DAVID BLACKMON IS AN ENERGY WRITER AND CONSULTANT BASED IN TEXAS. HE SPENT 40 YEARS IN THE OIL AND GAS BUSINESS, WHERE HE SPECIALIZED IN PUBLIC POLICY AND COMMUNICATIONS.
“Today, our society requires oil and gas … There is no way to think that overnight we can just eliminate all that and rely only on 10% of low-carbon energy. It will take decades to build a new system. If we don’t invest enough, the [oil] price will not be $75 per barrel, it will be $150 or $200 and all consumers will be super unhappy and our life will be a nightmare.” That quote was made by TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanne during a recent interview with CNBC.
Mr. Pouyanne is certainly not alone in his assessment, though he is closer to the situation than most of the rest of us. The fact is the world is not engaged in any sort of a real “energy transition” at all, but rather a massive diversification and expansion of all types of energy resources. That includes wind and solar, renewable energy sources that are in the midst of a huge expansion drive by trillions of dollars in global government subsidies, but nuclear and coal and wood and biofuels and yes, oil and natural gas. (RELATED: DAVID BLACKMON: Biden Is Spreading Around Green Subsidies Like A Vegas Gambler)
A new analysis released this week by Energy Outlook Advisors (EOA), a Texas-based advisory group headed up by Anas Alhajji, demonstrates clearly why the popular energy transition narrative about achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 is literally a fantasy.
Start with China and its’ “net-zero by 2060” pledge as a prime example. “The largest investor in renewable energy in the world is China,” Alhajji notes. “To achieve carbon neutrality at this pace of investment, China needs 211 years. But here’s the catch: this number assumes all current renewable projects are going to remain in place forever, and that they won’t require new investments when they expire after 25-30 years. What this indicates is that achieving carbon neutrality by 2060, or even later, is a pipe dream.”
Europe, whose countries have spent trillions of Euros on decarbonization efforts in this century, is another great example. The EOA report points out that, despite those gargantuan investments, fossil fuels — coal, oil and natural gas — provided 71% of Europe’s primary energy consumption during 2022. In China, the figure for 2022 was 82%. In India — the world’s second most populous nation — it was 89%.
In the electricity generation sector, the dominance of fossil fuels is only slightly lower. Europe did manage to generate 41% of its electricity from renewables during 2022, but fossil fuel generation was at 38% with nuclear generating 19% of the continent’s power needs. In China and India, coal is still king, generating 61% and 74% of the power supply in those two Asian giants.
Globally, fossil fuels generated 61% of electricity in 2022, the same percentage as in the United States. With power demand projected to rise dramatically along with the recharging needs of an expanding fleet of electric vehicles in the coming years, this percentage breakdown seems unlikely to shift appreciably for decades to come.
These and other points of hard data cited in the report lead Alhajji to this conclusion: “Most countries, if not all, will not achieve their targets of carbon neutrality, or net zero, by 2050 or 2060. The data above shows that fossil fuels are entrenched and hard to reduce, let alone get rid of them. The hard reality is that we have spent more than $4 trillion on solar and wind energy since 2010, and yet they are showing little progress on the energy landscape.”
Where oil and natural gas are concerned, the report adds, “Data indicates that future demand for oil and gas is UNDERESTIMATED, while demand destruction is HYPED.” That conclusion is supported by repeated upwards revisions of global demand estimates this year by both OPEC and the International Energy Agency.
These are all themes I’ve written about since early 2022, and we have seen a growing consensus forming around them throughout the course of 2023. This EOA report will no doubt help firm up that consensus by documenting the wealth of hard data supporting it.
It’s an important report that everyone should take the time to read and absorb.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
For more on Fossil Fuels and their importance to humanity, check out our ClimateTV page and choose Alex Epstein in speaker list.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My first reaction was, “I don’t have time to read everything they don’t understand.”
My second reaction was, “That’s ok, he doesn’t have time to write that much either.”
There are over 6000 different things that Modern Society requires to function that are dependent on Gas, Oil and/or Coal which CAN NOT be produced from Wind and Solar.
Even Wind and Solar generation components are dependent on Oil, Gas AND Coal for their creation, transport and maintenance.
No matter how you try to transform society away from FF dependence, Society will need FF for energy and materials manufacturing and transportation for more than a century. The optional energy source simply can’t create what a modern society requires.
Wind and Solar + Battery (because Solar only works at capacity 4 hours a day, it MUST be Solar + Battery) will only power a non industrial, agrarian society adequately. Grid power for a technological society requires a constantly available supply of energy with preference toward high density energy.
The only current energy generation type which can function 24/7/365, produce 0 emissions and be placed ALMOST anyplace is Nuclear
Simply assuming the Green Blob is bat-sh*t crazy, and automatically rejecting all their claims, should be a default assumption.
That assumption actually explains the behaviour of Greens everywhere. The Green party in Scotland now controls the Scottish government and is trying to enact all of its insane policies. The Scottish Green party believes that Scotland is too warm and tailors all of its policies based on that belief. For example, the Greens want all oil and gas extraction from the North Sea to stop and the Scottish government now wants no new oil and gas licences to be permitted in the North Sea. They actually seem to think that Scotland can somehow function without oil and gas. This is in huge contrast to Norway which has just awarded dozens of new exploration licences in their sector of the North Sea.
“They actually seem to think that Scotland can somehow function without oil and gas.”
How about if Scotland leaves the UK- and without a fossil fuel industry. It’ll be an instant 3rd world nation.
The question I have is how can they be de-fanged and returned to their padded cell?
Someone should tell creepy Joe.
Too busy being a Snarf
If mankind was doing something that was causing C02 to decline by 100 ppm per century…we could then be very concerned.
Crucial and eye-opening figures here that need to be thrown regularly at the climate alarmists and environmental dreamers just to remind them that the real meaning of achieving Net Zero by 2050 is essentially zero—period.
Achieving Net Zero by 2050 WILL be accomplished…through creative bookkeeping.
Vermont will Generate wind, solar, hydro, (non FF generation) plus FF generating to export to New Hampshire. Since Vermont isn’t using the FF Generation within the state, it isn’t part of their carbon footprint. (Net Zero)
Likewise New Hampshire will use the FF Generation from Vermont instead of internally generated FF Energy (which is exported to Vermont) so, since the FF Gen didn’t originate in their state, they will still be Net Zero.
I’m questioning whether oil prices will rise or fall in the next couple of years as unemployment rises and consumers struggle. Mr. Blackmon indicates that supply could be constrained due to lack of investment in exploration and production.
What to do, what to do?
|To achieve carbon neutrality at this pace of investment, China needs 211 years”
But of course, the pace of investment will increase, dramatically. Here is the recent history of global investment:
But that is global, not China, you may say. OK, here is the breakdown of recent growth by country. China leads:
But of course, the pace of investment will increase, dramatically.
How can that be predicted? There are many unknowns in the years ahead that could very well require large and important investments, more important than a fantastical attempt to eliminate carbon from the environment. There could be serious earthquakes, asteroid encounters, epidemics, widespread armed conflicts, and many others unrelated to climate. Wouldn’t the citizens of the world be wiser to conserve some wealth to respond to such events rather than dump trillions in upfront costs and subsidies on a faux problem that’s far down the list of existential threats?
Privately, none of us want to be broke. We all want some money put away for possible emergencies. It’s the height of irresponsibility that those in command of government spending are able to continuously maintain the population at the brink of bankruptcy by lavishing trillions on the renewable energy sector as well as the military complex.
“How can that be predicted? “
The calculation here is based on investment being constant. That is a prediction, and a shaky one when it has been increasing rapidly.
It doesn’t matter if its constant or increasing. Installing huge amounts of intermittent generating capacity is not going to diminish fossil fuel consumption. The problem is, it doesn’t work.
This is also why investment will not increase. I doubt it remains constant for much longer. Wind and solar are not viable technologies in this application, because intermittency.
But these numbers are nothing compared to what they should be if they were serious (and if there was actually a real problem with fossil fuels).
“That is a prediction..”
That’s the problem, too many predictions- not enough evidence to support them.
Silicon uses carbon both as a reducing agent and for the energy to drive the reduction reaction. All of the metals mining is reliant upon diesel fuel and explosives derived from fossil fuels.
Wind turbine blades require fiberglass composites, you guessed it, made from fossil fuels. The turbine generators are made from the aforementioned metals, as well as being lubricated via fossil derived oils and greases.
Huge amounts of concrete and steel are used for wind turbine support structures. All produced and transported via fossil fuels.
Increase the pace of investment all you want, fossil fuels aren’t going to be taken out of the mix of required energy or materials.
Not forgetting the thousands of gallons of white paint for said windmills. Or are they making that from yoghurt now? Oh wait, can’t be, because dairy products have “climate impacts” too..
Apparently, a wind turbine requires 70 tonnes of oil products during its lifetime.
Even the IEA acknowledges that fossil fuels are here to stay. In their ‘World Energy Outlook 2022’ they say
“coal demand peaks in the next few years, natural gas reaches a plateau by 2030 and oil demand reaches a high point in the mid 2030s before falling slightly.”
“From 80% today – a level constant for decades fossil fuels fall to 75% by 2030 and just over 60% by 2050”
I also think they are being optimistic in relation to coal peaking seeing as China, India, Indonesia and other Asian countries are still on an upward path.The Asia-Pacific region is now responsible for almost 50% of global CO2 emissions ( Energy Institute ‘Statistical Review of World Energy’ 2023)
Oh yes Nick – investment has been increasing year on year but this is not reflected in installed capacity. Solar has stayed roughly the same since 2022, wind has marginally increased, hydro has shrunk to half what it was. Overall, the renewable capacity has decreased in the last year, despite having more investment put into the sector. More and more of that investment is going to be spent on keeping the current capacity going and less will be spent on new capacity.
So investment is the only answer, because investments mean reliable power out. 😉
And all for an INCREASE in the rate global CO2 emissions.
And an increasing increase in the atmospheric CO2 content.
Ridiculously stupid waste of money, isn’t it. !
So with this pace of investment, please tell me where all the copper and other minerals are going to come from to keep pace Nick??
Simply they are not going to “keep pace”. Investment is one thing; mineral resources and production, supply chains are a whole other “thing”.
Supply and demand. The price implications from mineral demands entering a period of consistent undersupply due to all the energy so called “transition” goals (including EV’s batteries etc) will no doubt lead to huge peaks for sustained periods, years, many years. The continued upward price pressure on resources will lead to and has already led to a slowdown in investments and in some cases a collapse of some renewable energy players.
I cannot see lower production costs for ANY ASPECT of the so-called “transition”, for the foreseeable future – my best guesstimate. Heck, we all know the green loonies haven’t thought the economics through at all. One just has to listen to people such as Chris Bowen, the Australian Minister for Energy Poverty and Climate Catastrophe for confirmation.
NUT-ZERO – IT-WILL-NEVER-HAPPEN
Silly boy. Solar panels and wind turbines have a useful lifespan of at most 20 years, and are not recyclable. That means the entire renewables infrastructure must be built, from scratch, every 20 years, forever.
How long have we been building this stuff now, just to get a few percent, not the 100%? We’d have to ramp up production by a factor of, I dunno, 100? just to maintain current electricity production.
It cannot be done. You think oil is limited? Hoo boy, all those rare earths are much more problematic.
Dream on Nick Stokes, adding to aussiecol’s comment:
“Fully replacing hydrocarbons using SWB [solar wind battery] technologies would require a quantity of minerals that exceeds the known global reserves of those mineral” (IHS Markit S&P Global, “The Future of Copper in the Energy Transition” July 14, 2022 via Manhattan Institute Mark Mills).
And that would need to be repeated every twenty years.
Wow such large investment for so little return.
How much of that investment is resulting in installed wind or solar power in China, as opposed to manufactured for export?
The need to reduce CO2 emissions globally was recognized in 1992. That year the world was getting 87% of its primary energy from fossil fuels. 30 years later it is getting 82%. It would appear some progress has been made. Yet in 1992 the world was getting 300 Exajoules from fossil fuels and 30 years later it is getting 500 Exajoules. So in reality we are getting more and more dependent on fossil fuels. That is the reality.
An energy source that can provide sufficient energy for the growing needs of a growing population and at the same time substitute a significant part of the energy we obtain from fossil fuels does not exist. No transition is going to happen until it does or until our energy needs start decreasing instead of increasing.
Those that are dreaming it can happen over the next 30 years are not attached to reality. A catastrophic industrial collapse for a lack of sufficient cheap energy is more probable than an energy transition.
What are they doing in coal fired generation, Nick? Surprised you are not showing that too….
Tony Heller recently posted this video of a filthy carbon-spewing coal fired power plant in Colorado. You can see why people want to replace them with a couple of hundred windmills even though they take up much less land and only work all the time. The improvement to the landscape is obviously worth the sacrifice.
Just look at that Dead Zone around the facility where nothing can grow anymore… Were doomed…doomed
super- thanks for that- I haven’t watched Tony much laterly- too many things to watch on YouTube what with wars and UFOs- but that’ll be a classic- I’m going to pass that one along
Increased investment, does not equate to increased energy provision. It just means it is costing more to produce the same linear growth. Your top chart is an “own goal”. Despite FF getting less investment, it is still the major supplier of energy.
I wonder how many readers here would walk into a supermarket and pay more for less?
“But of course, the pace of investment will increase, dramatically.”
Resistance is building almost everywhere- THAT will increase dramatically. Plan on it.
Perhaps for the wrong reasons, but for a change, Russia is doing the right thing.
I think we can compromise. How about we go hard on nuclear energy, ease way back on oil and coal, and supplement our nukes with clean natural gas?
Since energy supplies are a fundamental requirement for any modern society to function, it makes sense that we should explore all potential sources of energy in order to increase the potential reserves. However, we should not ignore the actual cost of whatever energy sources we use, because the true cost of the energy we use is directly related to the average wealth and prosperity of all the citizens in any society, although it’s not the only factor. The efficiency with which we use that energy is also very significant.
A major issue in my opinion, is the efficiency with which we are using our current energy supplies. For example, do windmills and PV panels produce more energy, during their lifetime, than was required to manufacture, install, maintain, and recycle them?
If the answer is ‘no’, then building windmills and PV panels would be as foolish as employing people to pick up stones from the beach and then employing them to replace the same stones on the same beach.
That’s because the goal is not an “energy transition” (which is physically impossible unless perhaps with fission). The goal is to siphon off as much government money as possible into the pockets of the politically connected and their friends, who then will turn around and share their ill-gotten gains with the politicians who enabled it. It’s grift all the way down, the most spectacular in the history of mankind.
You nailed it! Someone is getting RICH off these subsidies and it ain’t the common man!
Why are these natural resources called fossil fuels.
And
Where is the proof that’s how they originated?
Yes. Absolute proof. There are biomarkers all over coal and oil. Only some methane could have an abiotic origin, but most of it has a biotic origin and is associated with oil or coal deposits. The name fossil fuels is correct.
Biomarkers are not a proof of biological origin.
Yes, they are. And there is absolutely no credible evidence for a different origin.
Javier, love your work, but in this instance, you are mistaken:
Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910084259.htm
“[T]here is no way that fossil oil, with the help of gravity or other forces, could have seeped down to a depth of 10.5 kilometers in the state of Texas, for example, which is rich in oil deposits.”
The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.172376899
“The high-pressure genesis of petroleum hydrocarbons has been demonstrated.”
Fossil fuel without the fossils. https://www.nature.com/articles/news020812-3.
No. I am not mistaken. There are lots and lots of biomarkers in oil, some of them very complex very stable lipid molecules with up to 120 carbon atoms. The biological origin of fossil fuels is not under dispute.
Read and learn:
https://www.encyclopedie-environnement.org/en/life/oil-evidence-biological-origin/
That Russian scientist is a crackpot that is dead wrong. There are always some of them.
Thanks Javier. The evidence for the biological origin of oil appears to be very strong. Nonetheless I wondered about the 35,056′ depth of the Tiber oil field, in the Gulf of Mexico, discovered by BP. That oil seemed to deep to have a biological source. Then I learned:
“The Gulf of Mexico has accumulated more than 60,000′ of sedimentary column over the last 200 million years. The Cenozoic section, alone, is more than 40,000′ thick in places. The Quaternary can be more than 30,000′ thick in some locations. Most of the sedimentary column is composed of thick, organic-rich shale.” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/18/oil-where-did-it-come-from/ By David Middleton a “petroleum geologist/geophysicist with about 36 years of experience in oil & gas exploration mostly in the Gulf of Mexico,”
I hope your book Climate of the Past, Present and Future: A scientific debate, 2nd ed. will influence those believing CO2 is the principal climate control knob.
I sent you links to “credible evidence for a different origin” two hours ago but it is “awaiting for approval”
There are many instances of hydrocarbons in the Solar system. Somehow, none of them are of biogenic origin.
Yes, so what? There are all sorts of hydrocarbons and most only have a biological origin. And oil has plenty of biological lipids too.
Story tip?
I might be a little late to the party here, as I imagine the BBC, CNN and the guardian are all over this, but apparently everybody’s favourite climate czar had a grilling a few days ago, and there are quite a few videos appearing on youtube. This is the best of the handful I have viewed so far:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhiV5owv53M
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving fella.
“For more on Fossil Fuels and their importance to humanity, check out our ClimateTV page and choose Alex Epstein in speaker list.”
I don’t see Alex Epstein listed on that page. He’s a hero of mine.
Click the “Speaker” box in the Sort panel.
Build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators and remove all wind and solar from the grid.