Good cartoon! The world is going to embrace clean energy to the max because it eliminates the corruption and unreliability of fossil fuel owners/purveyors.
Jaak
https://alexcartoon.s3.amazonaws.com/8090_22.03.22.jpg
SuisseBear,
Alex acknowledges that tree-huggers (including myself) were right. However, we didn’t expect that Putin would inflict massive pollution on Europe via war and force the cost of green technology all the way down on those least able to bear it.
The people have no heat, transportation, or bread?
Let them install infrared heaters, buy Teslas, and eat cake.
24 Mar 2022 Guardian
Independent testing of more than 100 packaging products from US restaurant and grocery chains identified PFAS chemicals in many of the wrappers, a Consumer Reports investigation has found.
The potentially dangerous “forever chemicals“ were found in food packaging including paper bags for french fries, wrappers for hamburgers, molded fiber salad bowls and single-use paper plates.
They were found in the packaging from every retailer CR looked at, including fast-food chains – such as Burger King and McDonald’s – and places that promote healthier fare, such as Cava and Trader Joe’s.
CR tested multiple samples of 118 food packaging products and found evidence of PFAS in more than half of those tested, while almost a third had levels beyond a threshold supported by CR experts and others.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/24/revealed…
OCT. 19, 2021 Earthjustice
“PFAS” is short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Chemicals in this class of more than 5,000 substances are found in products like nonstick pans (e.g. “Teflon”), food packaging, waterproof jackets, and carpets to repel water, grease, and stains. They’re also used in firefighting foam often used on military bases and at commercial airports. Even personal care products like waterproof mascaras and eyeliners, sunscreen, shampoo, and shaving cream can contain PFAS.
Chemical manufacturers like DuPont and 3M have covered up evidence of the negative human and environmental impacts of PFAS since the 1960s.
But mounting research links PFAS to a wide range of health problems. Studies of the best-known PFAS, called PFOA and PFOS, show links to kidney cancer and testicular cancer, as well as endocrine disruption in humans. Scientists have also discovered unusual clusters of serious medical effects in communities with heavily PFAS-contaminated water, many of which are near military bases. Finally, several recent studies have shown a link between COVID-19 and PFAS, suggesting that PFAS exposure may increase the risk of contracting infectious diseases like COVID-19 and reduce the effectiveness of vaccines.
https://earthjustice.org/features/breaking-down-toxic-pfas?g…
Jaak
The people have no heat, transportation, or bread?
Let them install infrared heaters, buy Teslas, and eat cake.
They pay the price for shortsighted energy policies of the past. Take Germany - major dependency on Russian gas, combined with the last governments eager to rapidly shut down nuclear while putting obstacles in the way of solar and wind energy buildout, as well as much-needed electricity lines from North to South.
Actually though, all taxpayers will chip in - see the news just from today:
The German government has announced a package of measures to help cushion the blow of high energy prices to consumers, with fuel subsidies, discounted public transport, tax benefits and additional support for the poorest
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/germany-unvei…
Look a little more carefully at the Macroeconomic implications of the cartoon.
The “sandal-wearing tree huggers” were right that renewable energy would become competitive with oil and gas – when the price of oil reaches $300. That implies equivalence of all sources (carbon-based and renewable) at $300 per barrel of oil.
That price would trigger ruinous inflation all over the world, regardless of the energy source. So the opponents of the tree-huggers, who warned about expensive renewable energy, would be right…if the cartoon is correct.
Wendy
So the opponents of the tree-huggers, who warned about expensive renewable energy, would be right…if the cartoon is correct.
Yup, you took the words right out of my keyboard, Wendy.
$300 was not the right number to use…
Pete
Look a little more carefully at the Macroeconomic implications of the cartoon.
The “sandal-wearing tree huggers” were right that renewable energy would become competitive with oil and gas – when the price of oil reaches $300. That implies equivalence of all sources (carbon-based and renewable) at $300 per barrel of oil.
That price would trigger ruinous inflation all over the world, regardless of the energy source. So the opponents of the tree-huggers, who warned about expensive renewable energy, would be right…if the cartoon is correct.
Depends on how you calculate the costs, right? Just two years ago this month oil was at $20/barrel.
Now it is pushing $120. That is some pretty impressive inflation. And even pre-COVID the price was more like $50-60.
An EV travels about three times farther than an ICE with the same amount of energy, so if you were to flip a switch tomorrow and make everything renewable the transportation costs would be about the same. So no inflation there.
That said, electricity from renewables is more expensive than fossil fuels, but it isn’t 3x more expensive. It is more like 10-20% more expensive. Again flipping a switch tomorrow, the result would be, in the words of Comrade Dyatlov “not great, not terrible.” Electricity prices would higher than they are now, but they wouldn’t go up five times higher like the price of oil has.
There are plenty of external costs too. If your economy is petroleum-based–and almost all economies are–then you must climb into bed with Putin, either directly or indirectly. And if you climb into bed with Putin you will get a good rodgering. We can’t really isolate him because the West needs what he is selling. Same with MBS and any number of other petro-dictators.
I suspect the 10 million displaced Ukrainians would be delighted to exchange $300 oil for their homes back.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60555472
Of course the US and the rest of the West have sent billions in aid, with billions more to follow. You don’t see that cost at the pump, but it definitely costs money. The US still has troops in Iraq and Syria for the sole reason of keeping an eye on the oil supply. How much does that cost?
However expensive renewables are, I humbly submit they are cheaper than getting rodgered by Putin. I have no illusions. We can’t flip a switch and getting to the point of mostly renewables is decades out. But we’ve been wasting time. This current war is yet another wake up call, as if we needed another one.
However expensive renewables are, I humbly submit they are cheaper than getting rodgered by Putin. I have no illusions. We can’t flip a switch and getting to the point of mostly renewables is decades out. But we’ve been wasting time. This current war is yet another wake up call, as if we needed another one.
A big problem is that so many people just cannot be bothered to take an extra 15-20 minutes to refuel. Even though on most days you just recharge at home or work…and it is cheaper (fuel, not the car)
Or spend the money it takes to install solar. Even though for most cases it pays for itself after ~10 yrs or so, depending on geography.
Mike
Good cartoon! The world is going to embrace clean energy to the max because it eliminates the corruption and unreliability of fossil fuel owners/purveyors.
Jaak
Right now they are embracing your northern neighbor while begging us to ramp up production to help with replacing the missing oil and gas from Russia? I’m OK if everyone decides to suffer through and go without it. }};-()
One company when asked if they could build a couple of LNG plants on the East Coast (Nova Scotia) … well rather emphatically replied … not without a whole lot of government money. They have tried multiple times to do that very thing on their own dime then lost their shirts when some agency or the other shut it down costing them billions. Come to think of it, I think your former employer was involved in designing and building the facilities until it got shut down for the second or third time. Seriously by time it got built everything would have changed … and they would get stuck with the bill.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/canada-plans-to-boost-oil-export…
COMMODITIES 2h ago
Canada plans to boost oil exports as countries shun Russian supply
Robert Tuttle, Bloomberg News
Canada will increase oil and gas exports by the equivalent of 300,000 barrels a day to help nations that are trying to shift away from Russian supplies, the country’s resources minister said.
Energy producers can raise shipments of crude by 200,000 barrels a day and natural gas by the equivalent of 100,000 by year-end by accelerating planned projects to expand output, Jonathan Wilkinson said Thursday at a press conference in Paris. Canada and the U.S. already have the pipeline capacity to handle the extra volumes, with some of the extra oil expected to be shipped to Europe via the Gulf Coast, he said.
In truth 300,000 barrels a day is a tiny fraction of the current global daily consumption? I have this vision of someone holding out an empty barrel and asking for more? Natural gas is another problem, afraid we can’t help there. All our new build LNG projects are on the West coast.
I did read yesterday that Belgium has decided to extend the life of two nuclear power plants. Perhaps they can sell surplus power to Germany?
Anymouse
OT funny. The reason the Ukrainians got a juicy target on that Landing Ship was because Russian TV was showing them calmly unloading tanks and APCs in a Ukrainian port for propaganda purpose! I hope that was one of Vlad’s really dumb ideas?
However expensive renewables are, I humbly submit they are cheaper than getting rodgered by Putin.
… or bearing the costs of propping up disgraceful leaders, conducting periodic regime changes and wars in the Middle East to ensure your oil - which for some inexplicable reason ended up beneath their sands - keeps flowing in exchange for the currency you designate.
The “sandal-wearing tree huggers” were right that renewable energy would become competitive with oil and gas – when the price of oil reaches $300. That implies equivalence of all sources (carbon-based and renewable) at $300 per barrel of oil.
Wendy
=======================================================
Silly girl! That is only a cartoon - it does not imply equivalence of all sources at $300 per barrel of oil.
Jaak
Silly girl! That is only a cartoon - it does not imply equivalence of all sources at $300 per barrel of oil.
Have to agree and up the anti…gasoline is closer to $400 bbl currently…if you included the environmental clean up costs. Renewables are actually already getting under $100 bbl in equivalency. while I no expert at all on just how inexpensive renewables are the costs keep dropping. The declining costs are a moving target. Yes the inputs that are carbon just rose, but in comparison to $100 or really $400 bbl renewables are a much better deal.
https://www.carolinajournal.com/news-article/epa-confirms-ge…
=============================================================
October 2021 EPA website
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/genx-fina…
Fact Sheet: Human Health Toxicity Assessment for GenX Chemicals
EPA has finalized the human health toxicity assessment for Hexafluoropropylene Oxide (HFPO) Dimer Acid and its Ammonium Salt. HFPO dimer acid and its ammonium salt are also known as “GenX chemicals” because they are the two major chemicals associated with the GenX processing aid technology. GenX is a trade name for a processing aid technology used to make high-performance fluoropolymers without the use of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
The GenX chemicals toxicity assessment provides hazard identification, dose-response information, and derives toxicity values called oral reference doses (RfDs) for chronic and subchronic exposures. The assessment underwent external peer review and public comment. Policy makers can use the GenX chemicals toxicity assessment along with exposure information and other important considerations to determine if, and when, it is appropriate to take action to reduce exposure to GenX chemicals.
EPA does not have specific information from manufacturers on which commercial products rely on GenX chemicals as a processing aid. GenX chemicals have been found in surface water, groundwater, drinking water, rainwater, and air emissions.
How are people exposed to GenX chemicals?
People can be exposed to GenX chemicals through several different pathways, including drinking contaminated water and inhaling contaminated air. EPA’s final assessment for GenX chemicals focuses solely on the potential human health effects associated with oral exposure (i.e., via drinking water). GenX chemicals have similar persistence in the environment as longer chain PFAS, such as PFOA and PFOS. They are also more mobile than longer chain PFAS, leading to the potential to result in exposure at greater distances than legacy PFAS in off-site transport or in ground water. GenX chemicals do not appear to accumulate as much in humans as longer chain PFAS, such as PFOA and PFOS. EPA’s GenX toxicity assessment does not consider potential effects from exposure to GenX chemicals as part of a mixture (with different PFAS or other chemicals).
What health effects are associated with exposure to GenX chemicals?
Animal studies following oral exposure have shown health effects including on the liver, kidneys, the immune system, development of offspring, and an association with cancer. Based on available information across studies of different sexes, lifestages, and durations of exposure, the liver appears to be particularly sensitive from oral exposure to GenX chemicals.
We are going to hear much more about PFAS and GenX chemicals in the future.
Jaak
We are going to hear much more about PFAS and GenX chemicals in the future.
EPA was late to the game.
PSU
Well what do you expect when Trump dismantled the EPA.
PFAS compounds existed way before the Trump administration. It took a state to put it on EPA’s radar.
PSU
Renewables are actually already getting under $100 bbl in equivalency. while I no expert at all on just how inexpensive renewables are the costs keep dropping.
www.bbc.com/news/business-60135833
Trillions of dollars need to be spent every year for almost three decades to hit net zero targets, according to consultancy McKinsey. The McKinsey report estimated that the annual cost of getting to net zero - when carbon dioxide emissions are completely reduced or offset - will be $9.2tn…
DB2
Trillions of dollars need to be spent every year for almost three decades to hit net zero targets, according to consultancy McKinsey.
DB2,
What’s not to love?
That was a global figure. That is on infrastructure which includes a lot of economies of scale.
Alternative energies are deflationary.
Fossil fuels are inflationary.
Who here wants a retirement marked by inflationary energy sources?
Even if you own shares in a fossil fuel corporation of any sort the company will probably get its butt kicked as you forget exactly who you are.