By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
AEP sees the light!
The climate Left has picked the wrong target in vilifying BP. It is a futile mistake to tar every oil and gas company with the same brush.
Bernard Looney’s BP is doing its part to decarbonise the world in a way that does not trigger energy mayhem in the process, and does not provoke a paralysing political backlash. So are all of the European “majors” to varying degrees.
Contrary to media headlines and feverish censure from Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and the Liberal Democrats – who ought to know better – BP is not retreating from renewables or clean energy. The company is tapping its booming oil and gas profits to make green hydrogen a commercial reality in this country instead of a pious dream.
In parallel, it is investing an extra £1bn annually in oil and gas, concentrated on “short-cycle fast-payback” wells to exploit soaring prices and meet the looming supply crunch in the mid-2020s.
Yes, it is also paying down debt and providing a dividend to pension funds and retirees struggling to cope with fuel bills. It is taking necessary steps to remain a viable commercial company, able to fend off takeovers by powerful rivals with a very different climate ideology.
Green realists should recognise the tactical wisdom of BP’s plan to slow its exit from fossils this decade. Its upstream spending will focus on spur pipelines from existing drilling platforms able to produce within one to three years. They include “tie-back” mini-projects such as Seagull and Merlach in North Sea for crude; or Cypre and Mento in Trinidad for gas.
This is nothing like BP’s retreat from renewables after Lord Browne’s tenure, when the company went green slightly too early and lost money becoming (briefly) the world leader in solar power.
BP’s Energy Outlook this month is in many ways an extraordinary document. It concluded that global demand for oil and fossil fuels peaked in 2019, with even China close to rolling over. It has rung the bell that tolls for Big Oil.
The $190 trillion (£155 trillion) global economy runs on a legacy infrastructure of fossil fuels. Three quarters of British homes are heated exclusively by gas. The fleet of 1.5 billion vehicles on the roads today will depend on petrol and diesel for a long time. Ditto for aviation and maritime fleets. Steel, cement, chemical, and fertiliser plants can be decarbonised but for now they run on fossils.
That does not mean it is impossible to switch this vast and complex system to net zero emissions by 2050. The International Monetary Fund and the International Energy Agency say alternative technology is already so cheap that decarbonisation can be done at a negative net cost – ie, an economic gain.
But it cannot be done by shutting down supply or by Puritan incantations of “degrowth”. People will not willingly submit to economic depression and food rationing.
Vladimir Putin’s energy war has shown us how quickly societies will turn against climate targets if the transition becomes disorderly and threatening. We have lost just 120 billion cubic metres (BCM) of Russian gas supply out of a global market of 4,100 BCM. That has been enough for our democracies to wobble.
There was always going to be an energy crisis this decade – regardless of Ukraine – because the world faces a structural supply deficit. Rystad Energy says upstream investment in oil and gas was running at over $800bn a year at the top of the commodity supercycle in 2014. It has been running at closer to $400bn over recent years.
Daniel Yergin, S&P Global’s energy guru, calls it “pre-emptive underinvestment”. The cycle has played its part, but so has net zero signalling, with fears of stranded assets and long-tail risk from climate litigation.
Old fields are depleting. Few new projects coming on stream. Shale drillers have tapped the best seams in the Permian. The “expected ultimate recovery” of wells has dropped this year for the first time since the fracking boom began.
Investment in nuclear, renewables, and electrification has not compensated. It needs to rise by a factor 2.4 this decade to plug the gap.
“The world is underinvesting in all forms of energy,” said Columbia University’s Jason Bordoff.
The danger of a botched transition should by now be obvious, and so should the danger of a premature and misplaced campaign to disinvest from well-run western oil majors, which have much lower methane emissions than the bad actors, and which bolster the energy security of our democracies.
Of course it was not long ago that AEP was demonising the fossil fuel industry, insisting that its days were over and warning of stranded assets:
And it this naive assumption that renewables would simply replace fossil fuels overnight that has led to the massive underinvestment in fossil fuel projects.
As the IEA projections above make clear, we may still be needing almost as much oil as we do now in 2050.
It’s a pity AEP did not wake up to the real world a few years ago.
“The danger of a botched transition should by now be obvious…”, a truer statement is hard to find these days, so why isn’t it obvious to the CAGW Looney Greenie crowd? We can think of many reasons, none of them good. I would probably start with “peer pressure” and “follow the money”, but the conduct of China is lurking behind everything.
Still playing their stupid game.
It shoud read “the danger of attempting to “transition” when there’s nothing to “transition” TO.”
ALL so-called “green energy” is 100% DEPENDENT ON FOSSIL FUELS FOR ITS EXISTENCE. Hydrogen IS AN ENERGY SINK, NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE.
They’re just championing the same idiocy at a slower pace.
The Climate Alarmists are effectively religious fanatics: can’t change their minds and any deviation from the gospel is heretical.
The actual transition is from socialism to totalitarianism, and it is proceeding at a rapid rate.
The Covid scaremongering helped.
Now we’re back to just climate scaremongering.
Nut Zero is a strategy for gaining power and control.
The science and engineering issues are irrelevant.
That’s why Nut Zero will continue until the money runs out, or until blackouts (The Flunder Limit for electric utilities) turn the general public against the power-hungry leftist politicians leading the “transition”.
Leftists seem to love any word that includes “trans”.
Transformation
Transition
Transsexual
Transgender
But not transportation
energy “transition” is a misnomer – it is a total government cram down
“The Covid scaremongering helped.
Now we’re back to just climate scaremongering.”
There never was a real Covid-19 pandemic, just a typical winter flu, in terms of mortality. The costly lockdowns and toxic deadly “vaccines” were never justified.
The Covid-19 virus phony “pandemic” was never a real threat, but we are now into a new phase of the toxic-Covid-19-killer-vaxx debacle:
Based on Alberta total deaths and the increase post-vaxx, I calculated 12.9 million Covid-19-vaxx-deaths worldwide to end2022, increasing to more than 19 million by end2023.
That death count was just independently verified by Rancourt et al (Feb2023) based on Israeli and Australian total deaths, at 13.25 million to 24Jan2023 – the same as my total.
These total global Covid-19-vaxx-caused deaths will increase by at least 1/2 million every month unless we take remedial action.
USA
The toxic Covid-19 “vaccines” have now killed ~650,000 Americans, ~50% more than all the U.S. Armed Forces killed or missing in World War II. If we continue as-is, and do not act to treat the vaxx-injured, total estimated U.S. vaxx-caused deaths will exceed ~1 million by end2023.
CANADA
The toxic Covid-19 “vaccines” have now killed ~98,000 Canadians, more than two times all the Canadian Armed Forces killed in World War II. If we continue as-is, and do not act to treat the vaxx-injured, total estimated Canadian vaxx-caused deaths will exceed ~140,000 by end2023.
I am trying to make inexpensive, voluntary, over-the-counter “Ivermectin plus” packages widely available for treatment of the Covid illness and the vaxx-injured.
This “Ivermectin plus” treatment will save millions of Lives.
Regards, Allan MacRae, Calgary
AGE-STRATIFIED COVID-19 VACCINE-DOSE FATALITY RATE FOR ISRAEL AND
AUSTRALIA
Rancourt et
al Feb2023
(excerpt)
The paper suggests you can take the number of vaccine doses delivered, divide by 1,000 to get an estimate of the number of people killed by the COVID vaccine.
The COVID-19 vaccines did not only not save lives but they are highly toxic. On the global scale, given the 3.7 million fatalities in India alone, having vDFR = 1 %
(Rancourt, 2022), and given the age-stratified vDFR results presented in this
work, it is not unreasonable to assume an all-population global value of vDFR =
0.1 %. Based on the global number of COVID-19 vaccine doses administered to
date (13.25 billion doses, up to 24 January 2023, Our World in Data), this
would correspond to 13 million deaths from the COVID-19 vaccines worldwide.
I was amused by the chart which said that world oil demand peaked in 2019 and will now decline. Africa has just started to industrialise and will have 2.5 billion people in 2050. Quite rightly, all of these people will want to have the same living standards that we currently enjoy in the developed world. Demand for fossil fuels will continue rising all of the way to 2050 and beyond.
Good point.
Western politicians think it is all about them.
According to the iea, global oil demand will continue growing into the future. The apparent peak in 2019 was just caused by the lockdowns caused by covid.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-oil-demand-growth-2011-2025
It is the supply that has not increased. In economics, demand is what you want, can pay for, and either exists or can be made to exist in the short term. If one of the three fails, you do not constitute a present demand for the good.
The oil supply is not going to increase short term. Russia’s production is going down, KSA’s production is not going up, and USA’s production cannot compensate for the decrease and raise global production enough. That much is what the EIA is saying for the crude+condensate categories, which are the real oil, and not the liquids they like to talk about to hide the situation.
Data from the January 2023 STEO, graph courtesy of Dennys Coyne.
So, if supply cannot make more oil exist short-term, it is stupid to speak of peak oil demand. The world is not consuming less oil by choice.
World oil use hit a record level in 2022. If supply is not keeping up with this demand, I presume that oil stocks must be getting run down.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-business/world-oil-demand-exceeded-pre-covid-level-in-late-2022-opec/articleshow/97922615.cms
We don’t know what happens in most countries’ stores, but OCDE stores are tanking. Biden is doing a good job at that.
They hadn’t been this low since who knows when.
2009 is an interesting start year. The “fun” would be 1978 and 2008.
Investment in oil and gas production depends on a lot more than current supply and demand (the current price).
Oil and Gas Production Timelines (investopedia.com)
The investments depend on a lot more:
Also important:
Expected supply
Expected demand
Availability of funding if not from profits in 2021, 2022 and 2023
Alternative investments (i,e; stock buybacks or “green” investments).
Cost of capital
Past experiences with overreactions to oil price increases (industry overinvestment that drove down oil prices)
The expectations have to be based partially on Jumpin Joe Bidet and fellow Dumbocrats controlling the presidency and the Senate for at least two more years.
And Dumbocrats controlling the deep state (government bureaucracy), maybe forever. The EPA’s 49mpg CAFE requirement for 2026 model automobiles, for one example, will be forcing EV sales over ICE sales.
The Supreme Court weakened the EPA’s CO2 is pollution rule last Summer but the EPA can get around that by a focus on particulate matter from hydrocarbon fuel burning, and protecting alleged endangered species to prevent investments.
“The world is not consuming less by choice.”
Nailed it!
If demand increases but supply falls, then consumption falls. Supply and consumption are not demand.
Analogy: A long food queue is an indicator of demand that is higher than supply or consumption.
Consumption is satisfied demand. A long food queue can be an indicator of many things as it can be caused by different factors.
China and India already have c. 2.8 billion population demanding the same living standards we have. Indonesia, Pakistan and Brazil add another 725m. Add in Africa and other Asian countries etc and by 2050 the vast majority of the world will be wanting at least the Wests current level of living standards and not the poor level we will be ‘enjoying’ then if net zero goes ahead.
Yes. I should post a USA housing square feet per person chart here. Family size has decreased, house size has grown, consistent for decades.
not to mention what happens to oil & gas usage when the subsidies for “green” energy dry up and their production goes back to zero – the Exxon forecast has the world using more oil & gas in 2050 than we are using now but that will be woefully short – leftists like to talk about oil & gas stranded assets but in reality it will be all the abandoned windmills and solar farms that become stranded assets once the subsidies expire in what will be recognized as the biggest misallocation of capital in the history of mankind
“the biggest misallocation of capital in the history of mankind”
That’s what it is.
If people ever start driving into work offices again…
Nut-Zero will never happen. World will still be powered by 70% FF in 2050….and beyond, well beyond. Oil, Gas and Coal — good. There is no climate emergency.
—-
“What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.” ~ Richard Lindzen.
Thanks for the great quote…never a truer word spoken.
I hope that you are correct. But how much damage will be done in the next 10-15 years before the inevitable failure of net zero becomes so obvious that even Progressives see it?
My favorite Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. quote, I believe from 2009:
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.” ~ Richard Lindzen
Further to that – The developed world has contemplated the roll back of the industrial age, now they are attempting to do it…
A few points to make here. 1. I haven’t looked at the latest BP annual forecast but BP cannot possibly still be claiming worldwide oil demand peaked in 2019 since it is widely expected to be almost 3M barrels per day higher this year than in 19. And short of a major worldwide recession it will set new records in 24. 2. And where did they get this nonsense that “alternative technology is already so cheap that decarbonisation can be done at a negative net cost – ie, an economic gain”. Have they bothered to review the delivered cost of electricity in countries jumping headlong into renewables ? 3. Finally, one has to assume that the aptly named Mr. Looney didn’t discover on his own in a sudden epiphany that it was too early to suddenly dump fossil fuel development in lieu of renewables. More likely his BOD and largest shareholders pointed out to him in a rather direct way that he best start mimicking his western Big Oil competitors before he found himself out of a job- that can happen when your share price dramatically trails your fossil fuel focused rivals.
BP came up with the “Beyond Petroleum” campaign decades ago.
Paul, for future posts, please identify in the initial text of the post what the initials stand for. For non-Telegraph readers, AEP is meaningless.
Regards,
Bob
An
Egregious
Personage.
The article was #22 of 24 climate science and energy articles I recommended this morning, at: Honest Climate Science and Energy
I looked up AEP first, and only knew him as the author of a book criticizing Bill Clinton in 1987, which I once owned. I changed the article title because I assumed no one in the US would know the guy anyway. He sounds like he is a leftist, tat least after that Bill Clinton book.
My title:
From UK: We Will Still Need Fossil Fuels In 2050 — Leftist Reporter’s U-Turn
Except AEP and the Torygraph are on the right in UK 🙂
To the right of today’s leftists still seems like old school leftistism to me! But I changed the title to:
(22) From UK: We Will Still Need Fossil Fuels In 2050 — Popular Reporter’s U-Turn
I assume he is popular in the UK if people know him by his initials? Maybe I’m wrong again!
Well he gets quite a few mentions on NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT so regular contributors there know exactly who and what AEP is. As for the wider public probably no one does.
Exactly…never heard of AEP until today.
Consider yourself very fortunate
In farness, most of what AEP writes is meaningless too.
It seems to me, a reader for nearly two decades, that should be a goal for EVERY post, and in particular, for EVERY CHART!
TLA’s (Three Letter Acronyms) should always be written out at their first occurrence, if nothing else as a courtesy to those doing topic word searches.
TLAs.
And what I want to know is whether AEP and Jeremy Warner have ever been seen together in the same place at the same time?
Bob, good point. I went back to the beginning of the article and noted that right below the first use was the individual’s name. I read the whole article believing it was somehow Appalachian Electric Power.
We Will Still Need Fossil Fuels In 2050?
Probably not in Wales…. This week, it was announced that all road-building projects in Wales have been scrapped.
So get on down to the Village (Portmeirion), No. 6
“I am not a number! I am a set of weird pronouns!”
My favourite thus far – Fisherthem…
Piers Morgan has said that Sam Smith “needs to shut up” after the musician spoke about a desire to one day become a “fisherthem” rather than a fisherman.
https://www.newsweek.com/piers-morgan-tells-sam-smith-shut-about-becoming-fisherthem-1781750
Woke is a crusade against western civilisation
Sam Smith’s over processed auto-tuned music is of no interest to this audiophile, I wonder if he has had a career setback and pulled a Madonna-style publicity stunt trick (shock everyone) to get attention recently?
I wouldn’t call ‘it’ a musician – or even a musithem.
At least the manufactured Monkees had some decent tunes.
Good songwriters. I still like this one:
The Monkees – Steppin’ Stone [WideScreen] – YouTube
Mike Nesmith was a real country musician and had a long career. He died in 2021. Not my style of music, but he was the real deal.
Michael Nesmith – Joanne – YouTube
Sung to the tune of ‘love is only sleeping’
while staring into greta’s eyes on a dinner date
she, looked at me
and the craziness in her eyes was cruel to see
and she turned away and said
‘once I loved a polar bear’
then I whispered
‘sometimes AL, he’s oh so creepy’
she said ‘I cannot lie,
and I can’t think for myself oh why oh why’
and her voice was hot as heck
and her sweet young face, well..bleck
and I whispered
Climate Change, is only sleeping
Hansen and east anglia are publishing bullcrap about tah-mah-orrow
tah-mah-orrow
griff and stokes are searching for some more BS data to bah-ah-row
bah-ah-row
the Pause, its sleeping…..
sleeping……
I think griff went extinct
Sam who?
It had a lovely ‘sting in the tail‘ didn’t it. That is not at all the right phrase but best I can think right now.
That #6 was always wondering who #1 was – who was the actual jailer?
#2 certainly fitted the role, seemingly being in charge and always asking all the questions.
But still it nagged, who was Number One?
The sting being so beautiful and perfect – esp for now.
That Number One and Number Six were one and the same.
That #1 had imprisoned himself and was blaming the eternally shadowy, Number Two. And it was achieved via psychoactive drugs (and doctors) as we saw in the intro to every episode
#6 knew perfectly well he was imprisoned in every way possible but no matter what he did, could not escape, that he almost didn’t want to escape.
Why should he anyway, life in The Village was so perfect, so nice & lovely – you might even have said: “Life had never been better” In The Village (##)
The Village always had perfect weather too.
An absolute and definitive description of Magical Thinking – what causes it, how horrible it is and its manifestations – buck passing and lying (to self esp)
At least #6 had the good grace not to inflict himself on #3, #4 and #5 as is the modern way.
Whether #1 did that we are left to speculate.
(That’s an interesting Cause/Effect puzzle innit)
## haha – What are ‘15 minute zones‘ all about if not attempts to (re)create: The Village
But who’s coat is that jacket and see those two houses, mine’s the one in the middle. Ofnadwy.
“the International Energy Agency say alternative technology is already so cheap that decarbonisation can be done at a negative net cost – ie, an economic gain.”
Commerce abhors a vacuum. No opportunity for economic gain is ever overlooked. Someone always finds a way. If decarbonisation isn’t happening spontaneously it is because it is loss-making.
Did any of the grown-ups in the IEA approve that release?
My pet theory is that Fatih Birol of the IEA is angling for the top job at the UN so they release things slavishly in favour of net zero
We will not be getting it. That much is sure. We’ll have to make do with what we’ll get.
Ambrose Evans Pritchard is for sale to any energy company – usually renewables.
I have no idea why this person Ambrose Evans Pritchard should been known by the TLA AEP
Me neither. I have always disagreed with everything he has written. He is a shill for hire. Some people think he is God.
Why is whatever AEP thinks about energy important to anyone in the UK?
Here in the US, he was only known for a 1987 book critical of Bill Clinton.
We haven’t heard from him since. Based on Wikipedia, his career after that book seems like a nothingburger.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard – Wikipedia
I think your question really applies to readers of the Daily Telegrauniadgraph.
That’s his fanbase.
Comments below the line in the DT generally run counter to his pieces
And the circus calliope continues to play on with each regurgitated pronouncement of the death of fossil fuels. Perhaps, the nutjobs making the statements need to recall the world does actually run on fossil fuel for everything…absolutely everything. Just not a lot of folks understand that little bit of info. Time to break it down to acknowledge that without fossil fuels, we’d still be living in caves and mud huts and subsisting on nuts and berries and whatever we could run down. Think about it a bit, all ye deep thinking climate cult goofballs.
Then, prove me wrong. Dare ya.
I would like to know what role democide has in these planners minds?
And I would applaud climate activists if they had more common sense. It seems to me that most have none.
I would never applaud ‘climate activists.’ They are nothing but Deluded Useful Idiots.
Humanity is not, has never been, and will never be in control of the “climate.” We are just along for the ride, and can do nothing about it but adapt, as needed, when it changes. Or die.
The changes to the “climate” since The Little Ice Age have been 100% BENEFICIAL, contrary to the prevailing propaganda. There’s not even an “adaptation” we need to do at this stage, things have IMPROVED.
Even “bad weather” (or bad “weather related” events) would pose no issues if we put more thought and correct engineering into how we “develop” in ‘high risk’ areas. To be able to do that requires, beyond the political will to do things right, more wealth, which is best created by MORE fossil fuel use, not less.
Impoverishing ourselves with idiotic “climate policies” will make us MORE VULNERABLE to “bad weather” (and “bad weather” related) events, NOT less – and said idiotic “policies” will have no measurable effect on weather OR “climate.”
The West’s climate policies will lead to the East taking over world leadership. Learn Mandarin.
Japan was supposed to do that in the 1980s.
Not to anybody that understood that Japan is a small island nation with no natural resources and that any nation could do what they were doing. Additionally, the Western nations didn’t have suicidal social, economic and energy policies at that time.
If you don’t think that, especially, China and India are developing into world powers with the assistance of sane energy policies then you are sadly misinformed. Without a definite and substantial course change the West cannot keep up with their growing economic and military strength.
“and will never be”
Too far
Activists are Ideologues and not real Scientists.
See real two real intellects destroy an idealogue.
Jordan Peterson And Stephen Fry DESTROY Angry ‘Intellectual’
Despite the refinery photo at top, I had hoped this was going to be an article about American Electric Power backing off renewable energy. Oh, well.
Ah yes, AEP: the Telegraph’s bete noire. Why they employ him eludes me.
Got something on the boss? 🙂
Worlds largest climate website sent them a lot of browsers this morning,
The current premature push to transition from hydrocarbon fuel botched or planned failure?
Botched–I wonder how likely this is?
Planned Failure— If planned who benefits and how?
Botched— This instigates a political blame game, action distraction, …so much smoke and it will take a long time for the smoke to abate.
Planned Failure— this points to another government outside of our political representative government where smoke is a good thing.
A question that I can’t answer but one worth asking?
Missing the key missing link (viable electrical energy storage and distribution) is not something corporate leaders miss. Corporate leaders do not put the cart before the horse and sell it to consumers if they are ethical and smart. They’d lose their shirts. Yet if the media and the government are going to do all the marketing for you and profit is assured, then unethical corporate leader will go after the bucks. Yet the question remains why market the cart before the horse….. blind faith,…. stupidity. Most people are not that stupid…sorry!
In a few years, the failed Nut Zero project will be spun as a new climate emergency that requires even MORE government power and control to solve.
The coming failure is known and deliberate. Few leftist engineers think this could succeed, even if they never speak up. That are not that stupid. They are just cowards.
Thanks Richard,
Yes, we are in the era of planned emergencies and crises both climate (false crisis), energy, economic and biological….. who is planning them I don’t know. It almost feels like there is a shadow global government that is usurping our representative power.
I don’t think the our corporate leaders, solar, wind, grid engineers are stupid, neither are our politicians in general (I acknowledge a few major exceptions). It is as if everyone is being swept up but unseen forces that don’t care if none of it makes sense or works and people are afraid.
Even the smartest people are just people, limited with failing wisdom and insight. Successful smart people just keep doing what they do best and they look at their power, money and accomplishments for validation. The more money and power they have the more vulnerable they become to themselves. This is where smart ends and megalomania begins…smart becomes deranged. Wisdom, truth, love are lost in self referential self acknowledging megalomania. The vast global economic expansion that began in 1991 raised up many of them.
Isn’t this one of the key thematic streams in human history..
The most powerful people in the world are no longer elected officials and heads of state there are several prominent exceptions.. I am no fan of Putin but reading his last address to WEF in 2021 is very illuminating…..even if he is just another megalomaniac.
I think the answer to this riddle is planned failure resulting in a premature botched transition away from hydrocarbon fuel… but who can be sure? Look beyond the politicians.
“Corporate leaders do not put the cart before the horse and sell it to consumers”
Have you worked at a large corporation?
Yes, and the corporation I work for doesn’t sell products they know are going to fail the consumer even selling said products would succeed at the bottom line. It is a recipe for failure in the long run.
The point is failure is the success… this is the CRAZY we live in.
It is the paradox of our age.
Solar failed
Wind failed
Masks failed
Lock down failed
School systems are failing to fully educate
Vaccinations failed
Elections are always in question
Defund police failed
Large Family Farms are failing
Censorship succeeded in ensuring failure
Response to opioid crisis failed
The Fringe political movements failed to capture America
Energy policies are failing
Green initiative to reducing Hydrocarbon fuel consumption failed
Expanding the access to the enormous global supply of hydrocarbon fuel failed to reduce the price of hydrocarbon fuel to consumers.
So the question is what hasn’t failed
Energy Companies are winning big and succeeding big
Big Media is winning and further consolidate with big tech
Big Tech is winning big
WEF is succeeding in become hugely prominent
Chemical companies are winning big
Grocery Chains are winning big
Big Pharma wins big
Biotech wins big
Amazon keeps winning bigger and bigger….
Inflation is winning.
Little guys no longer have any honor. Even their dollars don’t wield any power they’re so locked in.
Ha, even a small one, Kevin.
I worked at a company (with less than a dozen employees) that made white-label news apps. The CEO had us putting most of our effort into adding an alarm clock to the app, something that absolutely nobody was asking for, instead of fixing bugs and improving overall user experience.
Had it been big enough, inertia would have kept it alive. As it was, it managed to stay in business almost three years.
‘to make green hydrogen a commercial reality in this country instead of a pious dream.’
Just goes to show that AEP is still an ignorant moron.
downvoted for name calling that detracts from a valid observation
Call it like it is.
I’m sure they will still have world wide meetings fly there in the battery powered electric airplanes .
Tech is not the problem. People are. Tech that works well, serves real need. solves real problems well and empowers us little people is good tech. EV, E-jets E-bus etc are neutral in and of themselves. But when they are not all that viable and generally do not reduce the consumption of hydrocarbon fuel and are far more expensive and are foisted on us to solve a false problem like saving the planet by people then those people are the problem.
Electrical generation requires constant energy input from a fuel source: ..hydrocarbon, Nuke, Solar, Wind, Horse, gravity whatever.. it doesn’t matter….. it’s what works that matters.
Without a profound advances in electrical energy storage only Hydrocarbon and Nuke can keep the grid going reliably…. renewables are a weak adjunct…. not a substitute. To foist them on us before there are profound tech advances in electrical storage is premature and doomed to fail….causing more crisis
If profound improvement happens to electrical storage…. then all energy inputs for electrical generation become viable and a transition to electrical motors is just fine because it’s not premature. It is the green movement and it’s oligarchical hosts who are trying to rule the world with this fail.
Meanwhile, they know they skim Americans at the pump and the quick stop. This is a bet on American mobility with money in their pockets.
story tip
BP to buy TravelCenters of America for $1.3 billion (yahoo.com)
I don’t understand. Please elaborate.
AEP didn’t “wake up” to anything: He is still saying that ruinables and electrification will save money. It is almost as if he believes in the “broken window” fallacy. English Lit majors running the industrial world.
He sure seems like a leftist to me, by American standards.
AEP is still a stupid person. He still supports ‘Decarbonization’, a euphemism for ‘let’s kill the plebs’. He still supports ‘green energy’, a program envisioned by the ruling class to take from the plebs and line the pockets of the ruling class. He’s a useful idiot to the ruling class, can still sip his triple mocha latte in a concrete and steel high rise, and hitch a ride to conferences designed to reinforce all of this.
How many people focused intently on ‘x’ think”
“The world is underinvesting in… ‘x’
I know I’ve done it in my profession. Same with every public spending plan or infrastructure report ever written.