Starting To Notice That The Energy Transition Is Not Happening

From the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton,

Supposedly, there is a big energy transition going on. Throughout the West, countries have made ambitious pledges to reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions by specific percentages and by specific dates. Many such pledges were notably made in the Paris Climate Agreement of 2016. Some countries — for example, the U.S. and UK — have even gone beyond the Paris Agreement and made still more ambitious pledges in the years since then. But is any of it real?

No, none of it is real. The failure to make the progress that would be necessary to achieve the alleged pledges and mandates is obvious and easily tracked. But a code of silence has enveloped the progressive media, commanding that no one is allowed to notice.

A small crack in the wall of silence suddenly happened in the New York Times on March 14. The front page article had the headline “A New Surge in Power Use Is Threatening U.S. Climate Goals.” The gist is that various sources of new electricity demand are rapidly emerging, from data centers to EVs to AI. Demand for electricity is starting to rise, but wind and solar generators can’t be added to the grid fast enough to fulfill this demand. And thus utilities are starting to add large numbers of new natural gas plants.

The Times provides this chart of the recent history of electricity demand in the U.S., with a projection for the next decade:

Demand has been flat for fifteen years, but now looks about to surge. From the Times:

To meet spiking demand, utilities in states like Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia are proposing to build dozens of power plants over the next 15 years that would burn natural gas. In Kansas, one utility has postponed the retirement of a coal plant to help power a giant electric-car battery factory.

So why not just build a bunch of new wind turbines and solar panels?

Some utilities say they need additional fossil fuel capacity because cleaner alternatives like wind or solar power aren’t growing fast enough and can be bogged down by delayed permits and snarled supply chains. While a data center can be built in just one year, it can take five years or longer to connect renewable energy projects to the grid and a decade to build some of the long-distance power lines they require. Utilities also note that data centers and factories need power 24 hours a day, something wind and solar can’t do alone.

I like that last line about wind and solar not being able to provide “power 24 hours a day” by themselves. Finally, somebody has noticed.

And the Times even has figured out that something about this might be inconsistent with the government’s ridiculous “climate” pledges:

Burning more gas and coal runs counter to President Biden’s pledge to halve the nation’s planet-warming greenhouse gases and to generate all of America’s electricity from pollution-free sources such as wind, solar and nuclear by 2035.

Other than that one sentence, the Times piece is noticeably devoid of any quantitative information on what promises have been made by the U.S. as to “greenhouse gas” emissions, and on what progress has been made toward achieving those promises. However, here at Manhattan Contrarian we know that the information to answer those questions can be found easily. So let’s take a look at it.

The two main pledges as to GHG emissions that the U.S. has supposedly made to the international community are:

  • In the Paris Climate Agreement of 2016 (when Barack Obama was President), the U.S. pledged to reduce GHG emissions by 26-28%, from 2005 levels, by 2026.
  • At a World Climate Summit on April 22 (“Earth Day”), 2021, President Joe Biden pledged to reduce U.S. GHG emissions, from 2005 levels, by 50-52% by 2030.

And how is progress going toward those pledges? The EPA puts out an annual Report titled “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.” The most recent such Report came out on February 14, 2024, and contains information through the year 2022. Here is the summary chart of numbers:

Total U.S. “gross” emissions were 6,341.2 MMTCO2e in 2022, compared to 7,488.2 MMTCO2e in 2005. That’s a decrease of 1147.0 MMTCO2e, or 15.3%. But notice in the two most recent years reported, the emissions went up rather than down.

Today, the pledge date of the Paris Climate Agreement, 2026, is only two years away, and we’re barely half way toward the goal. Moreover, most of the supposed “progress” has been achieved by closing coal power plants and replacing them with natural gas, a process that is now nearly complete. There are almost no coal plants left to close. And now electricity demand is rising and utilities are looking to build more natural gas plants. The 2026 pledge will never be achieved.

And the 2030 pledge is even more ridiculous.

Here is a chart from page 2-29 of EPA’s Report showing trends in U.S. GHG emissions by economic sectors:

As you can see, the large majority of the decreases in emissions achieved since 2005 have been in the electric power sector. A chart with numbers on the same page of the Report says that emissions in the electric power sector went down from 2457.4 MMTCO2e in 2005 to 1574.7 MMTCO2e in 2022. That’s a decline of 882.7 MMTCO2e since 2005 in this sector alone, representing 76.9% of the decline in emissions achieved over all sectors.

But if the remaining annual emissions from the electric power sector are only 1574.7 MMTCO2e, then that is all the further reduction in emissions that can possibly be achieved in that sector, even if all production of electricity by fossil fuels has been completely eliminated. If those 1574.7 MMTCO2e of emissions are eliminated tomorrow by closing down every single fossil fuel power plant, then the 2022 total national emissions of 6341.2 MMTCO2e would go down to 4766.5 MMTCO2e — not even close to the 3744.1 MMTCO2e (that is, 50% of 7488.2) that Biden supposedly committed us to by 2030.

And how about all those other sectors where emissions have barely budged since 2005? Nothing is going to change. Have you noticed any move away from using aviation fuel for airplanes? Something other than fossil fuels for steelmaking? A move toward electric farm equipment? Yes, there are now some all-electric cars — but that trend is also starting to stall out.

On Monday, Amin Nasser, the CEO of Saudi Aramco — the world’s largest oil company — gave a speech in Houston where he said a bunch of obvious things that somehow other oil executives (from companies based in the U.S. and Europe) are unable to say. The speech was widely reported. Here is one report from CBC. Excerpt:

The head of the world’s largest energy company on Monday urged the world to accept the “hard realities” that oil and natural gas will be around for a long time to come and consumption of both sources of energy is likely to grow for at least the next decade or two. . . . “We should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas and instead invest in them adequately reflecting realistic demand assumptions,” he said. . . . “All this strengthens the view that peak oil and gas is unlikely for some time to come, let alone 2030,” he said. “No one is betting the farm on that.”

“Abandon the fantasy” — I couldn’t have said it better myself.

4.9 35 votes
Article Rating
48 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
March 25, 2024 6:07 am

Clap really loud, and Tinkerbelle will live! The New York Times is still in fantasyland.

strativarius
March 25, 2024 6:21 am

“”Supposedly, there is a big energy transition going on.””

There is. But it is coming through the pricing of energy on the domestic and industrial consumer. The transition is in getting peope used to using a lot less – to keep the bills down.

This is almost entirely a behavioural nudge strategy in lieu of any green progress in generation reliability. As are ideas like so-called smart meters. How low can you go?

“”Prescriptions for the role of fossil fuels cannot be simplistic, given this continued reliance. The net-zero transition requires steep and decisive declines in fossil-fuel consumption. “”
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/the-energy-transition-a-region-by-region-agenda-for-near-term-action

They’re working on it.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  strativarius
March 25, 2024 10:19 am

They may “be working on it” but the truth is that whilst the share of Fossil Fuels in primary energy fell from around 86% in 1997 to 82% in 2022, the world consumed 55% more energy from Fossil Fuels in 2022 than it did in 1997.

Meanwhile unreliables have grown by an average 1.7 EJ pa over the last 27years. To eliminate fossil fuels by 2050 unreliables would have to average 9.4 EJ every year for the next 26 years a transition pace nearly 6 times faster than that in the last 27 years.

“When we assess these challenges realistically, we must conclude that the world free of fossil fuels by 2050 is highly unlikely”

Vaclav Smil, ‘Halfway Between Kyoto and 2050:Zero Carbon is a Highly Unlikely Outcome’

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Dave Andrews
March 25, 2024 10:35 am

The IEA itself also recognises this. In their ‘World Energy Outlook 2023’ they brought forward the date of peak oil to 2030. This,of course got the media and greens salivating – especially when they didn’t read the small print.

“oil demand for petrochemicals, aviation and shipping continues to grow through to 2050, This does not offset the decline elsewhere….so oil demand peaks by 2030 but the decline is a slow one all the way to 2050″

“Both over investment and under investment in fossil fuels carry risks for secure and affordable energy transitions”

“Continued investment in fossil fuels is essential in all our scenarios”

Reply to  Dave Andrews
March 25, 2024 11:19 am

To eliminate fossil fuels by 2050 unreliables would have to average 9.4 EJ every year for the next 26 years a transition pace nearly 6 times faster than that in the last 27 years.

And you’d still a reliable source of energy to back up unreliable wind and solar

March 25, 2024 6:29 am

We have a new, energy-intensive data center moving into our area.

It just so happens there is a coal-fired powerplant nearby.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 25, 2024 6:38 am

Anybody seen the power requirements for the AI data centers? How do the green plan to power the future?

Reply to  More Soylent Green!
March 25, 2024 7:54 am

The data centers. Where is it written that utilities must sell their power output to businesses that make a profligate use of it that could exclude homeowners? These are publicly regulated utilities meant to serve the public. The data centers can supply their own power just as they supply their foundations, software, computers and roofs. Furthermore, each and every one of these facilities, repositories of immense amounts of critical information, should have explosive devices attached to destroy them at a moment’s notice if circumstances warrant.

Reply to  general custer
March 25, 2024 8:13 am

“… should have explosive devices attached…”

Reminds me of a report I saw that the big chip companies in Taiwan have prepared to destroy their chip making machines if China invades and it appears they can’t be repulsed.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 25, 2024 9:20 am

Attaching explosives to what the CCP really wants to acquire would be a prudent strategy. Hope they have them in place before the U.S. election for president. The CCP knows the time to move on Taiwan is limited to the present administration.
FJB

JamesB_684
Reply to  general custer
March 25, 2024 9:46 am

It’s the Golden Rule. Those who have the gold, make the rules.

MarkW
Reply to  JamesB_684
March 26, 2024 11:16 am

THe problem is that when those who don’t have the gold make the rules. Pretty soon nobody has any gold.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
March 25, 2024 10:47 am

The IEA say “Electricity consumption from data centres, AI and crypotocurrency could double by 2026” and estimate “total electricity consumption” by data centres “could reach more than 1000TWh in 2026” – “roughly equal to the electricity consumption of Japan”

IEA ‘Electricity 2024 Analysis and forecast to 2026’

Reply to  More Soylent Green!
March 25, 2024 11:31 am

How do the green plan to power the future?

In part by taking it from you and giving it to them. Peasants and drones don’t deserve anything more.

March 25, 2024 6:37 am

The energy transition is a transition from inexpensive, reliable electric power to expensive, unreliable electric power. We are deliberately turning the US into a third-world shithole country. Everything is more expensive, new homes, new vehicles and food are becoming unaffordable. Inflation is out of control but we’re so addicted to our ideology that we won’t take the necessary and simple steps to tame it.

Maybe that’s the solution to the immigration crisis. Make the US unliveable and people will be clamoring to get out instead.

Reply to  More Soylent Green!
March 25, 2024 11:10 am

Not “we”.

Biden and the radical Democrats are the ones deliberately turning the U.S. into a third world country.

MarkW
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
March 26, 2024 11:23 am

Fast food shops in California are in the process of laying off thousands of workers as they get ready for the implementation of the new minimum wage law.

JC
March 25, 2024 6:52 am

Great news for all us old guys ready to retire. Projected increased demand for electricity means, projected economic growth. The hope is that the economic growth will be far deeper level than pandemic and consumable digital crap marketeering. Could EV’s drive this increased demand alone? Doubt it. I doubt this metric includes a political factor in it’s projection.

Richard Greene
March 25, 2024 7:06 am

The energy transition is happening: Money is being spent
Facilities are being built, and EVs are being manufactured and bought

And there are outputs too:
The world is using slightly less hydrocarbon fuels than it would have without the windmills, solar panels and EVs

There is an energy transition

Mainly inputs to the process
Not much output

Nut Zero is the worst investment since I bought 25% of the Brooklyn Bridge for my retirement portfolio

So why does this energy transition continue, when it will fail to stop the rise of atmospheric CO2, so will not change the climate?

The energy transition allows leftists in government to seize power and tell everyone else how to live. It’s called fascism and fascism is the only way to force Nut Zero on people. Leftist “experts” want to control their nations and Nut Zero is a political strategy to gain that control. It is a fake engineering project based on a fake climate crisis.

The title is wrong: There is an energy transition

There is also a Climate Crisis

It is 50 years of demonizing beneficial CO2 leading to Nut Zero, the latest name for The Green New Ordeal.

The Energy Transition is happening whether we like it or not. It’s a total waste of money but leftists don’t care. Their goal is to micromanage our lives, so money is no object. They don’t even care if the Energy Transition is not feasible or affordable. They just live to control others. It’s called fascism.

91 felony charges and $600 million of fines aimed at Donald Trump is exhibit A. If the fascist Democrats think putting Trump in prison is the only way to win the 2024 election, they have the power to do that. One felony conviction is all they need.

Spending money and building infrastructure and EVs are the inputs of an energy transition.

A change in the percentage of hydrocarbon fuels used for global primary energy, and reduced CO2 emissions, is the expected output.

That expected output is handicapped by about 175 nations, with almost seven billion population combined, having no interest in Nut Zero

Of the approximately 20 nations that claim to be taking Nut Zero seriously, the US has made the most progress in lowering CO2 emissions by using less coal to generate electricity.

Solar and Wind Power
Renewable electricity capacity additions reached an estimated 507 GW in 2023, almost 50% higher than in 2022, with continuous policy support in more than 130 countries spurring a significant change in the global growth trend.

Additional renewable electricity capacity reached 507 gigawatts (GW) in 2023, with solar PV making up three-quarters of global additions, according to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Renewables 2023 report.

How much solar was installed in 2023?

Global Solar Deployment
Analysts estimate 350 gigawatts direct current (GWdc) of photovoltaics (PV) were installed globally in 2023 (though recent data have indicated that number could be more like 440 GWdc); global installations are expected to increase to 400 GWdc in 2024 and 590 GWdc by 2027

Following two consecutive years of decline, onshore wind capacity additions are on course to rebound by 70% in 2023 to 107 GW, an all-time record amount.

Electric Vehicles
January 2024

BEVs: about *9,493,040 (up 30%) and 11% market share. PHEVs: about *4,196,251 (up 47%) and 5% market share. Total: 13,689,291 (up 35%) and 16% market share.

February 2024
In February 2024, battery-electric car sales grew by a modest 9% to 106,187 units, maintaining a stable market share of 12%. Among the four largest markets, Belgium (+66.9%), France (+31.8%), and the Netherlands (+20.9%) saw significant double-digit gains, while registrations in Germany declined by 15.4%.

February 2024 Ford BEV Sales
up 80% from February 2023

Richard Greene
(BS, MBA, DRCS)

DRCS = Don Rickles Charm School

WUWT downvote champion

Bingham Farms. Michigan
… where we LOVE global warming and our plants LOVE more CO2

The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog

Duane
March 25, 2024 7:10 am

One correction here. The article stated:

 There are almost no coal plants left to close. 

The number of coal plans is certainly much reduced since 2005, but there are still approx. 217 coal plants in the US. And it’s unlikely that the remaining coal plants will be shut down any time soon.

Reply to  Duane
March 25, 2024 11:12 am

Thanks for the reality check.

John Hultquist
March 25, 2024 7:15 am

President Joe Biden wants a legacy equivalent to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. A headline of history: “Joe Biden saved the World from Climate Change.”

This foolish old man will check out (reach room temperature) in a few years. Any future government can, and will, rescind Joe’s pledge. 

Reply to  John Hultquist
March 25, 2024 8:03 am

The investments made by academia, the legal industry, finance and business are so substantial that arresting this “transition” won’t be completed in its entirety during any current lifetime. We will probably need to settle for a modified form of sanity that won’t bankrupt the grifters but still allow life to continue in some sensible form. Organizing it against the opposition won’t be easy.

Someone
Reply to  general custer
March 25, 2024 9:05 am

To paraphrase, all we can do is hope that parasite does not kill the parent organism.

Reply to  general custer
March 25, 2024 5:27 pm

This is a good example.

Reply to  John Hultquist
March 25, 2024 11:36 am

Any future government can, and will, rescind Joe’s pledge.

That might depend heavily on his replacements.

J Boles
March 25, 2024 7:56 am

I just knew when I heard about this “energy transition” it would not happen, it can not happen, physically, chemically, socially, etc. The fools who propose these things think they are full of great ideas but they are just uneducated idiots. It would only be a huge disaster if we REALLY tried to do it.

Reply to  J Boles
March 25, 2024 9:28 am

Yes. We have Art Majors making technical policy. People who know nothing think everything is easy.

Editor
Reply to  J Boles
March 25, 2024 12:57 pm

Unfortunately, they are educated idiots, as in: they have come through the present-day “education” system..

J Boles
March 25, 2024 7:58 am

The Great Climate Leap Forward, march on, you peasants, and give up your comfy lives, while the elites sacrifice nothing.

March 25, 2024 8:10 am

“A move toward electric farm equipment?”

Yuh, that’ll never happen. And all other heavy machinery like in logging, construction and mining. Trains, yes- as they can get it from the rails or overhead wires. But I doubt any train will carry huge batteries.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 25, 2024 11:38 am

I saw a couple of articles about major companies’ products with 1000 meter electrical cords. While they seemed like a joke they were presented as factual.

MarkW
Reply to  AndyHce
March 26, 2024 11:26 am

Surely if you cover the roof of the cab with solar panels, that will be enough to keep the tractor going all day. /sarc

Reply to  AndyHce
March 26, 2024 4:27 pm

A kilometer? That wouldn’t reach to the end of some of the fields here on the plains to say nothing about how many connections you would need to cover the whole field.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 26, 2024 4:44 pm

I started some calculations one time after an argument on X about this. How many big Tesla batteries would you need to run a 500 hp combine with a 40 ft corn header? How many to run the 150 hp tractor pulling a grain cart as the combine went along? How many wet fields could you access while carry an extra 2 – 5000 lbs of batteries. Then how many would you need for the semi’s hauling the grain away?

It turned ridiculous real quickly. You are talking several hundred of batteries just to keep the harvesters supplied and have recharging done. That doesn’t even count the amount of power at the charging point to keep that many batteries charged. I can’t imagine how one would do logistics for the wheat harvesters moving from Texas to Canada.

I don’t think people on the coasts have a clue about farming. It is one of the things we have lost as cities have grown. Everything comes from the back of the grocery store like magic.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
March 27, 2024 3:31 am

Same with logging machinery and log trucks. And most of the public thinks wood comes from Home Depot- they love wood products but now the “greens” want to lock up all the forests to “save the planet”.

Denis
March 25, 2024 8:55 am

In addition to not generating power all of the time, they cannot provide synchronous power (in the US meaning 60 cycle) any time and cannot provide stability to the grid. When the grid deviates from 60 cycle power, things start to break, lots of things.

March 25, 2024 8:58 am

Is this article from ‘Manhattan Contrarian’?

Sean2828
March 25, 2024 9:05 am

I guess we can pat ourselves on the back for the reduction since 2005 but I suspect even that is a fantasy. How much energy intensive industrial production has moved to Asia in the last 25 years. I suspect that if you accounted for this “leakage”, there would be little real CO2 emissions at all.

atticman
Reply to  Sean2828
March 25, 2024 9:44 am

And when you’ve replaced all your light-bulbs, in buildings and in the streets, with LED ones, you can’t do it again – that gain is gone!

MarkW
Reply to  atticman
March 26, 2024 11:30 am

The laptop that I am using now, probably uses 1/10th the power that the desktop and monitor I used in 2005 did. Once again, as you point out, that gain has been gotten. Future improvements will be marginal.
Ditto the flat screen TV.

Ronald Stein
March 25, 2024 9:52 am

The more than 6,000 products in today’s societies that were not around 200 years ago are based on crude oil, now supports: 

·        Reliable supplies of continuous electricity that are being generated by hydro, nuclear, coal, and natural gas.

·        Unreliable supplies of intermittent electricity from wind turbines and solar panels.

NONE of the 6 ways to generate ELECTRICITY can make PRODUCTS for society.

We’re a materialistic society and need to replace oil to maintain that supply chain of PRODUCTS and FUELS.

March 25, 2024 11:22 am

In Kansas, one utility has postponed the retirement of a coal plant to help power a giant electric-car battery factory.

But, but, EVs are clean!

Edward Katz
March 25, 2024 6:37 pm

This revelation is hardly unexpected because no one has ever proved that wind and solar could supplant fossil fuels, hydro or nuclear on a large scale. If the government officials had done their homework properly, they would have found that no municipality, political subdivision, or country on the planet was able to prove otherwise in practice, but only in the theories proposed by those who stood to profit from such pipe dreams. If those same politicians had had to invest their own money in such alternate energies, they wouldn’t have touched them; but since it was tax revenue that was financing things, it sounded like a wonderful deal to both supply an increasing energy demand and save the environment. The reality is that it hasn’t accomplished either.

Iain Reid
March 26, 2024 12:22 am

Another factor in electrical generating capacity is that renewables have a relatively short life and that their output deteriorates with time (Circa 3% per annum). A replacement programme must be close for a lot of older wind farms. Where are all these devices going to come from?

Reply to  Iain Reid
March 26, 2024 7:47 am

More coal and petroleum, and lots of $$$$.

UK-Weather Lass
March 26, 2024 12:49 am

Welcome to the world’s anti-box ticker’s dilemma.

Please tick one of the following. :

A I am a box ticker B I am not a box ticker

MarkW
Reply to  UK-Weather Lass
March 26, 2024 11:33 am

There are 10 types of people in the world.
Those who understand binary, and those who don’t.