

H.R.
August 27, 2021 5:18 pm

Now that I think about it, peak coal occurred when the last lump was formed. We started coal mining at peak coal.

We’ve been burning it up since then. The last lump of coal that was formed was Peak Coal. It’s been downhill ever since.

The only unknown is when we will mine the last lump.

niceguy
August 27, 2021 6:20 pm

@Mods
Whenever a Webpage looks buggy, in any browser:

  • test in private (aka p*rn) mode
  • reload without extensions (use diff. profiles for browsers that support profiles)
  • use the Web Inspector/Debugger/console
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  niceguy
August 27, 2021 9:11 pm

Nobody wants to go through all the permutations of various diagnostics just to read an article.

Myron
August 27, 2021 8:03 pm

Firefox on a Mac. Not all images show up.

Clyde Spencer
August 29, 2021 11:06 am

The coal industry is suffering more from political oppression than lack of availability. As capricious as politicians are, the situation could change quickly. It would come back to haunt you for the hubris of your certainty. After all, coal makes a good feedstock for chemicals, liquid fuels, and gases. What kind of dimwit would ignore the utility of coal beyond its use as a simple fuel?

Michael S. Kelly
August 31, 2021 12:31 am

The Strawman image is particularly applicable to the climate alarmism community, in that his signature song was “If I Only Had a Brain.”

spock
September 8, 2021 5:10 am

There is enough coal to last thousands of years. We have barely scratched the surface in using coal. This book explains why.

The moral case for fossil fuels

%d bloggers like this: