From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
The BBC want to know why the world is still exploring for oil, gas and coal:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001sr6f
It is just as well that we are still exploring, because if we don’t the world’s economy would soon collapse.
Given the fact that the world still gets 82% of its energy from fossil fuels, and that energy demand continues to increase year on year, there is simply no possibility that we could quickly switch to an all renewable economy.
And this ignores the fact that we will still continue to need fossil fuels for non-energy use.
BP Energy Review
The BBC seem to think that if we stop drilling now, it won’t affect us for decades; that we have “plenty of fossil fuels” already available to us which will last for years. But life is not like that.
Every year, new capacity comes on stream. But every year, older capacity is shut down, or its productivity rapidly diminished. Typically oil and gas fields have between 20 and 40 years of significant production, and as we have seen in the North Sea output has been tailing off for as few years. If no new capacity is brought on, we could potentially lose a quarter of the world’s supply within a decade or so.
According to the IEA, 5.9 mbd of net additional oil capacity is projected to come on line by 2028, but this will only be enough to meet demand. In other words, this is net of the loss of existing capacity. The gross capacity addition is probably double this number.
Annual oil consumption is 97 mbd, so if the BBC got its way the world would be facing a serious shortage of oil within a few short years. The economic and social consequences of this would be catastrophic.
Richard Bilton, who presented this Panorama in La La Land report, has absolutely no experience of or qualifications in energy or economics. According to his BBC resume, his background is mainly in social affairs.
Perhaps next time the BBC might get a journalist who actually understands the energy sector to present Panorama programmes on fossil fuels.
And here’s a bonus article from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT about Richard Bilton
You can’t fix stupid, the BBC, CBC or the Guardian are a small sample.
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Stupidity is an inability to learn even if self imposed. This is a perfect example of the later and as you say, so typical of the press. I would add most alarmists into that group also.
Careful, rah….. “latter”… lol
Fossil fuels will be needed for the next 200 years…until Fusion is functioning on a utility scale and battery tech can power a car for a thousand miles between 5 minute charges without going thermal.
Until we’ve created replacements for the use of Coal for…
Iron purification for structural steel
…Wind Turbine Masts
…RR Tracks
…Train Wheels
…Hi Rise construction
Silica purification for Solar PV Panels and other electronics
Plastics
…For lightweight Automotive components
…For Wind Turbine Blades
…For computers
…For Communications
…For Wire Insulation
And Oil and Gas for…
…Road Surfaces
…Rubber Tires
……Cars
……Trucks
……Busses
……Airplanes
Air Travel
Goods Shipping
As well as all the 6000+ products made from petrochemicals
Re charging of EVs in 5 minutes for 1k miles.
Average for an EV is ~5.5 miles per kWh. So you’re going to have to supply around 180kWh in 5 minutes. Even at 500V that’s a lot of current and a fairly hefty cable.
My local filling station has 20 pumps and most of the time three quarters are in use at busy times there’s a queue. So 15 EVs charging 150kWh of battery every 5 minutes continuously would be the equivalent in Net Zero land.
Is that really possible without trillions of £ being spent?
The concept of queueing theory, has yet to cross their tiny minds
No problem. They will supplement their lack of intelligence with AI. AI doesn’t need concepts in math, physics or optimization. It’s just smarter than people.
GIGO!
I love the podcast commercials about AI trained with “data you trust”.
I remember Raleigh NC Insurance companies were required to modify their pricing structure because lower income people living in areas with higher auto theft were required to pay highre premiums for auto theft protection.
Gather, parse and understand all the data, then ignore what it says for cultural reasons.
“Gather, parse and understand all the data, then ignore what it says for cultural reasons.”
I’m copying that! Thanks.
The idea would be to charge every time you take a rest after an hour or two of driving, not run the battery flat and eventually charge. It will still take a lot more charging stations and a lot more supply, though.
Back before the Arab oil embargo in the ’70s, people would fill up their gas tanks when they needed to. There was rarely any problem just pulling in and immediately starting to fill one’s tank. In their infinite wisdom, California legislators decreed that those with a license plate ending with an odd digit could fill up on days that were odd, and those with a plate ending with an even digit could fill up on even days. That is, unless one owned two cars, with both even and odd license numbers, one could only fill up every other day.
Immediately, there were lines a block or two long during the day with people waiting to get to a gas pump. The hoarder mentality kicked in, causing people to take precautions not to be surprised by additional restrictions coming from those who consider themselves smarter than an average “basket of deplorables.” [Hillary Clinton, 2016]
I predict that if it becomes common for the public to own EVs, and they fill up frequently, one will again see long lines at charging stations, and even if the charging time is reduced to 5 minutes, one will still spend an hour waiting to get access to a charger.
Most people top up at home overnight. Understandably people with no off-street parking won’t be keen to transition to EVs.
However I predict that if it becomes common for the public to own EVs then charging stations will become much more common in places like carparks where they can charge at lower rates over longer times while people are at work or shopping or whatever.
What is the purpose? Many more people die from the cold or cooler weather than from hot weather. Is the government trying to kill off its citizens with strokes and heart attacks? I doubt it.
About 4.5 million people die from cold-related causes compared to about 500,000 people dying from cold-related causes each year. Cold or cool air causes our blood vessels to constrict causing blood pressure to rise and that causes more strokes and heart attacks during the cooler months worldwide.
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
True statements but I don see how they relate to TTTM’s comment.
I assume you mean why go EV at all?
Because fossil fuels are a limited resource and will run out and contrary to what a lot of people believe here, they’re in short supply.
Their understanding is on “current rates of usage” but there are billions of people in China and India (and elsewhere) who are beginning to increase their use and will continue to do so in the coming years.
Don’t believe me? Check the numbers for yourself.
For example, here is gas. Compare the per capita usage between say the US and China and consider how the reserves look if the Chinese increase their usage towards that of the US.
https://www.worldometers.info/gas/gas-consumption-by-country/
“Because fossil fuels are a limited resource and will run out and contrary to what a lot of people believe here, they’re in short supply.”
Wrong. No one (including you) knows IF that which is named ‘fossil fuels’ will “run out”, and therefore, no one (including you) knows WHEN.
Nature will continue to do what Nature does, and Human ingenuity will continue to do what it does, and life will progress (barring nuclear stupidity by politicians).
Are you suggesting fossil fuels are an unlimited resource?
Or even “might be” an unlimited resource?
And what would recharging to near 100% after constantly dropping to just 80% do to battery life?
If it’s better for battery life to drain the battery to less than 20% then recharge to just over 80% you are still either queuing to recharge 60% of your capacity or unnecessarily decreasing battery capacity and lifespan by topping daily.
It’s perfectly fine for a battery to stay between 80% and 60%. It’s fully discharging that is worst.
…. charge every time you take a rest after an hour or two of driving
LOL! rest after and hour or two of driving? You’ve gotta be kidding me!
Driving >8 hrs at a a time is very American (I’ve done 24+ hrs). In many European countries driving more than a few hours would require a passport.
Its a very Australian thing too. Each to their own. Truck drivers in Australia have rest periods defined for them.
https://www.nhvr.gov.au/safety-accreditation-compliance/fatigue-management/work-and-rest-requirements/standard-hours
Ben Vorlich, no it will almost certainly never happen, however many trillions are spent. They are already approaching the safe limits for battery capacity and charging rates.
EV batteries are already a serious fire hazard. Pack in more energy more quickly and it rapidly becomes an explosion risk, not a fire risk.
Like looking for chemical fuels more energy-dense than hydrocarbons, known physico-chemical realities say it’s just not going to happen.
IMO, I think their best option might (might) be in structural batteries where structural elements of the vehicle can also hold electrical charge in a dual-function role.
If only Thorium Reactors could be made to work AND be built no larger than a Chevy 350. Then every car could generate the electrons needed. Perhaps a few years after Fusion is perfected😉😆😆
Yep, in the future every car will come standard with a Mr. Fusion reactor. And a flux capacitor will be an option, just in case you want to do some time traveling….
“perfected”?
It’s obvious you understand perfectly
There are many chemical compounds that are more energy dense than liquid hydrocarbons — they are called explosives.
That was indeed my point, Clyde, though it may depend on how a pedant chooses the definitions. 🙂
One could argue that the potential energy density of hydrocarbons is higher, but that it doesn’t include the atmospheric oxygen needed for combustion.
Explosives and batteries effectively already have both tightly packed together, just waiting for the right trigger.
No.
Correction: NO, even with trillions spent.
“… until Fusion is functioning on a utility scale and battery tech can power a car for a thousand miles…”
I’ll ask Santa for a car with a tiny Fusion reactor that will run it for the life of the car.
I’m hoping for a magic carpet.
I could loan you my Genie if you like.😎
I prefer edibles. 🙂
Isaac Asimov’s Foundation sci-fi books has wall nut sized fusion generators.
Its easy to predict the future if you pick what sounds great then assume it will become real.
LENR is here already. Check out Plasmoids and The Thunderstorm Generator.
See also the Giza Power Plant.
https://youtu.be/efjgHYibTH8?t=3682
“for the next 200 years…until Fusion is functioning on a utility scale”
Might happen tomorrow or might noy happen ever. “200” comes from a random number generator.
Because within a few years millions would be dead if we didn’t.
I have a different answer: those who do it, do it because it is profitable.
The consequences of the “profit motive” are monumental. It provides all that a modern civilization uses; longer and more comfortable lives, better and more plentiful food, better education, better medicine, better clothing, better transportation, better communication, and most of all, more freedom.
As Milton Friedman would say; “Don’t attribute to me your conventional views of ‘what a conservative believes’ because I am not a conservative, I’m a believer in freedom!”
Someone should ask the bone heads at the BBC; Why are you all still using fossil fuels?
I beggars belief that a “journalist” even has to ask that question
Journalists ought to be sent into the countryside to pick potatoes, grow rice or cut timber for a few years, Mao style. Maybe that will mature them a bit.
Why?
Why does the BBC pay it’s utility bill every month?
Now, there’s a story that said same ‘journalist’ can sink his/her/their/it’s teeth into.
The BBC doesn’t – we do.
The good the bad and the ugly climate round table. episode was the worst podcast episode ever.sorry. I’m a fan and will keep listening- but I don’t expect that rap to expand an audience.
Where’s Marianna?!!!!
Laid up, bad case of Trench Mouth
It is hard to remember the last time the BBC said something sensible about climate, The problem is while lots of adults know this, almost all youngsters – mostly idealistic and therefore gullible – do not. Hence, the protesters supporting Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion and other irritating ’causes’.
The BBC is a once much respected, top heavy, organisation which has been hijacked by those with their own woke narrative and contempt of the past. However, it has the best presented weather forecasts in the UK, the only time I ever watch it.
Attenborough is a wonderful example of the brainwashed idiots who spout the nonsense supporting the BBC’s opinion. But even the evidence of his camera crew scaring those walruses over the cliff was not enough to dent his reputation – just shows how those Greenies don’t really care about animal life despite their protestations. As is shown by their ignoring the deaths of birds and whales around the sea-based windmills!
As a kid in the late ’50s- while visiting my grandparents, who had an FM radio that was a piece of furniture, I’d listen to the BBC. The speaker always had a very deep God like voice that you just had to believe and of course as a Yank, we’d be impressed with the accent. Some years ago The Family Guy cartoon did a joke about it- with the main character, Peter, listening to the BBC as it used to be- only he could barely understand references to obscure former British colonies, soccer, and other unAmerican topics. It was extremely funny. I’ve got to find a clip of that episode.
If there were no more oil and gas discovered, you’d have a brief WW3 while nations try to grab what’s left, then Mad Max for a decade or two, and then back to life as it was in the early 1800’s. With roughly the same population. That is why we need to keep searching for fossil fuels… If you disagree, may as well join the Amish now and get it over with.
IMHO of course.
Well, the Amish seem happy. Easy if you have some of the richest soil in the world and you love working from dawn to dusk- then praying in the evening. Not my cup of tea.
Many Amish have already discovered plastic but so far haven’t discovered selling carbon credits. They could make a whole lot of money if they weren’t so honest.
Some Amish do sneak in some fossil fuel use as well – some use portable propane heaters (like the kind hunters use to heat their tree stands) to heat their buggies. And some use propane for lighting (gas lights) and heat. No doubt coal is also used for heat by the Amish. All depends on what the local bishop allows.
You do understand the Amish do not use electricity. Gasoline powered or diesel powered devices are ok . Lighting is with candles or kerosene lamps. Electricity is the devil’s work. Maybe they understood long ago what would happen.
Except the one’s now adopting battery-powered bicycles.
It’s hard to imagine a WW3 that USA does not win.
I think different nations would weather subsequent decades differently.
It sounds like a sci-fi series.
I would disagree, Kevin. I find a WW3 that USA doesn’t win quite easy to imagine under the present circumstances.
The Panorama program, as initially intentioned however long ago (40+ years) was a device for original investigative journalism
When I quit watching TV entirely 20 years ago, it had been 5 years+ descended into zero-information, sensationalist, heart-tugging and over-emotional crap.
It was where a tiny nugget of ‘real news’ has been misheard/misrepresented then magnified a million times over to make an entire 30 minute slot
(I’m sure it used to be 50 or even 60 minutes)
But originally it had ITV’s ‘World in Action to compare itself and keep it in line.
Alas no more and for a long time no more
(Reckoned one of The Best TV Theme Tunes ever)
And now it’s purely a vehicle for spoilt brat rich-kid socialists to kick, scream and throw tantrums whenever they think they’re not getting things ‘their way’, egged on by their equally spoilt kicking & screaming partners-in-crime at the grauniad.
Which is constantly
(Take A Big Rig down to Broadcasting House in London and play that theme ‘at substantial volume’ just once.
It will scare the shit of of the very fabric of that building, let alone its occupants)
(I’m sure it used to be 50 or even 60 minutes)
This one lasted 52 minutes.
It’s not made clear that the 7% renewables share in world energy is mostly biomass, i.e., the burning of wood and dung. Wind and solar power’s share of total energy is only 2%.
I was wondering about that….now that figure makes sense if you add wood and other “biomass”.
Yep.
According to the IEA’s ‘Energy Technologies Perspectives 2023’
Oil is the single largest source of primary energy (29%),followed by coal (26%), natural gas (23%), Nuclear (5%) solar & wind (2%) and hydro (2%)
Coal is just old wood that Mother Nature has heated and compressed for easy storage.
… and all the rest of the energy sources require “fossil fuels” to set them up in the first place!
The BBC has become a parody of itself, out of control, borderline narcissistic, and unable to function as a local amateur radio station might let alone a professional national broadcaster.
In fact we don’t really have to keep searching for fossil fuels, we know where there is coal to last for centuries, we just aren’t allowed to use it.
And similarly with the gas under the UK that could be obtained by fracking but is not allowed to be extracted.
The advert extolling the wonders of smart meters uses the strapline ‘[they] help make Britain less reliant on imported gas’. The real solution to this is in plain sight, in large neon flashing letters. Our descendants, at least, will eventually get to benefit from this resource, while being baffled at the current generation’s stupidity for refusing to make use of it.
It seems to me that smart meters must be using some energy so they actually make Britain more reliant on imported gas.
There’s a lot to explain, but energy used by new meters is much less than used by the older ones they replace. The radio transmissions use less than a Watt and take less than a second.
“… almost every country in the world has committed to limit the rise in global warming to 1.5 degrees”
As long as you don’t count China, India, Africa, Russia, Indonesia and a few others based on what they do not what they say.
With his small hands, I’m not sure that Xi can properly cross his fingers when he promises.
I don’t think they have ‘legally’ committed anything. It’s all talk.
Well, some states now have net zero laws and they’re pushing hard in that direction, most unsuccessfully but they’re not gonna give up to SAVE THE WORLD. (and their funding).
Some of the net zero states may have some resistance to this planned revolution. But there’s none here in Wokeachusetts. Sure, some commenters in social media and the Boston Globe may diss the climate emergency fantasy but they have little power and influence. I think the prevailing mantra is “resistance is futile”. Government, academia and most businesses including the power companies and the grid- all are singing the same tune in this opera.
The Grand Solar Minimum that is just starting may make them change their minds.
Not at all sure they have properly functioning minds.
If they did, they wouldn’t be woke. !
Would be like taking off one flat tyre, and putting on another flat tyre.
BBC: Why We Are Still Searching for Fossil Fuels?What answer did the BBC come up with? Or did they not really want an answer?
Nobody here watched it, probably not even the author.
It’s the BBC – if they ask a question like that it will be for the express purpose of telling the viewer what the answer is. No doubt the programme was structured around showing the evils of fossil fuels and the obvious conclusion to be drawn by the viewer is that we shouldn’t be searching for more. Standard propaganda from the BBC I should think – it’s all they seem to have these days.
”Perhaps next time the BBC might get a journalist who actually understands…”
I doubt one exists for them.
When you look at standards of reporting across the wider media, good journalists do appear to be thin on the ground.
Company travel for reward points is back above pre-pandemic levels, and BBC reporters are lining up some grand travel vacations.
What passes for a journalist or reporter today is more properly described as a professional, know-nothing wordsmith.
Having read the complete works of Mencken I can say “ever it was so”. The idea that earlier reporters were exceptionally diligent or skillful as a group needs to be proven.
Many oil/gas discoveries are placed “off limits”. That is why more deposits need to be discovered.
“Why Are We Still Searching for Fossil Fuels”?
Because “dying to me don’t sound like all that much fun” (H/T John “Cougar” Mellencamp).
Life Expectancy: Our World in Data
Energy Consumption: Bjorn Lomborg, LinkedIn
Now… Back to
searchingexploring for more oil & gas.Thanks, +1, great chart (until the white gap leading to 75 years of fortune telling).
Like why does nuclear start trending differently around 30 years from now? I’m sure the chart’s author had some reason, but it seems gratuitous to change something in a way that’s visible but not big enough to matter.
Here’s the original image:
It’s from this paper by Bjorn Lomborg:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157
Richard Bilton, who presented this Panorama in La La Land report, has absolutely no experience of or qualifications in energy or economics.
Funny how it doesn’t seem a problem for articles here.
MyUsername, I have often heard something very similar. It is a common go-to of the BBC and other media types. Even yesterday, a close family member and I ‘exchanged views’ on this matter.
When challenged with why I was right and their lame-BBC view was wrong, I reluctantly responded in the same tone with “Because I have the hard-science PhD and you have the undergraduate something in English.”
There are many authors and readers here in a similar position, possessing advanced knowledge and experience in science, engineering, and modelling economics in the energy sector.
It doesn’t makes us necessarily correct, of course. But it does show such criticisms to be self-defeating.
Despite what liberals might think of themselves, I suspect that this blog has the highest average education and IQs on the net — even including the trolls.
The Conservatives have disappeared here in the US when it comes to so-called Climate Change. Maybe they all bought windmill stock or something and are afraid to rock the boat.
Yessss! I give myself +1 for being super smart!!
Well, MyObtuseness, last time I checked WUWT has no sovereign power to take wealth from its detractors or incarcerate them.
David… meet the latest griff-type trollette ! 🙂
I have to admit, I prefer calling them trollope’s to trollette’s.
You really have to learn to judge the content, rather than the writer.
(that requires all actual thought process… so probably won’t happen)
In this case Richard Bilton’s content is as totally lacking and warped and truly indicates his lack of education and understanding on the subject.
Then you have the same problem since you didn’t explain in detail why this article is wrong thus you batted ZERO!
…as is true for some commenters. 🙂
You must be new here. Some articles posted here are eviscerated.
If that isn’t ever one of the stupidest questions ever asked…..imagine asking why Robins search for worms every day, or why sunflowers turn to follow the sun every day, or why sharks search for signs of blood in the water, and on and on. Every living things constantly seeks out that which sustains it, and we humans are no different. If they stop searching (and finding what they need), they die!
No living thing will pass up a high quality source of sustenance in favor of something that is marginal, if it has the choice.
For the BBC, which seems to worship Gaia big time, seems clueless of this fact. No shark will waste its time and effort to chase down a herring when it is presented with the opportunity to catch a tuna. No rabbit will pass up a garden full of fresh veggies instead of wandering around a field looking for a few weeds to chomp on. And no sensible human (emphasis on the word sensible) would waste time erecting windmills and solar panels to try and glean enough marginal energy to run society.
“No living thing will pass up a high quality source of sustenance in favor of something that is marginal, if it has the choice.” The argument I should write here would devolve into a fight over how words are defined – but the main problem is “No living thing”.Somewhere there’s a youtube showing examples.
The consequences of a world without crude oil:
Eliminate the need for international and military airports that now accommodate more than 20,000 commercial aircraft and more than 50,000 military aircraft.
Eliminate the more than 50,000 merchant ships, that are moving products around the world that are made with the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil, coal and natural gas!
Eliminate the needs for major shipping ports around the world that accommodate military and cruise ships.
There would be no products that are based on oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil, coal, and natural gas! Such as life-saving medical equipment, plastics, many chemicals that make our lives better, and just about everything we take to be modern, such as cell phones.
The elimination of all of today’s militaries and space programs as the world reverts to when civilization existed without oil, like that in the pre-1800’s.
Well, yes, Ronald, except that at present ALL major shipping ports, see your para. 4, are for cargo, not military or holiday vessels.
Ah… Panorama. Seems Marianna Spring has had to pause in getting up to speed on CSI ballistics to move to geotechnical tunnel engineering following Bowen and Padawan’s less than successful efforts to date.
More importantly is the question “When did the BBC go full retard?”
The 1970’s I think, possibly a gradual process becoming very noticeable in the 80’s and 90’s. It has been this way for a while, I’m afraid.
“Originally established in 1922 as the British Broadcasting Company, it evolved into its current state with its current name on New Year’s Day 1927.”
I’d guess the problems started around 1922, but I was not there to see.
Someone has to fill the gas tanks and service the vehicles and scrub the floors.
story tip
The 1% generates as much carbon pollution as two-thirds of the planet | The Independent
Would anyone expect anything different from the BBC and/or The Guardian. It’s a virtual guarantee the the CBC will air something like this or the original soon, which would be particularly ironic since the Canadian government has hardly stopped its oil and gas subsidies. Nor has it met any one of its eight emissions reductions plan since 1988 and is well on its way to miss its current one just as badly.
The first sentence alone is worth a big horselaugh when it says that almost every country in the world has made a commitment to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5C. Except what happens if they don’t keep these commitments? The answer: precisely nothing as has been the case in the past since there are no penalties for failure. That’s the reason that few will reach this goal and maybe even none if it interferes with their economic and political goals.
Willis E says thst amid that 7% renewables wood and dung are three times wind and solar. The lying alarmists call it ‘local biomass’ not ‘destruction of habitat’