The bureaucrats of the world, particularly in the UN and developed countries, have the idea that they are going to eliminate all use of fossil fuels by somewhere around 2040-50. They have no conception of how to accomplish that, other than to order from on high that it shall occur and assume that somebody else will figure out the details. This gives the rest of us the opportunity to sit on the sidelines and observe how bureaucratic fantasy gradually runs into the brick wall of physical reality.
Back in June I covered the Report just out from Ren21 Renewables Now wherein we learned that in the ten years from 2009 to 2019, despite hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies for intermittent wind and solar power, the percent of world final energy consumption coming from fossil fuels had dropped all the way from 80.3% to 80.2%. Oh, but world final energy consumption was substantially up over that decade from about 320 to 385 exajoules, so despite all the strenuous efforts to reduce their use, in fact annual fossil fuel consumption had increased from about 260 to 310 exajoules.
And then just two weeks ago I covered the unfolding energy crisis in the UK. There, the mad rush to close coal plants and build wind turbines had left the country completely subject to just-in-time natural gas deliveries from others, particularly Russia. When a period of calm hit the North Sea wind farms, gas prices spiked by a multiple, and Britain was left closing factories and begging Russia for supply.
And there is plenty more news coming out on the same subject. Here are a couple of examples for today:
China. With the waning of the pandemic, all the rich countries of the West are back to wanting to consume lots of manufactured stuff. But of course the obsession with eliminating fossil fuels has gradually made the industrial energy supply of the rich countries more expensive and less reliable. (This is more true in Europe than in the U.S., but California and New York are doing their best to keep up.). Anyway, no problem, we’ll just get the stuff from China. So in recent months China has been in the mode of ramping up production. That will of course require much more energy. Do you think that it is going to come from wind and solar? Don’t be ridiculous. On September 27, Reuters reported that the ramp-up is causing massive energy shortages around China, and the solution is — coal. “China provincial governor urges more coal imports to resolve power shortages”:
China should work to import more coal from Russia, Indonesia and Mongolia in order to resolve supply shortages now crippling large sections of industry, said Han Jun, governor of the northeastern province of Jilin, one of the worst-hit regions. Speaking to local power firms on Monday, Han said “multiple channels” needed to be set up to guarantee coal supplies, according to the province’s official WeChat social media account. He said the province would also dispatch special teams to secure supply contracts in the neighbouring region of Inner Mongolia.
OPEC World Oil Outlook. On September 28 OPEC came out with its annual World Oil Outlook. This Report looks forward through the year 2045. It’s becoming increasingly impossible to get any straight information out of the American and European oil companies, as threats of lawsuits and regulatory actions cause them to mouth green groupthink and to pretend that they are planning to go out of business over the next couple of decades. But OPEC isn’t subject to the same pressures, so their Report is a much better indication of where knowledgeable people think things are going.
And where might that be? Here is OPEC’s chart of projected demand growth for petroleum from now to 2045:
In short, it’s continued growth in consumption all the way through 2045, albeit with the growth leveling off toward the end of the period. But basically, OPEC projects that any and all decreases in oil consumption achieved by the OECD nations (developed countries) will be offset and more by increases in the rest of the world.
OPEC also tries its hand at projections of demand for coal and natural gas over the same period. Here’s their chart of projected demand for natural gas:
It’s increases as far as the eye can see. Yes, they project that demand from the OECD countries will remain essentially flat at just under 30 mboe/d over the whole period; but meanwhile demand from the rest of the world is projected to go up dramatically from about 35 mboe/d to around 55 mboe/d.
In another chart relating to coal, they project a small decline in world demand from around 70 mboe/d today to around 60 mboe/d by 2045. Substantial declines in OECD nations will be offset by almost equivalent increases in places like India and Africa.
Do the people at OPEC know what they are talking about with these projections? I think that these figures are far more likely to be close to the mark than the fantasies coming out of the UN, where the talk is that the entire world economy will reach “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. For example, here is the UN’s IEA, November 17, 2019, discussing what they call a “1.5 °C scenario that does not rely on negative emissions technologies”:
This . . . [scenario] means a reduction in emissions of around 1.3 billion tonnes CO2 every year from 2018 onwards. That amount is roughly equivalent to the emissions from 15% of the world’s coal fleet or from 40% of today’s global passenger car fleet. The year by which different economies would need to hit net-zero in such a scenario would vary, but the implication for advanced economies is that they would need to reach this point in the 2040s. . . . [D]eveloping economies . . . would all need to be at net-zero by 2050.
A solution seeking a cause to a purportedly hard problem. Deja vu.
That said, unqualified, monotonic change (“progress”): one step forward, two steps backward.
The last thing any sane person wants is progress towards eliminating fossil fuels! I want more, more drilling, more fracking, more digging! Abundant energy for everyone in the world!
You are correct Pamela.
This idea we can fix the clouds by reducing emissions is fascinating and typical of our conceit.
Academics, mainstream media and our governing/corporate elites need to understand emissions are the result of energy production and energy production is the primary cause of human wealth and prosperity.
However, its going to take some time. The alarmists have successfully oversold the catastrophic AGW concept….perception always trumps reality.
Agree completely, Pamela. Drill, drill, drill.
On a side note, and I don’t know enough about the details of this technology approach by Porsche, but will be interesting to see what is produced long term. Is this more unicorn stuff, or viable?
Seems a very complicated and expensive solution for a non-problem. Porsche is virtue signaling. At some point in the future I have no doubt better ways to power vehicles will be developed but for today, fossil fuels do a great job.
Not sure what figure 3.3 is showing…how can a region have a negative oil demand? Are they producing more than they are using? Is this really a drop in demand, not a total demand? This chart is confusing.
Figure 3.3 shows the projected change in demand, so yes the negative would be a drop for that region.
IMHO: The OPEC survey of projected decrease in annual petroleum consumption in OCED nations is dependent on the assumed continuation of growth in consumer buying trends in EV with the replacement of ICE, declining unsubsidized cost of EV’s, proof of safety of EV batteries, investment in the widespread availability of EV charging stations, stable cost of electricity, consumer acceptance of the annoyance attendant on charging EV’s, conversion of diesel semi truck engines to alternative fuel sources, future prices of alternative energy sources, and other known unknowns. I’m not sure how far into the future projections of these variables should be made without wide margins for error being stated.
I don’t understand figure 3.3, but no matter, my wife and I just bought a powerful SUV, high-octane gasoline, go over the Andes to eat some salmon on the Chile coast.
3.3 is a little confusing. I think it is showing the year on year growth by region. So what you are seeing is that the OECD countries in the first 5 years increase along with every other region.
But in the next five year segments, OECD contries fall and the others increase, more than making up for their fall.
Not very clear.
Has anyone proposed adjusting earths orbit to “control” our global temperature? Or maybe it easier to simply alter the axis we spin on??
I see lots of study potential, gonna need a lot of money!
WE are already doing this from Australia
we export close to 3B tonnes of Iron Ore to China from Western Australia every year
so we are slowly but surely trying to move the earth centre of gravity
as we know we are working on geological time not Gretta time so in a 1M years we should have concluded the experiment
John: “[…] so in a 1M years we should have concluded the experiment”
Get it on video or it didn’t happen.
But it is offset by the crap we buy back…….
A lot of fuel would have to be burned to push the Earth’s orbit 465,000 miles farther from the sun, with the result that the solar radiation would decrease by 1%. It’s not clear whether the entire earth has enough fossil (or even nuclear) fuel to do this.
But you might want to write a proposal. Some idiot at the UN might agree to fund it.
We need a national museum of bad ideas. So when high school student thinks BEV, HFC, ect are good ideas, we can send them to a museum.
The problem with getting an education and experience it comes with grey hair. Then the next generation thinks your anti progress.
I am not progress, I am against repeating failure.
when you are 1 year old you have 100% of your life in 1 year so you have learned an incredible amount but know nothing
when you are 50 years old you have learned a little but know a lot but are now worthless according to society
when you are retired you have plenty of time to share your knowledge but are seen as knowing nothing
Humans are the dumbest creatures
they talk of knowledge but are only interested in the next sports game and drinking
we only have our selves to blame for letting a drop out Swede tell us she knows best
By 70, you stop imparting your accumulated knowledge because you realise no one is listening.
I guess I’m young for my age. 🙂 I’m still banging my head against the likes of griff and bigoilbob.
As an ex-manager and an ex-teacher, I’m accustomed to informing /teaching. So on occasion, I feel the impulse to inform. I take a deep breath and a moment to think and mainly say ‘nah’.
Don’t stop commenting, I find it informative.
Quote attributed (probably incorrectly) to Winston Churchill :
“When you’re 20 you care what everyone thinks, when you’re 40 you stop caring what everyone thinks, when you’re 60 you realize no one was ever thinking about you in the first place.”
Note that I am fast approaching phase 3 …
It has been the same throughout this modern world, since the end of WW2. The yoof of t’day know all the answers to all the world’s problems, real or imagined!!! The old folks know nothing coz they is old!!! I have often said when asked by somebody conducting some survey or other in the street, what I thought about this or that, “I am a retired white hetero-sexual male engineer, so therefore can have no valid opinion to offer whatsoever!!!”. Sarc!
Isn’t repeatedly doing the same thing that fails over & over again, expecting a different result, the definition of stupidity?
But you didn’t repeat it, we left it to the young and foolish to repeat all our mistakes. We tried to offer them the benefit of our experience, point out the way(s) we succeeded, sometimes even pointing out the ways we failed in hopes the young can benefit from our experience and not have to repeat all the mistakes we made, but alas, as already noted, nobody listens and it seems every youth insists on repeating all the same mistakes we made as youth, sometimes trying for extra points through degree-of-difficulty enhancements. SMH. I suppose that’s why we keep hearing about cold fusion and net-zero and snake oil and socialism and communism and phlogiston and etc. and etc. and etc.,… but you failed only because you didn’t do it right!!! We’ll just be sure to get it right this time… Here, hold my beer, and watch this. It’s a wonder the Human species still exists, isn’t it!
Reality has a way of slapping sense into the believers of energy fantasies. We are one long, brutally cold winter away from that event occurring. Natural gas and propane are already 3X as expensive this fall as last year at this time in Wisconsin. We are being warned of tight supplies now. The stage for this tragedy is set.
Wisconsin voted for Biden. Or did they? In any case, the lesson is you get what you pay for. And pay for, and pay for, and pay for.
Not to worry, the Authoritarians will either insist it’s Climate Change™ and see we told you so, or that only through their tireless efforts has the World been saved, but either way, therefore you must surrender even more of your liberties unto us!
The economies of most EU countries have stalled since ~2008 after decades of steady growth.
Trading Economics website shows GDP, GDP per cap PPP, labor productivity have all flat-lined in most while in Italy and Spain living standards have fallen sharply.
It’s probably no coincidence that around mid-2000s the European Commission decided to embark on a ‘post-industrial revolution’ or a low-carbon economy.
Covid aside, EU energy policies are now beginning to bite.
Alarmism is a language game:
The crafty language of climate alarmism
By David Wojick
“I am constantly entertained by the artful ways alarmists bend language to their will. This often happens as science stories percolate through the media. Each step is a bit of a stretch, maybe not an obvious lie. But the sequence of stretches takes us so very far from the truth that we wind up in alarmville.
We just had a beauty kicked off by the great green Washington Post. What makes this especially funny is they are reporting their very own research, so there is no question of misunderstanding it. Just stretching it bit by bit, here and there.
The study itself is simple enough. When really bad, damaging weather hits it is normal to declare a federal disaster. This which allows Federal agencies to take certain actions, including loans and tax relief. This is done at the county scale. So WashPo looked at all of the disaster declarations in the last three months and determined the cumulative fraction of the US population that lived in those counties.
Since some disasters, especially from hurricanes, cover more than one entire state, it is no surprise that this added up to about a third of the national population. So far so good. This is science of a crude sort, basically adding stuff up.
The stretching begins when they report their study. First we get the headline, which is all that most people will read. Here is the main headline:
“Nearly 1 in 3 Americans experienced a weather disaster this summer“
This assumes that somehow every person living in every county “experienced” the local disaster. The number of people that physically experienced these disasters is actually quite small.
In some cases, like flash floods, most of the county never knew it had happened until they heard the news. In the hurricane cases a lot of people were not there, while others simply watched it rain really hard. Losing electricity, while unpleasant, is hardly experiencing a disaster. Where I live it happens several times a year.
I am not minimizing the tragic horrors that those who actually experienced these disasters went through. Just pointing out that they are nothing like 1 in 3 Americans.
Then we get the sub-headline blaming climate change:
“Climate change has turbocharged severe storms, fires, hurricanes, coastal storms and floods — threatening millions“
“Turbocharged”? This is not science, just a meaningless metaphor. As such it is not quite a lie, just almost. There have been computer based attribution studies saying climate change might have had something to do with these disasters. But turbocharged sounds very impressive.
Mind you “threatening millions” seems a bit odd, given we are talking about over 100 million people supposedly experiencing this stuff. Perhaps whoever wrote this never read the article. It happens.
And wildfires are now weather. That is really stretching the word.”
A lot more in the article. Please share it.
The Washington Post must be where John Kerry gets his climate facts.
I thought it was Kerry’s Office (what do they call that thing now, the Climate Change Envoy?) that penned the fiction from whence the Lame Stream Press concoct their orgasmic catastrophe scenarios?
Meanwhile, ExxonMobil is busy putting money into and promoting the idea of algae-based bio-
….but they admit there are serious stumbling blocks…
“Algae biofuel initially looked promising, but a few key problems have thwarted major research efforts, including development of a strain of algae able to produce plentiful cheap fuel, and scaling up to meet global energy demand.”
Somehow, I have serious doubts that the world can grow enough algae to produce sufficient bio-fuels to replace all the surface and air transportation fuels we currently get from crude oil. And then there are are all the other products made from crude oil. Is there a replacement for crude oil to make them all?
i acknowledge that we will run out of crude oil someday, but at present this looks like a wild goose chase.
It supposedly took many millions of years to collect enough solar energy to produce the bounty of fossil fuels. There is no way enough solar energy can be collected interactively (collected and used in the same year) to replace fossil fuels.
No, this is not based on my study of the environment and the necessary engineering, not even a developed mathematical model, but it seems very likely to be true. Where are the fallacies in it?
Wasn’t the largest known oil field discovered to date, bigger than the Middle-East fields, off the coast of Brazil, a discovered that President Obama promised all available American technical assistance to develop??? If we’re going to run out, it won’t be any time soon me thinks!!!
Don’t think so, the last big discovery (top 20) was in 2000 in Kazakhstan, and that was 1/3 to 1/4 the size of the grand-daddy of them all Ghawar in Saudi Arabia. 13 of the top 20 largest fields are in the Middle East.
And we won’t run out, oil will become too expensive to compete with some other energy source. It will be like all our other past energy sources.
From an economics standpoint, you are correct, but from a reality standpoint *yawn* wake me up when the first economically viable alternative to fossil fuels hits the market. Even though I have promised my grandchildren I will be around to embarrass their grandchildren, I still don’t think I’ll see a complete replacement of fossil fuels, probably not even a partial replacement, without needing subsidies, there’s always a little more oil. The technological advancements go toward that next unreachable oil patch. When I got my first paying job, deep water Gulf of Mexico was too expensive to drill. The price of fuel rose, technology improved until they met in the middle and poof deep water GOM happened. By the time the price of oil came back down the drilling was in place, and while the price may not have been high enough to justify a NEW well, the price was enough to keep pumping the existing wells. Currently the price is going back up, I wonder if the * Administration (here in the U.S.ofA.) realizes that in successfully driving up the price of oil, all they have successfully accomplished is opening up that next most difficult (marginally) patch of oil? Irony bites, dudn’t it?
I had also seen a proposal for using algae to absorb CO2 from flue gas from a coal-fired power plant. The flue gas is mostly nitrogen and CO2, with some traces of oxygen and water vapor, and is bubbled through transparent plastic tubes filled with water and algae at about 140 F. During daylight hours, the algae use the CO2 to grow, and generate oxygen, and produce a small amount of fuel.
There are a few drawbacks to this process, most notably the fact that the algae do not remove any CO2 at night. Also, as the algae continue to grow, the water in which they float becomes more and more opaque and not exposed to sunlight, so that the tubes have to be drained periodically to “harvest” overgrown algae.
The main environmental “benefit” from this process is removing a portion of the CO2 from the emissions, while the amount of “fuel” produced is minimal, and it has to be dried out to become useful. If some productive use could be found for the algae (possibly used as food to raise fish), there could be some real benefit from this process.
You seem to accept the dubious idea that removing CO2 is somehow beneficial.
CO2 is a wholly beneficial trace gas on which All life depends. Reducing CO2 should be opposed.
More CO2 is desirable, up to several thousand PPM.
I left this one out of my other comment, I know I have been hearing about research into creating fuel from algae at least since I was in college (that’s been over 40 years ago now), and possibly since I was in junior high school. Just like cold fusion, it’s always 10 years out.
We humans can get to zero CO2 emissions by 2030 really easily, and there’s no need to reduce fossil fuel usage in order to get there. We can just buy carbon credits. If governments want to do something really useful, instead of subsidising wind and solar energy they could be putting a price limit on carbon credits. No-one selling carbon credits ever does anything that reduces the amount of CO2, so we don’t have to worry about that side of the equation. A price limit of say $1 per 1000,000,000 tons should be high enough.
Meanwhile my mining engineer son tells me that by burning methane–a “byproduct” of the mining industry–mining companies generate millions of dollars in carbon credits. They turn the CH4 into CO2. I suggested this is monopoly money, but he is right–it is real cash, and a great gig if you can get it.
We humans can get to net zero CO2 emissions by exterminating 10% of the worlds termites since they emit 10 times the CO2 humans do.
Nobody cares about the welfare of termites and a 10% reduction in their population is not extinction. Plus millions would be perfectly happy employed saving the earth performing an actual green job.
We wiped out yellow fever by exterminating mosquitos in Panama to build the canal and we can save the world from global warming by doing the same with termites.
Read Professor Simon Lewis in The Guardian of 3 March 2021,“The Climate Crisis can’t be solved by carbon accounting tricks”.
No carbon offsets to be allowed to “game” the move to net zero!
Dealing with these deep green alarmists reminds me of the tale of Bret Rabbit and the Tar Baby.
We are being drawn incrementally to destruction of our economies by such tactics as “net zero” emissions by 2030, 2050 or 2060.
Mark Carney promotes carbon offsets (which the UN IPCC actually permits) but suddenly we are told by Professor Lewis that this course is not permissible because effectively only zero emissions now will save the planet.
Too many scams, delays etc.with carbon offsets.
Is the public sufficiently astute to recognise the dangers to their well being from these zealots?
The public? How many of any previous society ever saw through the scam of the priests?
Almost all the thrust of climate worriers’ transition efforts over the last decade or so has been with electrical energy – renewables. This is because when they think about the enormous problems in converting transport, cement making, steel, aluminium, powering ships … away from fossil fuels they realize this just may not be doable even by the low standards they find acceptable with their windmills and solar.
Key technologies haven’t been invented yet! This is even true for crippled renewables on which somewhere around a trillion or more has been spent to get 10% of our energy needs. “Backup” power is largely fossil fuel to handle days when sun or wind fails (and sun fails for over ~15hrs out of 24). Big batteries are a dangerous, expensive, ineffective joke.
Néomarxiste polies, NGOs and paid protesters, snowflakes and wokies of every stripe WILL finally give in to nuclear and probably natural gas for electrical power. Neither require grid batteries which are coffins for the entire enterprise. It is the absolute only way to even dream about converting to electric cars. Trucks(?)dunno, maybe using trolley tech) and ships (the latter fitted with nuclear power).
It won’t be as good and as cheap as we have had, but it’s doable and a bit less crazy.
I just did a quick calculation of winter fuel costs. I estimate it will be costing me around £800/month to heat my house during the depths of winter Dec through Feb. If we add in food and drinks over the period, it is now lower cost for me to go on an all in cruise, than to live in my house in the winter!
Energy prices have passed the point where they are sustainable, or we need to build more cruise ships……
Wow – that is alarming by Australian standards. You mast have a huge house or like temperature above 30C. Why not take out a few dozen rooms and turn them into greenhouses to produce biofuels? An acre of sugar beat will give you enough energy to run a 10kW burner continuously.
Alternatively, sell your mansion and downsize to an apartment in a large block surrounded by people who also like the thermostat at 30C.
You lost me as soon as you started trying to tell him what to do. Tip to all Leftists: you don’t get to live his life for him.
Considering the vast majority, if not all, manufactured stuff needs fossil fuels to exist, this ain’t gonna happen
How will we get toys into the shops for Christmas?
Burn fossil fuels, think of the children!
Hell, how will we make the toys… Has anyone seen the “Thank you Northface” ad? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH0UjtGCgU4 Much (many?) of the toys made today come from the same source.
The greens in the UK stopped us from fracking a few years back and now we’re short of gas
Its fracking terrible!
I once had to explain to a dear friend over a drink, (I used to sing with her socially), that “fracking” was merely a drilling technique, first started back in 1945 in Texas. The ONLY new technology was horizontal drilling, “fracking” is not new & the UK have been doing it in the North Sea since the 1960s!!! Fracking is perfectly safe by example!!! Then again, ignorance is bliss!!!
There was an enhancement to old-fashioned fracking… It was called a slippery frack. In the old fashioned frack (short for fracturing) you use pumps to raise the downhole pressure to incredible levels in order to “fracture” the rock surrounding the hole, then pump in a sand slurry and the bits of sand get into the cracks and keep the open after the pressure is relieved. In effect, it increases the surface area from which oil seeps to collect in the bottom of the hole where it can be pumped out, and it’s a technique that has been in use since the mid-1940s. In shales and other “tight” formations, the cracks aren’t big enough for the standard sand to do any good, so instead they found a polymer of some sort that was small enough particles to enter the cracks, but still large enough to hold the crack open, but not so “sticky” I guess, that it completely fills and plugs the cracks. That innovation, combined with horizontal drilling, made the tight formations profitable.
Fortunately the world started weaning off fossil fuels more than 20 years ago. The achievement to date is the slow dawning that it appears an impossible task.
Eventually fossil fuels will be in short supply and alternatives will become economic. Right now there appears three possibilities.
The most serious issue right now is the delusion the weather dependent intermittent generators produce more energy than the consume!
The most serious issue is the ignorance that insists CO2 is the cause of catastrophic global warming. All this CO2 bullshit follows from that falsehood. CO2 is absolutely necessary for all life on earth, and is NOT the driver of global warming. Just look at millennia of geological data; look at the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods. Look at the models that fail in every prediction they make, yet the sheep believe it when the models say the temp will rise.
I’ve been thinking about how these cults like the climate cult eventually disappear. It seems that there are only two ways:
1. They either get forcibly ended as occurred to the National Socialists in Germany, Pol Pot, etc. or
2 They very slowly go out of fashion (as occurred to the witch trials)
As far as I can tell, there never is a “road to Damascus” return to common sense. These cults either got totally barmy and are ended by force, or they very slowly fizzle out over many decades if not centuries.
So, it seems a pretty safe bet, that this climate cult is not going to end until people are literally starving, shivering and dying in their homes, not as isolated cases, but by the millions like Pol Pot and the similar Soviet “five year plans”. That seems to be the way we are heading … the cult will not stop until something truly appalling happens.
Some of the cults are actually gluing themselves to the road to stop deliveries of essentials here in the UK.
It is more than likely there will be a serious reaction to one of these spontaneous insulate demonstrations. At the moment, they only walk onto the road and stick themselves down under police protection from the irate drivers. The time will come, when even the police realise perhaps stopping people from legitimately going about their business, is not something they should be involve in.
Without the police to protect them, I suspect some of the cults will become victims of traffic movement and then be permanently stuck to the road…..
Again, more models…
Who can predict what will happen in 10 tears, in a world made of around two hundred countries most of them having elections and change of government every few years?
Of course, “years”, not “tears”…
Gee, I just don’t know what to say…. other than “are the Big Mahoffs going to have their gas/fuel oil shut off first?”
Just asking, because ti seems only fair that they should be at the head of the line for “no mo’ gas” stuff. The working stiffs are the people who should be first in line to have/keep nat gas, not the Big Mahoffs.
Of course, that means that the history of no cutting wood for the fire by the peasants for cooking and heating should be brought up, but that doesn’t matter very much, does it?
(Do I have to add the /sarc part?)
In March 2021, the IEA expected oil demand in OECD countries to fall between 2019 and 2026 from 47.7mb/d to 45.8 mb/d. It also expected oil demand in the rest of the world to rise in the same period from 52.0 mb/d to 58.3 mb/d. Thus the IEA expected total oil demand between 2021 and 2026 to rise from 99.7 mb/d to 104.1 mb/d.
The human contribution to the atmospheric CO2 level is only 1/500th of one percent of that level. Its elimination would be of no consequence regarding global temperature or climate.
Someone who knows how to retrieve such data, can we go back and check the last 20+ years of IEA “predictions” and see how they did? In all of supply, demand and price? Seems to me we had an article a few years back, maybe as much as 10 years back, on WUWT showing that the IEA always overestimate. It seems they overestimated demand back in the ’70s, they overestimate price continually, and now that the loudest dogs in the pack are screaming for reductions, they overestimate reductions. But I don’t have a copy of that, and I’d like to see if they got any better since then. But I don’t know how to retrieve such data. I could probably get previous IEA data from IEA archives (they do have such a thing, don’t they? Or is each year produced in a vacuum and the previous year’s prediction is just disappeared?)… I guess then I have to go to the next year IEA report to see how they actually did, and compare that against the previous year’s predictions? I don’t know when I could make the time to do that, though.
The purpose of all of this has nothing to do with Climate Change. It stems from the Globalist desire to control everything.
WIND AND SOLAR TO PROVIDE 50 PERCENT OF FUTURE NEW ENGLAND ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
Energy systems analysts of Denmark, Ireland, Germany, the UK, etc., have known for decades, that if you have a significant percentage of wind on your grid, you better have enough OTHER power producing plants to COUNTERACT any lack of wind available at all times, 24/7/365, year after year.
RE folks advocate:
1) Wind plus solar must provide at least 50% of the load of the NE grid.
2) Getting rid of the remaining NE nuclear plants as soon as their licenses expire, or sooner
3) Getting rid of burning natural gas, coal, oil, propane to reduce CO2. Burning, biomass, etc., is OK.
Fossil Fuels Still Supply 84 Percent of World Primary Energy, and Other Eye Openers from BP’s Annual Energy Review
Coal, 27%; Natural Gas, 24%; Oil, 33%, a total of 84%, plus Nuclear, 4%; Hydro, 6%; Renewables 5%
Some of the primary energy is used for exploration, extraction, processing and transport to produce primary energy. That primary energy is often called “upstream energy”.
For example, to produce ethanol from corn requires a significant quantity of primary energy to produce a gallon of ethanol for blending with gasoline; the combustion CO2 of ethanol is not counted, as is the CO2 of burning biomass, because they are renewable, per international agreement.