Guest “Just a bit outside” by David Middleton
In the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 2020 International Energy Outlook, renewables (including hydroelectric) were forecast to surpass petroleum and other liquid fuels as the world’s leading source of primary energy. This is commonly referred to as the “energy transition” from fossil fuels to unicorn dust.
Since the consumption of fossil fuels and nuclear power were actually forecasted to continue to grow, there would be no actual transition and Inigo Montoya would say…
Today’s release of the 2021 International Energy Outlook no longer forecasts renewables taking the lead before 2050…
Note: Petroleum and other liquids includes biofuels
OCTOBER 6, 2021
EIA projects accelerating renewable consumption and steady liquid fuels growth to 2050Today we released our International Energy Outlook 2021 (IEO2021). In the IEO2021 Reference case, which assumes current laws and regulations, we project that strong economic growth and growing populations will drive increases in global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption through 2050. Much of the increase in energy consumption will be met with liquid fuels and renewable energy sources. Natural gas- and coal-fired generation technologies as well as the emerging use of batteries will also prompt increased consumption.
Some key findings of IEO2021 include:
If current policy and technology trends continue, global energy consumption and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions will increase through 2050 as a result of population and economic growth.
The industrial and transportation sectors will largely drive the increase in energy consumption. Electric vehicle sales will grow through 2050, causing the internal combustion engine fleet to peak in 2023 for countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and in 2038 globally. Despite this projected growth in electric vehicle sales, the continued growth in energy consumption will cause global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions to rise through 2050 according to our IEO2021 Reference case.[…]
Principal contributor: Michelle Bowman
EIA
As an “added bonus” EIA now forecasts that coal consumption for energy will exceed its alleged 2014 peak by 2043…
And they continue to forecast that fossil fuels will continue to be the world’s dominant source of primary energy for many decades to come…
Claims that we are in the process of transitioning away from fossil fuels are…
Being No. 1 is not necessary being the best.
The great thing about all these graphs, is that even the most outlandish projections for the ‘green’ energy sources show carbon dioxide emissions increasing for many, many decades.
My, how the world biosystems will actually benefit from this.
What pitiful fools they are, in the absence of ‘conspiracy theories’ about implementation of the green mantras.
so exactly what is “Net Zero by 2050”?
Serious question….
it refers to the number of goals the England football team will get in the next 29 years in international competition.
Look at the meaning of “Taxonomies” in EU verbiage: when “needed”, a new vocabulary, with changed meanings for words, is published and will b used by all the bureucratic EU institutions…
Look at the meaning of “Taxonomies” in EU verbiage:
=====
Taxonomies is a combination of Taxes and Economies. It means more taxes for your economies.
Not sure but, based on the likes of Al Gore, it means that The Elites CO2 emissions will increase exponentially but the “carbon credit” market will also increase exponentially … and us peons (taxpayers) will be footing the bill.
I heard that the meaning is: “blah, blah, blah build back better”.
sarc
Net Zero by 2050 means you buy carbon credits from 3rd world nations to balance your books. CO2 emissions remain unchanged just the emissions are attributed to the 3rd world and as a woke greentard you sleep well at night thinking you are saving the planet.
And the budget expense becomes a huge burden with cut backs needed on services and infrastructure to pay foreigners.
Net zero means zero human-derived CO2 emissions.
It’s not going to happen. it’s a pipe dream.
It’s more likely that windmills will be phased out by 2050, if not sooner. Thinking windmills are the solution is the problem. I think in the near future windmills will not be seen as the solution.
Happily, there is no indication that CO2 causes a runaway greenhouse effect, and that’s good, because we are going to have much more CO2 in the air in the future. We need to learn to love CO2, not fear it, because there is nothing to fear.
It’s cooling globally today even though more CO2 goes into the air every day.
Are they predicting ITC tax credits to 2050 to support their graph?
There won’t be any 1st world economies left to tax if EU and the Bidenistas stick around
That is by design and the goal.
I don’t think the Biden administration is going be around beyond 2024, and will probably be stymied by a Republican majority taking over the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate in 2022.
A poll this morning says 55 percent of those polled think the Biden administration is “incompetent”.
Other polls show Republicans gain control of both the House and the Senate in the 2022 elections.
Biden is definitely the worst president ever. It’s not even close. Obama must be very happy to no longer be in last place. You’re just the second worst president in history now, Barack.
They are realizing that Bernie actually won the election and they did not vote for him. They are no better off than voters in Russia or Venezuela.
I don’t know… Obummer corrupting multiple government agencies and departments ‘Chicago style” keeps Obummy in the last place.
Especially since Obummer’s pals are likely responsible for their leaving the Taliban $billions in weapons.
Projecting tax legislation far beyond its authority is disingenuous and presume no one is really reading or using critical thinking with the report–i.e. pretty graph to make a political point for the bosses
There is much chance of a unicorn straying into my garden as these goals being achieved.
But if one does, it’s very easy to turn it into unicorn dust. You just drop it into liquid nitrogen, then crush the frozen and brittle thing into dust.A food processor works very well.
It’s easier than you think to get renewables to no. 1 without much effort.
One just need to sabotage conventional energy until the production drops below that of renewables .
(even a significant increase in renewable energy production won t have much of a positive effect as the increase in electric vehicles and maintenance of existing renewables will eat everything away.)
Actually one just needs to quit carping about it and personally divest from its use. (If they’re so inclined)
Separate from Grid Sourced electricity
Scrap your ICE car(s)
Buy new EV(s)
Eliminate use of Plastics and Steel and Synthetic Rubber tires (Dependant on petrochemicals) oh wait, there goes your EV and Solar and Wind power (Coal and Plastics required for manufacturing them)
…and don’t forget, something like 70% of the clothes you wear (except for people like me who are allergic to polyester, over half my clothes are natural fibers, either cotton or wool, any blend more than about 35% polyester gives me a rash). Heck, you can’t even have elastic to hold your underwear up without petroleum!
Combine the coal, gas and oil graphs and fossil is still dominant. There is nothing even approaching a transition. Policy says otherwise. The reality check should be fun.
“causing the internal combustion engine fleet to peak in 2023 for countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)”
My money is on lithium battery fires peaking before ICE vehicles do.
Yes the fires might slow the battery powered cars down a bit, if the coming shortage of lithium, & rare earth minerals to build the motors don’t stop it first.
This can’t possibly be right. griff, nyolci, et al have been telling us that fossil fuels are on the way out, with wind and solar about to dominate. Have they possibly been wrong? Someone’s got some ‘splainin to do. AOC and her ilk on Capitol Hill are gonna come unglued.
LMFAO!!!
What’s next…they’ll be telling us in 5-10 years that even 2050 was a pipe dream?
New mantra “net zero by 2075″….
David, thanks for the Bob Uecker clip from the movie Major League. Made me smile. I had the pleasure of listening to Mr. Baseball for many years doing the play-by-play for the Milwaukee Brewers while I lived there.
Regards,
Bob
EIA has a long history of gross errors and revisions.
In 2010, they projected that by 2015, on shore wind would be competitive with CCGT. In 2015, they published a LCOE analysis showing both were in the low $90/MWH. Redoing their analysis with correct inputs had CCGT at about $67/MWh and wind at about $146/MWh. Post True Cost of Wind at Climate Etc.has the details of the five basic errors EIA made.
In 2013, they estimated the recoverable oil from the Monterey Shale at 15Bbbl. In 2014 they revised their estimate to essentially zero after the USGS pointed out their error. The Monterey is folded and faulted, there is nothing horizontal to drill and frac. Covered that goof in ebook Blowing Smoke in essay Reserve Reservations.
Fossil fuels will be no1 until they run out. Combine coal natural gas and Petroleum and you can see that they are never going to disappear. The closer we get to their utopian dream of the end of fossil fuels the further away it will get.
Then nuclear fuels will be counted as fossil fuels?
I think the world will have given up on wind & solar by then.
Just all the clean-up to be done.
You could be right about the nutters. Nuclear fuel is primordial, so it obviously predates “fossil” time frames.
Can not in my worst nightmare scenario phantom significant wind and solar deployment continuing for more than 10 years. Fifty years of that failed experiment will surely suffice.
In reality, petroleum will never “run out”. There currently exists known, even proven reserves, that are not exploited because the cost of getting it out of the ground exceeds the price it brings on the open market. As demand increases beyond what those known sources can supply the price will rise, bringing more plays into the economically viable range. That additional supply may plateau the price, or even lower it (tight shales, for example?), but the cycle will repeat itself. Remember also, as the price rises consumers react, no market is wholly inelastic, and conserve by either eliminating some of the equipment that uses fuel or replacing equipment with more efficient equipment (no energy forecast created in the early 1970s at the U.S. first “energy crisis” was accurate because nearly all assumed the continuation, or even an increase, of energy consumption per capita.) That lowered demand puts downward pressure on price. EVENTUALLY the price will get high enough to make a known but uneconomic technology viable, or something completely new will come along that completely turns the world on its head (think the impact of the cell phone, the copy machine, sound recording and playback, the telephone, the typewriter, mass produced automobiles, the steam engine, the telegraph, dynamite, etc, etc). The demand for petroleum will drop (it may never go away completely, there are thousands of uses we have been unable to identify a replacement), drilling will decrease, existing wells will continue to pump only until the price falls below just the pumping and transportation price, forget the sunk cost when they sunk the well, but that doesn’t mean the field or even that hole is completely pumped out, there’s still some oil down there, it’s just no longer economical to continue to try to recover it. This has been your Econ 101 lesson for the day.
They can’t really succeed, because if they try, we’ll look like Cuba where the average car in use was built many decades ago.
It’s bad enough that it’s hard to find a new car or truck with a V8, which will only get worse when you can’t find one with an engine. Furthermore, if most cars become electric, electricity will get very expensive, while gasoline will become cheap. It’s called supply and demand economics which is more powerful at controlling markets than any government will ever be.
Aren’t we supposed to burn up in hothouse earth hell in another 9 years or so unless drastic measures are taken? Given these graphs, I’m confused…do you mean all those “carbon taxes” collected are nothing more than a tax grab?
(yes, this is sarcasm)
Well, in the years before 2000 climate hoaxers claimed that by 2000 the Sydney Harbour Opera House would be underwater.
Now 2021 and it remains high and dry.
The big climb-down, begins. Reality, strikes.
So now we know that most energy are still fossil fuels by 2050. So how much will that change by 2100 or 2150??
And what does the EU IEA projection show and is it really any different than the US based EIA??
Clearly this all proves that COP 26 is just more delusional BS and FRA_D and co2 will continue to increase for the rest of the century.
Certainly China, India and developing countries will be building many hundreds of coal + gas power stns for a very long time. They won’t be caught out AGAIN, like this year in 2021.
BUT will the OECD countries EVER WAKE UP?
I think they mislabeled renewables and nuclear in the graph. These should be switched. The West’s leaders are getting close to realization that the energy transition they had imagined isn’t going to materialize.
Part of the dawning wisdom on this is that the ‘easy’ part, electrification with renewables, is (all BS aside) failing miserably, both technically and economically. They thought they could patch it with batteries, but now know that the batteries are proto types vulnerable to dramatic failure and replacing backup fossil fuel power with them requires more than twice as many ‘charging’ windmills which have the same issues as the primary fleet. This is an engineering nightmare.
Electrification of EVs, of course will work with dispatchable power but would otherwise compound the costly intermittent nightmare. EVs aren’t perfect themselves and for transport trucks, not workable – the battery being half the load they are carrying.
Since human nature doesn’t like a multitrillion abject failure on their ‘con-science’, they will cover their noses and go nuclear. Some of the once rabid antinuke folk are softening on this. It is the only tech that allows them to sustain their anti CO2 central issue. EIA’s forecast for renewables and nuclear will switch as time goes on.
nuclear isn’t an alternative. its the only alternative.
Leo, you are right. I’m thinking by 2050 our ‘betters’ will have come around to the same idea all by themselves.
You mean “come to their senses”, Gary Pearse?
That will happen if/when they flip a switch and nothing happens, and the fuse box says all systems are running, but there’s no electricity.
I’m holding out for 2040.
GP, said this before. The ‘right’ strategy is CCGT most places for the next 40+ years. Plenty of natgas and LNG around for that period. Coal for poor counties.
Invest in Gen 4 concepts, work the kinks out, build a few at pilot scale, then decide and go nuclear as the CCGT come to end of life. Gen 3 nuclear just isnt economic, as Voglte 3 and 4 prove.
So Rud what percentage of Renewables total are S&W compared to Hydro. See my questions below.
Also can you find any obvious errors in the Mark Mills video I’ve linked to from Prager Uni?
USA, electrical generation, wind 8% solar 4%. Total US energy consumption wind 2.5%, solar 1.5% (more or less) Way, way too much but seven years from now, at the end of the Biden/Harris/Schumer/Pelosi era those numbers will double. Electricity should be pricey enough by the 2028 elections for even the slowest among us to make the connection.
The Canadian Candu (heavy water) design, invented in the 1950s, that uses non-enriched uranium somehow has been ignored by the big players, although China has a couple, Korea, Romania, Argentina …have one or two (there is a lot of chauvinism and bullying in the market).
The Darlington plant outside Toronto produced electricity at a cost of CDN 5 cents/ kWh. They upgraded the design in the 1990s and it produced at 3 cents!!! It was cheaper than fossil fuel power at 5 cents. The plants basically have a 60yr trouble free life.
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionC.htm#n
Originally, the UK ordered one and then decided to go for their own design which had nothing but trouble. The ‘new’ modular small molten salt reactor that’s captured the imagination of many here lately, was actually invented by AECL at Chalk River, Ontario in, IIRC, 1949. The CANDU was also invented there a few years later.
So why ignored? Can’t compete with natural gas in US or Canada but why not China, India, South Korea?
Spot on! The battery farce is finally getting the attention it deserves. Utility scale battery storage for a few days of cloudy and calm costs 10x more than the turbines and solar panels. NuScale small modular reactors (77mW) will be available yet this decade. By 2040 utility scale US wind and solar will join coal-fired generation in the never again column.
BTW here’s Mark Mill’s Prager Uni video exposing the lunacy of so called Solar and Wind energy.
This only takes about 5 minutes, but everyone should learn something about their TOXIC S&W energy delusions.
A transcript is available below the video.
I can tell you exactly what’s wrong with wind & solar: on an individually-owned basis – meaning homeowner installs it when he buys or builds the house – it works fine, because it is specific to ONE site only.
But on a commercial basis, it just does not hold up to or meet the demand from households and industry. Period.
Nuclear plants are better and more reliable. Period.
Renewable energy, coal, gas, oil, hydro and nuclear. Use renewables and everyone wins, use wind and solar and people die. Just that simple.
How many have died from nuclear power in the last 70 years? What about the damage to the world economy from paying 5 times as much for wind and solar when essential backup conventional energy is included?
Present your list of all the people who died because of nuclear power. Been waiting years for it, lay it on us.
The great thing about not being an ArtStudent is that one is taught how to think.
if civilisation still exists, it will be running on predominantly nuclear power by 2050, because i suspect that there aint so much cheap fossil fuel left.
i’ll give renewable energy 5 more years at the most.
Australia has 300 to 500 years worth of coal left at current rates.
Australian gas reserves are similarly huge, but are currently locked away and reserves haven’t been explored.
Australia is not unique.
There are many, many places in Australia that nobody has ever searched. Australia is a vast continent, much of it unexplored. The recent find of enough oil to last Australia a century is almost certainly not unique, for example.
North of Adelaide SA around Coober Pedy and the Opal fields there is a vast deposit of oil and gas that was newsworthy about ten years ago and no news since as far as I am aware.
No doubt the activists have been busy lobbying governments and courts of law to stop exploitation. Maybe UN Agenda 21 – Sustainability has been a factor, Australian governments signed it back around 1990.
The no longer existing Commonwealth Oil Refineries (Australia) capped many oil wells in Western Queensland during the early to mid 1900s, the Middle East oil supply was a lower cost option at that time.
And most often ignored when estimating coal reserves in Australia are the many coal seams out to sea from the very long east coast.
Coal mines that were out under the sea have closed down because the time taken for personnel to reach the coal seam face and to bring the coal back to land became commercially unviable.
No doubt future technology will overcome the problems, but as indicated Australia has a lot of accessible now coal.
It’s difficult to justify the expenditure when you have some of the purest coal in the world just sitting about waiting to be picked up. They don’t even have to dig down for it, just shovel it up.
Generally people have no idea of how much oil and gas resources available to fracking there is. For example, Romania, a country not on the radar for its oil and gas, has hydrocarbon shales underlying the whole country. Argentina began producing only a few years ago. China has large tracts of their country underlain by oil/gas shales (for some reason they have tried and failed to produce). Maybe US companies could succeed there. The technique was still really developing with increasing recovery rates in the the US and Canada a mere five years ago. T
The UK, Australia, Asia, Middle East, Russia and probably several countries in Latin America and Africa have such resources.
China is discovering more fossil fuels:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-sinopec-flags-new-oil-gas-find-xinjiang-2021-08-25/
Five years sounds great. China gave up on S&W August 1,2021. But our new “woke” American culture will need more than five.
A preply to Michael Heart
As long as production continues to grow energy usage will increase, and CO2 production will increase. Particularly growing “renewables” will continue to require disproportionate, stupendous amounts of production since they are very energy costly to build(even damns require huge amounts) and all, except power damns, may never “pay” for themselves, much less produce consistent excess power. Every hour it sits electric productivity goes down with carbon trapped inside it and not producing power.
Conventional power does not build up “lost” carbon. They usually produce amounts of power way in excess of their cost in terms of carbon. Almost all of a steam plant, gas plant, or a nuclear plant can be rebuit, with nuclear being a bit iffy. The reactor room is particularly difficult.
Windpower was really a scam all along. The windmills are difficult and costly to build, short lived, very random so usable production is difficult, and they are difficult and costly to disassemble, deconstruct, and salvage because there are so many of them/ per kWh.
After India and China make inroads into conventional power the outlook will probably change.
More questions about TOXIC S&W that require an honest answer?
How long before the TOXIC S&W disasters have to be replaced and buried FOREVER in LANDFILL? Would they last longer that 15 or 20 years?
WHO pays for this 20 year ONGOING cost?
And what percentage of their so called RENEWABLES ARE TOXIC S & W energy compared to HYDRO?
Any honest answers?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/06/21/why-everything-they-said-about-solar—including-that-its-clean-and-cheap—was-wrong/
Summary:
In 2019, The New York Times published a long article about toxic old solar panels and batteries causing “harm to people who scavenge recyclable materials by hand” in poor African communities. In 2020, Discover magazine confirmed that “it is often cheaper to discard them in landfills or send them to developing countries. As solar panels sit in dumps, the toxic metals they contain can leach out into the environment and possibly pose a public health hazard if they get into the groundwater supply.”
What about recycling? It’s not worth the expense, note the HBR authors. “While panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material,” they note. As a result, it costs 10 to 30 times more to recycle than to send panels to the landfill.
The problem is the sheer quantity of the hazardous waste, which far exceeds the waste produced by iPhones, laptops, and other electronics.
“The totality of these unforeseen costs could crush industry competitiveness,” conclude the HBR authors. “If we plot future installations according to a logistic growth curve capped at 700 GW by 2050 (NREL’s estimated ceiling for the U.S. residential market) alongside the early replacement curve, we see the volume of waste surpassing that of new installations by the year 2031.”
It’s not just solar. “The same problem is looming for other renewable-energy technologies,” they write. For example, barring a major increase in processing capability, experts expect that more than 720,000 tons worth of gargantuan wind turbine blades will end up in U.S. landfills over the next 20 years. According to prevailing estimates, only five percent of electric-vehicle batteries are currently recycled – a lag that automakers are racing to rectify as sales figures for electric cars continue to rise as much as 40% year-on-year.”
Here’s some more questions for the true BELIEVERS.
Why/ how have we seen a huge increase in Human population of 4.1 billion since 1970?
And a big increase in global life expectancy to 73 years today compared to about 56.5 in 1970.
Also African population increased from 363 million in 1970 to 1370 million today. African life expectancy in 1970 was about 46 and in 2021 about 63 years.
So how is any of the above possible if fossil fuels are an EXISTENTIAL THREAT?
According to the IEO2021 “Electric vehicle sales will grow through 2050, causing the internal combustion engine fleet to peak in 2023 for countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and in 2038 globally.”
EVs accounted for a tiny 2% of US vehicle sales last year, 8.5% of sales in Europe, and 0.6% in Japan, the OECD’s 3 largest car markets. While EVs sales are growing in the OECD, they’re only slowly growing. EV sales are a small percentage of vehicle sales and the percentage will have to stay small for many years to come. How do we know? Battery production capability. EVs will very likely have less than 4 percent of the world’s 2023 market. The average ICE car on the road in 2020 was 11.9 years old, lasting longer than ever before, so most of the ICE vehicles sold next year (~97% of the total) will still be on the road in 2034. The IEO2021 prediction that the ICE fleet will peak in 2023 in OECD countries is shaky, to say the least. We know that ICE vehicles will be the majority on the road for at least 20 years, probably much longer.
I doubt that with due consideration for Australian conditions and road transportation needs, long distance rail transport, mining, farming machinery, diesel generators that supply most of the electricity in “Outback Australia” remote areas, shipping, aircraft, fossil fuel demand will give way to electric motors and batteries within the next 50 years.
When or if the retail pricing is competitive with ICEV maybe more EV will be sold to city and suburban drivers?
The ABC had US based greentard Saul Griffith on spouting that Australia should fully electrify transport and there is no reason that now EV cars are available that do 500km on a single charge we should all be driving them.
What happened next was priceless a number callers rang in and said ok that gets me to a town then what? Poor Saul didn’t get that people other than inner city routinely travel far greater than that in Australia especially when on holidays. As one caller said the car snail to popular tourist destinations on long weekends is bad enough with an EV it would be like a line of sardines at any recharge point.
Essentially every caller explained they travel on holidays and would not buy an EV simply based on that and Saul began to understand what he was up against. Any car manufacturer making only EV will struggle going forward in Australia as we will buy our ICE cars from other companies.
The deceptive sales pitch supporting EV does not stand up to close scrutiny, for example: “500 km on a single charge”. Manufacturers recommend charging be limited to 80% of battery pack capacity to protect them from damage if fully charged regularly, and EV on board systems limit discharge to 10-15%.
But a great big “if” the theoretical range for an EV was 500 km fully charged the real starting point would be minus 30% so 350 km approximately subject to variable factors that include;
From my research and discussions an average of around 30% below the claimed theoretical range is a fair average expectation. But could be worse, and/or the on board system will warn the driver to slow down which at highway speed limits could be very annoying for other vehicle drivers and for the EV driver if in a hurry.
And when a recharge point is reached find something to do for at least 30 minutes to 60 minutes to recharge to 80%. Even if the driver decided to recharge 100% there would be a much longer waiting time for the 20% to be added.
I agree that Australians in the majority will demand ICEV for decades to come unless EV offers equivalent vehicles for a similar retail price, range equivalent model to model or EV to ICEV of the same size and capacity, and recharge to 100% within maybe 15 minutes.
But in Australia EV is a political hot potato introduced by woke politicians and climate hoax crony capitalists for wealth creation. Noting that most of our electricity is not supplied from so called renewables and not likely to be in the foreseeable future and then subject to new technology that works reliably.
Saul Griffith should have also been advised that Australians own trailer boats, caravans and many other types of trailers and we tow them long distances, especially caravans and boats.
In 2018 I left my home just over 300 kms north of Sydney and drove via South Australia into the Northern Territory and across to Western Australia and then returned via Queensland from the Northern Territory. Including short side trips I drove 18,000 kms towing a caravan with my 4WD SUV Diesel.
I have yet to identify an EV equivalent, there is a Tesla SUV that has the towing rating required but even before hitching the caravan on its range is in that theoretical over 500 kms less real world factors, add the caravan weight and range becomes 200 kms, maybe. But recharging in the Australian “Outback” would be mostly from Diesel Generators but distances between “Roadhouses” are too far more often than not.
World energy consumption: fossil fuels dominate while wind and solar are relatively minuscule.
Now imagine a similar diagram in 2050 (about half the width again), not only are renewables supposed to eliminate all the fossil fuels but also account for all the additional energy consumption that will be considerable.
It’s hard to explain how a rational person can be taking it all seriously.
Yet a few nights ago a former Australian State Premier spoke on a current affairs television programme and without being invited went off topic to promote his future vision for electricity supply.
Renewables with batteries, coal and nuclear days have past he said.
The Labor Party former MP cannot drive a car, he never learnt how to drive, and managed to extract an extra retirement benefit from the State Government not long before he left office, a taxpayer funded car and driver for life.
The Money People behind the Climate Crisis Fraud (it’s definitely a Globalist manufactured fraud…not any kind of spontaneous movement) have never put an arithmeticallying plausible plan on the table for replacing all fossil fuels by 2050 (requiring the equivalent of 10’s of thousands of 2 Gigawatt Nuclear Plants — 10’s to 100’s of millions of acres of land covered by high maintenance panels and turbines…an environmental and economic nightmare).
They can’t get that specific IN PUBLIC because then someone might do the 4th grade arithmatic and discover that energy costs will increase around 400% and reliability will be unacceptably horrible… jeopardizing the lives of millions of people every winter…and your car will only be able to go 300-360 miles before it needs 6-8 hours of recharging that you had to drive 80 miles out of the way to get access to…and take on lodging costs while you wait overnight when the extra charging current is available.
Not a very clever fraud plan.
Not when intelligent people are involved but the political spin doctors are very clever creators of propaganda deception campaigns.
After all, free wind and sunshine to produce electricity must be good for our planet.
sarc
How can EIA predict that coal production is going to magically level off, when the data is like this (compliments of OurWorldInData.Org :
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-production-by-country?country=GBR~USA~CHN~IND~DEU~JPN~AUS~CAN~IDN~OWID_WRL
Anyone who thinks that coal and natural gas will be replaced by renewables is nuts. California is providing all the evidence anyone should require, except the renewable-hustlers.
The EIA’s “renewables” line is still a fantasy. Reality will continue to force them to lower their forecast for it. The whole climate scam is unraveling.
Nuclear is going to grow far more than that. US, UK, India, Russia, China are all going nuclear in a big way.
(Fair Use Excerpt)
Russia Offers to Ease Europe’s Gas Crisis, With Strings Attached
Olga Tanas and Elena Mazneva
Wed, October 6, 2021
It is obvious government is being used to bring this about. More accurately to force it.
Man…all this time I thought they were moving to unicorn “farts” because those were closer in chemical composition to refined hydrocarbons, which made it easier to switch over the furnaces and engines without significant retooling. And, as a bonus, all the existing exhaust scrubbing apparatus would still function adequately!
causing the internal combustion engine fleet to peak in 2023 for countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
=======
Peak ICE in 2023 for rich countries. Surprised they made such a claim so soon in the future that it can be verified.
Peak ICE in 2023 is plainly impossible outside of economic collapse.
Harm from war on hydrocarbons exceeds harm from climate change – To date, “computer models” have avoided projecting the fatalities from starvation, diseases, and weather-related deaths to the 8 billion on earth without fossil fuels.
How dare pro-humanity individuals and governments support banishment of fossil fuels, when their banishment would be the greatest threat to civilization resulting in billions dying from starvation, diseases, and weather-related deaths?
https://www.cfact.org/2021/10/07/harm-from-war-on-hydrocarbons-exceeds-harm-from-climate-change/
I think it is criminal for hydro power to be included with renewables. The only reason it’s included is because if it weren’t everyone could see what a pitiful contributor solar and wind are. If hydro was truly considered renewable then we should be building more dams, lots of them.
I’ll make a prediction ! Even if we have electric everything , wind turbines and solar panels up the wazoo , no coal , no gas , no oil, electric lawnmowers by 2050 there will be no discernible drop in the CO2 content of the atmosphere (500ppm by 2050) and in fact will still be rising . If so , what then ????
Proof that even the EIA recognizes alleged renewables are unable to supply reliable consistent high quality electricity.
Instead EIA projects fanciful growth of installed renewable energy sources while LNG, oil and even coal continue to grow. As they must to provide backup for unreliable renewable energy sources.
One suspects that the renewable energy line actually represents installed base plate, not actual energy generation.
EIA labeling renewable energy estimates as “consumption” is pure fraud. It is a reflection that government subsidizes renewables by mandating utilities to accept generated renewable energy over reliable fossil fuel electricity.
“EIA: people in 2050 to have cheaper, more reliable energy than previously forecast”