By Andy May
U.S. progressives are convinced that fossil fuels must be replaced with renewables by 2050. The IEA even has a plan to do it. How will this work? Unlike progressives we value observational data over ideology, so let’s examine the data. According to ExxonMobil’s 2021 Outlook for Energy the world consumed 89.4 BBOE (billions of barrels of oil equivalent) of primary energy in 2020, during the pandemic. OurWorldinData.Org provides a similar number of 93.5 for pre-pandemic 2019, as shown in Figure 1.
When discussing energy consumed globally, there are a bewildering number of units used in the literature, which is confusing. In this post we have consistently used BBOE, or billions of barrels of oil-equivalent energy. Oil is still the largest source of primary energy in the world, supplying 31-34% of our energy, further barrels of oil are familiar to the lay person.
OurWorldinData uses TWh (teraWatt-hours) to report energy consumption, which must be multiplied by 5.9×10-4 to convert it to BBOE. ExxonMobil uses quadrillion BTUs, and the conversion factor is 0.1651787. BP prefers exajoules, which differ from ExxonMobil’s quadrillion BTUs by a factor of 0.94782. You can see my point; with all the conversions and weird units, it is hard to think about what the numbers mean for our lives and welfare. Instead, the reader’s eyes glaze over, and the very real impact of the numbers is lost.
The various crude oils around the world are different complicated mixtures of hydrocarbons, so the barrel-of-oil energy content used here is the average fuel-oil energy content, which is equal to the IRS definition of the energy content of a barrel of oil, 5.8 million BTUs. A cubic foot of natural gas has the energy content of 1,000 BTUs; thus 5.8 thousand cubic feet (MCF) of natural gas has the same energy content as one BOE.
OurWorldinData tells us that the global primary energy consumed in 2019 is provided by oil (33.8%), natural gas (24.7%), coal (27.6%), traditional biomass (7%), hydroelectric (2.7%), nuclear (1.8%), wind (0.9%), modern biofuels (0.7%), and 0.8% solar plus other renewables. Obviously, electricity is consumed, but the electricity must be produced using one or more of the primary fuels. The percentage of our primary energy produced from various sources varies a little from year to year and by source, but the values I listed are very typical. They indicate that 86% of our energy comes from fossil fuels and only 2% is from wind, solar, other, and modern biofuels. The amount from solar is insignificant and combined with “other.”
Figure 1 shows that the increase in global energy consumption since 1960 is quite linear (R2 = 0.99) and increasing at a rate of 1.1 billion BOE/year. Modern renewables, contrary to popular belief, are not even increasing enough to keep up with the growth in consumption. As a result, fossil fuel use is increasing, not decreasing globally. Total growth in renewables is so small, it only covers 7% of the increase in energy consumption. You can only produce and install so many solar panels and windmills, and they don’t last that long in the open.
Developed western economies, have attempted to reduce their use of coal to reduce CO2 emissions. But except for the impact of the pandemic, it has not affected global coal use, mainly because of China and India, as seen in Figure 2. All their efforts have done is export manufacturing to China, India, and other countries, making the developed world more dependent upon imports. Even the pandemic made very little difference in coal consumption.
Progressives often ignore this fact and emphasize energy consumption in the developed world, ignoring exported fossil fuel use to the developing world. The key point is that the energy market is global, prices are set globally, not by evil fossil fuel companies. Fossil fuel energy increases prosperity globally and facilitates global commerce. Eliminating it will cut the developed world off from numerous critical manufactured goods.
“Traditional biofuels” are the burning of wood and dung in houses or businesses for heat, light, or cooking. This is not desirable because it produces toxic air pollution. The indoor air pollution caused by traditional biofuels, causes 4% of global deaths. A major study, published in The Lancet, estimates that more than two million deaths can be attributed to indoor air pollution in 2019 (Christopher Murray, 2020). The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that four million deaths, every year, are caused by indoor air pollution. Domestic wood burning is not just a problem in the developing world, the European Environment Agency, WHO, and the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research suggest that over 40% of toxic emissions are from residential biomass burning. The UK Department for Environment, Food, and Rural affairs (DEFRA) estimates that 38% of UK air pollution is due to wood-burning stove emissions. In contrast, energy production and distribution of electricity, not produced from biofuels, supplies 5%. For more on this topic, see here and here.
Modern biofuels are biodiesel and wood pellets or wood chips, which can still produce pollution, but they are burned in power plants, trucks, or cars equipped with modern pollution control equipment, so these fuels produces very little, if any, toxic pollution. However, modern biofuels are insignificant energy sources, that is, less than 1%, like solar and wind. The same pollution control equipment is used in coal power plants with the same low toxic emissions, and coal produced 42% of the world’s electricity in 2019, according to ExxonMobil. The severe air pollution from coal-burning in China and India are due to domestic coal-burning and plants with inadequate pollution control equipment (also see here).
Generally, additional atmospheric CO2 and global warming have been beneficial so far, so the debate is not about the impact of greenhouse gases and global warming today or in the past, it is about what might happen in the future. Figure 3 projects the slopes in Figure 1 to 2050.
The projections shown in Figure 1 show that renewables are very unlikely to satisfy future energy needs. Clearly another energy source is needed, and that is likely to be more fossil fuel use. Do the additional fossil fuels exist? Table 1 shows that the EIA estimates the world holds 3,357 BBOE in technically recoverable oil and an additional 3,813.7 BBOE of natural gas. Both values are conventional plus unconventional resource estimates. The USGS global undiscovered technically recoverable conventional oil and gas resources are also given, as well as a peer-reviewed unconventional resource estimate by Hongjun Wang and colleagues. The estimates vary but lie in the same ballpark.
Global coal resources are estimated to be 860 billion tonnes. In 2019 global coal production and consumption was 7,953 million tonnes (Mt) and it generated 24.2 BBOE of energy, roughly 0.00304 BBOE/Mt. If the estimate of 860 billion tonnes of unproduced coal is accurate, it represents over 2,616 BBOE of energy.
The globe has been producing fossil fuels for a long time and yet technically recoverable resources continue to grow, we can expect resource estimates to increase in the future (also see here). The main reason resource estimates increase is new technology. The projections of energy consumption shown in Figure 3 sum to 3,264.3 BBOE of energy between 2022 and 2050, the total projected renewable energy production totals to 79.3, which is only 2.4% of what is required. The remainder must be from fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants take too long to permit and build, and little hydroelectric generation will be added between now and 2050.
Between natural gas, oil, and coal we have technically recoverable resources of 9,785 BBOE, or three times as much fossil fuel energy as we will need before 2050. More importantly, we will have a lot left over.
Discussion and Conclusions
At $119 per barrel of oil, $66 per ton of coal, and $7.28 per MMBTU (as of 6/15/2022) there are no economic constraints preventing the development of our abundant natural energy resources. However, the political, regulatory, and judicial (as in environmental lawsuits) hurdles are currently prohibitive. Global prosperity and energy availability are very strongly correlated, if fossil fuels are curtailed, more people will become impoverished, global health will decline, and it is clear that growth in renewables will not make up the difference.
World governments are clearly on a dangerous and unsustainable path. Fossil fuels are essential to our well-being and survival. People know this and want to buy them; thus, we observe high prices in a time of abundant natural resources. It is only the governments that stand in the way – our elected officials and the unelected bureaucrats. We need to radically change our governments, and quickly. The impact of greenhouse gases is small, and may even be beneficial, this is not true of our current governments.
Andy’s latest book is The Great Climate Change Debate.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The only presently viable alternative to hydrocarbons for base load is nuclear power.
Even should the energy storage issue be magically solved, unreliables can’t replace fossil fuels in 28 years.
John,
Very true. I’m from oil & gas, but I still wish more new nuclear plants were being built, they make so much more sense than unreliables. I especially think the thorium reactor molten salt designs look good from a safety standpoint. But currently construction + permitting times are too long to fix our immediate problems.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor
Modular reactors are too small, have a much larger waste disposal problem and because of the small size will likely be far more costly to operate. The only real advantage they might have is that because they are small, they are more likely to be installed.
The best solution would be to have a few large designs that are all approved and will not result in construction delays. Current reactors are one off and as such, each new reactor as to go through the full approval process. Eliminate all the approval and building a reactor would be much like construction a new building. Make sure the reactor matches the standard design and you’re done. They could be knocked off in a few years once a site is found.
SMRs are uneconomical unless produced in factories by the dozens to hundreds. There are currently no plans to invest in such factories as there isn’t a market for many dozens, the factory would be extremely expensive, and a single design hasn’t been agreed upon.
It would take effective leadership to bring this idea to fruition, but we are currently sorely lacking in leadership around nearly the whole world.
For a government to complain about permitting processes is chutzpah. They made the policy, they can undo it.
Andy, molten salt reactors have promise, but need much more detailed engineering study. And as I wrote in essay ‘Going Nuclear’ in ebook Blowing Smoke, the uranium based rather than thorium based MSR has much more near term promise since it can be fueled at zero cost by spent conventional nuclear fuel, of which we already have a lot in storage.
Rud:
Thank you for demonstrating some degree of faith in the possibilities of 4th generation nuclear like MSRs. I have been reluctant to do this on this blog in the past due to being jumped on for it when I did. I believe the term used to dismiss MSRs and other 4th gen nuclear technologies back then was vaporware.
Unfortunately, the Biden people never seem to bring up the subject of nuclear, so my guess is that they are not big fans of it. Nonetheless, there are numerous companies out there working on developing MSRs and other nuke techs. Bill Gates’ company is one of them.
I am keeping my fingers crossed that this R & D work will bear fruit someday. Something needs to be happen sooner or later to bring down the green energy house of cards (wind, solar and EVs). We waste more and more money each year that the faulty green energy religion remains alive and intact.
Wind & solar as reliable baseload electricity providers are sadly articles of faith with many otherwise intelligent people.
But history presents many examples of “movements” that gained widespread traction and support from the venerated “thinkers” of contemporary societies.
The Spiritualism following in the late 19th / early 20th century comes to mind.
Like faith in wind & solar, Spiritualism was more about not being left out of the fad / fashion of “forward thinking views” than it was about rationality.
American progressivism is deeply rooted in the religious fervor of the 19th century, the idea being that government could be harnessed to ‘improve’ society and advance the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth. The great irony, of course, is that today’s progressives have largely moved on to worship Gaia and/or Government.
“Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” – Charles MacKay 1841
Charles explained it very well 180 years ago but the “progressive” thinkers still fall for it every time.
The biggest problem with MSRs, are many of their supporters. If you listen to some of them, the only thing preventing MSRs from being put in the field is the reluctance of governments to fund them.
For me, until all of the issues are resolved and a design for a full sized plant is finished and approved, any talk about MSRs is a waste of time and a distraction.
“But currently construction + permitting times are too long to fix our immediate problems.” That could be fixed quickly but don’t think the useful idiots and their master will stand for it for and instance.
The nuclear fuel cycle needs to be completed.
I am led to understand that the Carter admin., Carter, himself, put the nix on closing the nuclear cycle.
The technological know-how supposedly was within reach when Carter nix it.
Nuclear power is a viable alternative if the safety issues are settled.
No supposedly about, reprocessing was already being employed in the US and other countries.
The so called safety issues were resolved decades ago.
Thanks, closing the loop or circle of the nuclear fuel cycle is a big deal.
Obviously, jet fuel and all the other uses of hydrocarbons is good.
But the nuke can drive our electrical energy production.
Although, I’m found of clean coal, for speed of development & production…. if we have the political will.
“…can’t replace fossil fuels in 28 years.”
Or in 280 years, or even 2,800 years, since there is no practical storage available.
In 2800 years we might have anti-matter figured out.
IMO, fusion and electrical power storage breakthroughs in this century are about equally probable. Or improbable.
Fusion might have the edge.
Green Murder: a life sentence of net zero with no parole. by Professor Ian Plimer emeritus professor of geology University of Melbourne Connor Court Publishing 600 pages 1600 references
I have sent a link to the book to my MP along with the jacket note, I would suggest you all send to your government representatives too.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Green-Murder-Ian-Plimer/dp/1922449822
Jacket note:
“It has never been shown that human emissions of the gas of life drive global warming. Large bodies of science that don’t fit the narrative have been ignored by IPCC, COP and self-interested scientists paid by taxpayers. A huge subsidised industry of intermittent unreliable wind and solar electricity has been created based on unsubstantiated science. The same hucksters now want subsidised hydrogen, costly inefficient EVs, subsidised mega-batteries and other horribly expensive tried and failed schemes to impoverish people, create unemployment, transfer wealth and enrich China. Germany, Texas, California and the UK had a glimpse of Net Zero with blackouts, astronomically high electricity costs and hundreds of deaths. We once had reliable cheap electricity and now that governments have gone green, we are heading for hard economic times.
In this book I charge the greens with murder. They murder humans who are kept in eternal poverty without coal-fired electricity. They support slavery and early deaths of black child miners. They murder forests and their wildlife by clear felling for mining and wind turbines. They murder forests and wildlife with their bushfire policies. They murder economies producing unemployment, hopelessness, collapse of communities, disrupted social cohesion and suicide.
They murder free speech and freedoms and their takeover of the education system has ended up in the murdering of the intellectual and economic future of young people. They terrify children into mental illness with their apocalyptic death cult lies and exaggerations. They try to divide a nation. They are hypocrites and such angry ignorant people should never touch other people’s money.
The greens are guilty of murder. The sentence is life with no parole in a cave in the bush enjoying the benefits of Net Zero.”
Interview with Prof. Plimer on youtube:
We need to radically change our governments, and quickly. Yes, and for many more reasons than just the lunacy associated with Climate Change Policy
The real existential threat is our government(s).
Always has been the bodies of nearly 200,000,000 the leftist governments murdered from the twenty century screams loudly if you listen.
The hope of Net Zero will founder on the rocks of reality.
Good news is, Biden and BoJo are speeding up Net Zero hope toward those rocks.
The sooner the crash into energy reality the better for the economy overall, because the less wasted on hopeless Net Zero stuff.
I suspect it will be an awful lot sooner, rather than later.
I don’t care what the politicians and ‘experts’ say about inflation topping out around 10%, I don’t see it stopping before it reaches 15% and beyond. The recent interest rate rises are far too little, far too late.
We’re on a runaway train and Biden hadn’t a clue what he was doing from the moment it left the station. I have no idea who he’s trying to impress with his demented, aggressive shouting and hand waving when giving meaningless speeches, His motivation seems to be to bully people rather than encourage them.
It’s reminiscent of the early 1970’s Clydeside shipyard workers disputes, addressed by communistic Union officials. Nothing but naked aggression and fear.
He might be the most intelligent man on the planet, but no one cares when all he can do is rant and rave at audiences.
And the worse it gets in the US, the worse it will be for the rest of the west.
If things go as badly as expected for the Democrats in the mid terms, there will likely be Republicans with the numbers to impeach Biden, amongst others, before 2024. Perhaps that’s why Harris is keeping such a low profile. If she doesn’t do anything, she can’t be impeached and the big guys job falls to her.
Happy to be corrected on any of this as I have a limited, Brit’s eye view on the matter.
Impeachment is unlikely as it takes a super-majority in the Senate to convict and remove from office. If everything breaks the Republicans way this election, they will only get to about 55 or 56 seats. To convict they need 67 and that is not a possibility in this midterm (we elect one third of the senate every two years to 6 year terms). The likelihood in the Senate after the midterms is 52 or 53 Republican seats. The House of Representatives will likely have a large majority for the Republicans, but they likely won’t waste the time to impeach the president. They may go after some of the cabinet secretaries, as there have been many non-enforcements of plain law in many departments.
I hope they don’t waste their time with any of that and instead do something they are constitutionally REQUIRED to do that they have not done since 2007: PASS ALL THE DEPARTMENT BUDGETS IN NORMAL ORDER.
The US has technically been running on the 2007 budget for the last 15 years. Continuing resolutions are not budgets, they are just punting hard decisions down the road for our grand children to pay for.
Mark Steyn wrote a couple of books a decade or more ago wherein he demonstrated that the USA can NEVER clear its federal government debt, as such things are defined in this age.
Whether that will impair the USA’s exceptionalism as a nation is another discussion.
Biden is certainly not the most intelligent man on the planet. I hope you don’t think that’s a possibility. Biden has been wrong his whole life.
I don’t know if the Republicans have the guts to impeach and remove Biden, but they should do so. He is derelict in his duties on so many fronts. Everything he does harms the United States. He needs to be retired to the rest home.
Attorney General Garland and Homeland Security Director Mayorkas should also be impeached and removed from office. Garland for refusing to enforce U.S. laws such as the one prohibiting demonstrations in front of the houses of Supreme Court Justices, and Mayorkas for throwing the U.S. southern border wide open and facilitating the criminal enterprise of the Mexican drug cartels and the human smugglers who use women and children and sell them for sex.
There are clear-cut reasons for removing each of these people from office. Let’s see if Republicans really do love their country or not. If they love their country, they will not leave harmful people such as these in office and in control of the destiny of the rest of us, which will only do us further harm.
It’s time for Republicans to play hardball. The radical Democrats are doing everything in their power to gain and retain political power and they don’t care how they get it, legally or illegally. Morals has nothing to do with it.
Republicans need to get as serious about saving our individual freedoms as the radical Democrats are serious about taking them away from us. Don’t let them take away our freedoms, Republicans. You can start by removing from office those who try to do so. And we know who they are.
And don’t listen to the Leftwing Media. They are on the side of our oppressors. On the side of those who need to be removed from office.
Biden is definitely NOT the most intelligent man on the planet. A usurper is the best description of a man who takes credit for everyone else’s efforts and no responsibility for his own failures which are many.
I suspect it will be an awful lot sooner, rather than later.
I don’t care what the politicians and ‘experts’ say about inflation topping out around 10%, I don’t see it stopping before it reaches 15% and beyond. The recent interest rate rises are far too little, far too late.
We’re on a runaway train and Biden hadn’t a clue what he was doing from the moment it left the station. I have no idea who he’s trying to impress with his demented, aggressive shouting and hand waving when giving meaningless speeches, His motivation seems to be to bully people rather than encourage them.
It’s reminiscent of the early 1970’s Clydeside shipyard workers disputes, addressed by communistic Union officials. Nothing but naked aggression and fear.
He might be the most intelligent man on the planet, but no one cares when all he can do is rant and rave at audiences.
And the worse it gets in the US, the worse it will be for the rest of the west.
If things go as badly as expected for the Democrats in the mid terms, there will likely be Republicans with the numbers to impeach Biden, amongst others, before 2024. Perhaps that’s why Harris is keeping such a low profile. If she doesn’t do anything, she can’t be impeached and the big guys job falls to her.
Happy to be corrected on any of this as I have a limited, Brit’s eye view on the matter..
MAGA-nificent!
Here’s proof Trump predicted FJB’s failures- including “5$, $6, $7 gas”- while campaigning
in 2020:
https://twitter.com/mazemoore/status/1536353154731745280
I don’t care what the politicians and ‘experts’ say about inflation topping out around 10%, I don’t see it stopping before it reaches 15% and beyond. The recent interest rate rises are far too little, far too late.
you are already out of date.
Our inflation is the highest in the EU -ripping along at a nice 20%
It appears some of my posts on TES may not make it to the post intact for some reason.
Go to IEA.org, Data tab, then Energy Supply.
Answers many “net nope” questions. I will try a link again. Why would someone sensor that? >>
Data & Statistics – IEA
I blame the greedy Department of Energy.
It’s just pure the stupidity of the Climate Cult continuing to march like lemmings over the cliff as
they’re achieving Net Zero Intelligence! Despite CNN’s liberal John Berman trying to give Granholm
a chance to move away from FJB’s policy of wanting more refinery output now while stating they’ll
shut them down in 5-10 yrs, she doubled down on stupid!
https://twitter.com/VAKruta/status/1537132109378248711
https://www.climatedepot.com/2022/06/16/chevron-ceo-says-there-may-never-be-another-oil-refinery-built-in-the-us-the-stated-policy-of-u-s-govt-is-to-reduce-demand/
If greens eliminated fossil fuels they would soon find that renewables are totally dependent on fossil fuels to make them and sustain them.
And as back up power when the wind is still and the sun doesn’t shine.
Hi Andy
Can I reblog this article on our website?
Yes, by all means! Include the by line and the plug for my book please. Have at it.
As someone here once wisely said, “What can’t happen, won’t happen”.
But fools and profiteers can cause alot of damage trying to make it happen.
Fully agreed! Yet the politicians are all committed to economic & societal suicide with their ludicrous Net Zero agendas.
We need to keep fighting against this nonsense before it’s really too late to avert the catastrophe that this self-inflicted energy poverty will represent.
Throw another million slave laborers in western China at the green altar since no one cares about them now–not religious orders, not governments, not UN human rights commissioners, not NGOs, not political parties, and not green activists.
They are all profiting from China one way or another.
The Green New Deal, or the Energiewende, or NetZero, are all technically impossible.
Nuclear is possible, and all of the issues are due to government policy. Undoing all the measures in the US since the Carter Administration would be a start.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water!
There were some very important measures brought in by the regulators (along with a very large number of idiocies.) The most important one was the requirement to disseminate all anomaly reports to all operators across all the different companies.
The accident at Three Mile Island could have been prevented if the operators had read an immediate action report from an incident in South Carolina two weeks earlier of the exact same failure. The difference in outcome from the two events (same plant design, same age, same operating conditions, and most importantly: SAME VALVE STUCK OPEN) was the operator in South Carolina correctly identified the issue early and performed a successful shutdown / emergency cool down.
Now, if an unscheduled shutdown for anomaly occurs, a bulletin goes out to all plant operators to make all operators aware of the situation and apply any lessons learned before an accident occurs. Normal legal and company proprietary secrecy instincts would prevent this communication if it weren’t mandated by federal regulation. So even though ordinarily I have a libertarian sensibility against government interference in the marketplace, I will defend this communication mandate.
Andy,
I have to agree with you on the use of units. Some of the silliest are mixed metric and US units as the EPA uses. Like grams CO2 emissions per gallon fuel. The other poor use of units is by the renewable fuels industry which talks in gallons of renewable fuel to make it look like a huge number when actually it is a tiny number. “Renewable” ethanol production from corn is 16 Billion gallons per year or 1 million bbl/day. This is by far the largest production volume of “renewable” fuel, but ethanol is at best about 40% reduction in GHG emissions from the fossil fuel baseline, and most likely less. Cellulosic Ethanol was supposed to match corn ethanol by 2022 per EISA 2007 (the Renewable Fuels Standard), but CE has been a dismal failure and there is only maybe 1 million gal/yr production with much of that actually Renewable NG from manure digestors.
The other thing that is never said is how much time and investment is needed to build the capacity to produce renewable fuels. Biomass is not easily transported economically like liquid crude. Solids are not nearly as energy dense. This limits biofuels plants to 2,000 to 3,000 bbl/day using things like corn stover as feedstock. So to displace 1 million bbl/day requires 500 facilities. And costs of such facilities (all in costs) are probably $2 Billion/plant. Do the math. You can’t afford this at that scale. Then the timing is another issue. Designing and building a plant is a 5 year effort at best from site selection to commissioning. And there are only a few Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) companies that can do these types of projects. So you can only build a few each year at best.
Economics is another matter entirely and best left for future discussions.
Thanks Dr. Bob, a good addition to my post.
The numbers are equally appalling for E-Fuels. Direct Air Capture is incredibly expensive in both CapEx and OpEx with just the OpEx cost of fuel in the $10 to $15/gal range depending on how you value electricity. And it is a whopping amount of power to run these plants. roughly 600 MW for a 3000 bbl/day plant with CapEx for electrolizers alone in the $600 million to $900 million CapEx and that doesn’t include the rest of the plant to convert CO2 + H2 into hydrocarbon fuel. There are a number of literature references citing the data needed to determine these costs and values. But no one wants to bring up what it takes to produce e-fuels, only that they can be produces from “renewable” power therefore with no GHG emissions. RIGHT!
This is not for the Faint of Heart.
Climate purists have no shame in limiting energy access for emerging economies. They appear to have no concept of risk and vulnerability factors when it comes to weather related hazards. A drought in SW USA kills practically nobody, but a similar drought in the horn of Africa can kill many thousands.
Leftists’ have no capacity to reason. They are like children and shouldn’t be in charge of anything. Yet like minded lefties keep electing these fools. Lefties believe that EV”s are the salvation of the planet without realizing the electricity required is largely a bi-product of fossil fuel plants. You just can’t teach stupid, it’s an inherited life skill.
Green; gullible, naive, easily fooled, inexperienced, trusting, etc.
You have linked a document that seems to be a file on your computer..
file:///E://Climate_Change/Fossil_fuel_info/Undeveloped%20US%20Oil/USGS_2015_Outside%20US.pdf
Thanks, fixed it.
Short of hanging all the idiots what do we do. Not much, boy are you guys screwed I don’t expect to last much more than 15 years, so boy the ball is in your court! Oh by the hanging is not practical. Neither is the French solution(did not work out well for the French either.)
Andy’s excellent post triggered a thought made in comments before.
3Gen nuclear is not economic, as Vogtle 3 and 4 are gain proving.
Thanks to fracked shale gas, the US (and world) has enough natgas to power cost effective CCGT electricity generation for at least 40 years from now. It is currently the least LCOE solution,
In those decades, we can study engineer then build and operate pilots for the most promising 4Gen nuclear fission concepts, of which there are several. Then when present CCGT reaches operating life, we can reliably ‘go nuclear’.
Fine piece.
Two significant articles bearing on the subject:
https://www.netzerowatch.com/why-record-wind-output-is-no-cause-for-celebration/
Very fine piece. The UK Net Zero Watch site, explaining how curtailment is an important variable in renewables. Building it is not enough, its what it produces that is the problem.
Essential reading for Nick by the way. Wind is not free at all.
Then we have the UK Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/16/exclusive-dirty-cost-keeping-governments-net-zero-strategy-alive/
Unfortunately behind a paywall. But to give a flavor:
This represents a deeper and steeper descent into madness by the UK Government. First they propose to generate this power from biofuel, which is mad enough. Then they propose doing carbon capture and burying the resulting CO2 in the North Sea, a technology which is totally unproven. This is, along with installing huge amounts of wind and solar, to get to Net Zero in power generation.
At the same time as doing this they propose doubling demand for reliable power by moving everyone to heat pumps for heating and EVs for transport.
Leave aside the wind and solar intermittencies, and the lack of any plans for storage. Ask, about this part of the plan, where the trees are to come from? Surely from local forests, because surely they cannot mean to import them? Surely?
On what land?
Because at the same time they are seeking to rewild the countryside, which means taking land out of food production and managed forestry.
And at the same time they also propose to reduce the UK dependence on imported food by raising local food production. I guess this is on the same land that is being rewilded and reforested.
Thank goodness for Net Zero Watch, one of the few sane and realistic voices in the UK. And now apparently being joined by the Telegraph doing real journalism for once.
The EU attributes CO2 from burning wood to the place where the wood is harvested. therefore, when Drax burns wood pellets made in the US they get no responsibility for the CO2 emitted in their subsidized plant. And, of course, we all know that burning wood produces 40-60% more CO2 per KWh than burning coal. Some say it’s even more.
It’s all lies and bullshit. And CO2 is NOT the cause of any global warming. If it were, then way was the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods warmer than is is today? Please? Bueller? Bueller?
Chipping alone adds 1/3 more CO2- harvesting & transportation are extra. A lot of dirty
little secrets!
I am beyond-tired of articles like this about “replacing” fossil fuels. It is entirely possible that the economics will one day be solved.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO REPLACE PHOTOSYNTHESIS whose main input is carbon dioxide?
We/world can’t even cover the increases in fossil fuel use with renewables. What makes them think we can stop using fossil fuels altogether?
” increases in fossil fuel use with renewables “
Could it be that what you wanted to say is:
…. increases in electrical usage with renewables.
You are forgetting the many green priests and their congregations,
and the profiteers who are extremely active.
When the coal and oil production facilities are made uneconomical and close down, what will replace the 000’s of products currently made from fossil fuels?
We won’t need energy with nothing to use it for
Great post Andy! Vaclav Smil couldn’t have done a better job… 🍻
Thanks Dave
“with all the conversions and weird units”
Lets give BP props here. Only the exajoule is part of SI the system of measurements defined by international treaty (to which the US is party) and used by every scientific research laboratory in the world. The prefix exa is 10^18 one quintillion. The Joule is one newton meter (n*m) or kilogram*(meter^2/second^2) relating it to the fundamental defintion of energy e=m*v^2.
The IRS adminsters the Internal Revenue Code. The governmental authority in the United Staes tasked with establisng standards for weights and measures in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) .
Hi Walter,
I have some sympathy for your logic, as a scientist myself. But, if you used the term “exajoules” to my wife, children and grandchildren, their eyes would glaze over, and they would stop listening. The key is communication, barrels of oil is in the common lexicon, joules and exajoules are not. Leave the latter terms for scientific papers, in the popular media, we need to communicate clearly.
I’m really not convinced there’s any great push to _replace_ fossil fuels.
I am much more inclined to believe they want to do away with fossil fuels, leaving us with a little bit of unreliable power. If you look to places like Australia, Germany and UK, isn’t that what we’re seeing happen?
Same goes for cars. People think we’ll replace ICE cars with EVs, but I doubt that’s the plan at all. More likely that most of us simply won’t have cars.
I hope I’m wrong.
Chris, from what we are all seeing there is no doubt in anyone’s mind, the decision has been taken by the authorities in power ( whoever they are) that the right of car ownership is coming to an end.
You may be correct, take cars and planes away from the public, and the public has no freedom. It is freedom they want to take away. John Kerry will keep his planes and cars though.