Hard Facts Puncture Fantasies?

Interesting read from a guy who actually knows a lot of stuff? Right or wrong his story makes a lot of sense? I really don’t have a whole lot money on the table either way as I’ve decided my Micra is my last owned vehicle.

Anymouse

https://financialpost.com/opinion/gwyn-morgan-hard-facts-pun…

FP Comment

Gwyn Morgan: Hard facts puncture anti-fossil fuel fantasies

The belief that 84% of global energy supplied by oil and gas can be replaced by so-called ‘green energy’ is a fantasy

Author of the article: Gwyn Morgan, Special to Financial Post

17 Likes

None of the blowhard “facts” were backed up. “Fact” 4 was very funny. All the agricultural land in CA used up by charging stations? Okay now, the author needs to screw on that helmet a little tighter.

I get there are tantrums. But investing oil and gas is a losing proposition. Long term…not flipping them.

The spigots are coming on in SA and the rest of the ME, and out of VZ. But I am not knowledgeable enough for you?

2 Likes

The belief that 84% of global energy supplied by oil and gas can be replaced by so-called ‘green energy’ is a fantasy

Either we figure out how to replace global energy supplied by oil and gas with some type of so-called ‘green energy’ or Mother Earth figures out how to replace human beings with a so-called life form that is less destructive to the earth that we need to survive.

Tough choice. Or not.

The planet will chug along just fine. The earth has never had a problem changing life forms along the way.

AW

28 Likes

AW: Either we figure out how to replace global energy supplied by oil and gas with some type of so-called ‘green energy’ or Mother Earth figures out how to replace human beings with a so-called life form that is less destructive to the earth that we need to survive.

Yes, Nat Gas in particular has become the goto answer (often called “Interim” but not sure what will replace it)?

I find it hard to get too wound up at my age but when people are against both fossil fuels and nuclear power I have to think we as a race are in deep trouble?

Putin’s invasion has blown the cover off several plans that required Russian Nat Gas to keep the dream alive. LNG from the Gulf of Mexico is a far more expensive “Interim solution” and will require painful financial compromises.

Chatted with daughter about the reduced Hydro power in California, she expects their power will get turned off again this year as it was a couple years back.

Tim

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas

US natural gas futures were trading above the $8.50/MMBtu level, not far from an almost 14-year peak of $9.45 touched in late May, as investors refocused again on the bullish outlook for the commodity, with higher domestic and international demand being the primary driver. Russia's war on Ukraine has caused a global energy crunch, with demand for US LNG set to remain elevated partly due to Europe's calls for US exports to help cut reliance on Russian gas. Putting some downward pressure on prices in the short term were EIA data showing gas held in storage facilities in the United States increased more than expected last week.

2 Likes

Either we figure out how to replace global energy supplied by oil and gas with some type of so-called ‘green energy’ or Mother Earth figures out how to replace human beings with a so-called life form that is less destructive to the earth that we need to survive.

Neither of those things are going to happen.

The most likely path is that we will continue to use very large amounts of fossil fuel and increase the temperature of the planet…and that humans will continue to prosper and thrive, even while suffering some serious consequences from that warmer planet. We will (probably) fail to keep temperature increases below 2 degrees, but we will (likely) keep temperature increases below 3 degrees. Things will be materially worse for a non-trivial segment of the world’s population, especially (and unfairly) in developing nations - but overall, things will be generally better for the average human than current conditions, and especially so in the developed world.

We’re going to be living in the excluded middle.

Albaby

3 Likes

Neither of those things are going to happen.

I have great respect for you albaby, but I’m not nearly as optimistic as you.

99% of the species that existed on earth are dead. There is no ‘get out of jail free’ card for humans.

Yes, we are very clever monkeys and can fix most things. However, to date, we are far from serious about global climate change. Perhaps that will change, hopefully not too late.

When your house is burning down, there are no safe rooms to hang out in.

Anyway, if GCC doesn’t get us, sentient AI probably will.

Crashing stock market? Child’s play.

AW

3 Likes

99% of the species that existed on earth are dead. There is no ‘get out of jail free’ card for humans.

Yes, we are very clever monkeys and can fix most things. However, to date, we are far from serious about global climate change. Perhaps that will change, hopefully not too late.

The fate of all species is extinction, eventually. But climate change isn’t likely to do it.

We’ve been serious enough about climate change, at least to avoid any realistic chance that climate change will make the world even close to unlivable for humans. We’re no longer on a track to 4 or 5 degrees. We’re probably not even on a track to get much above 3 degrees. We’re going to fail to stay below 2 degrees. There’s a massive amount of human misery that can be avoided if we hit 2.2 degrees instead of 2.7 degrees (for example), but 2.7 degrees still results in world where most of humanity is better off, in terms of having their basic material needs met, than today.

No mainstream climate models suggest a return to a world as bad as the one we had in 1950, to say nothing of 1150. Was the world so bad, for virtually the entirety of human history, that our ancestors shouldn’t have made our lives possible? If not, then nothing in our near future looks so horrible that it turns reproduction into an immoral act.

* * *

But [avoiding possible future improvements], and not apocalypse, is the most likely path we’re on. This, strange as it is to say, is progress. As Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist, notes, many credible estimates from a decade ago put us on track for the average global temperature to increase 4 or even 5 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels by 2100. That would be cataclysmic. But the falling cost of clean energy and the rising ambition of climate policy have changed that. The Climate Action tracker puts our current policy path at about 2.7 degrees of warming by 2100. If the commitments world governments have made since the Paris climate accord hold, we’re on track for a rise of 2 degrees or even less.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/opinion/climate-change-sh…

See also:

https://www.slowboring.com/p/people-need-to-hear-the-good-ne…

…outlining the good news about climate change.

Very few governments are actually on track to keep their Paris commitments, which means we’re far more likely to end up near that 2.7 degrees than 2.0 degrees. But almost no nations are doing as poorly as the worst case scenarios from a decade or two ago, which means that we’re not going to be causing our own extinction.

And probably in about 20-30 years’ time, once more renewable energy gets (slowly) baked into the economy but we continue to use a lot of fossil fuels and the models show us clearly averting catastrophe, we’re going to have to get used to the smug “I told you so”'s from conservatives who will claim they had the right idea all along. We were able to drill ourselves to oil independence, and we probably will be able to avoid climate catastrophe without having to give up fossil fuels or pay a ton of money to third world nations to get them to do it.

Albaby

4 Likes

What AW said, on every count.

AND, my concern is NOT with earth or “life on earth”, but rather with the far more bizarre and possibly extremely rare thing that is language based sentience, the AMAZING thing that humans have accomplished with language, knowledge conserved over time, and the evolution of cultures (more powerful and far faster than biological evolution) based on that knowledge conserved over time. That may be an extremely rare and precious phenomenon, and it is our idiot generation that is blowing it.

david fb

5 Likes

Gwyn Morgan: Hard facts puncture anti-fossil fuel fantasies

The belief that 84% of global energy supplied by oil and gas can be replaced by so-called ‘green energy’ is a fantasy

Author of the article: Gwyn Morgan, Special to Financial Post

===================================================================================

Gwyn Morgan shows that his hard facts are BS.

84% of global energy is NOT supplied by oil and natural gas!

Only 56% of global energy is supplied by oil and natural gas!

He forgot to add coal to get 84%.

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/c…

Jaak

P.S. - His other facts are also full of BS

1 Like

US natural gas futures were trading above the $8.50/MMBtu level, not far from an almost 14-year peak of $9.45 touched in late May …

============================================================

For years some people claimed that low natural gas prices were killing the nuclear industry. They claimed that if natural gas prices went above $6.00/MMBtu level that new nuclear plants would be coming back. Has anyone heard any talk about building more nuclear power plants?

Jaak

Has anyone heard any talk about building more nuclear power plants?

It’s in two of Duke’s four proposed portfolios for reaching carbon neutrality by 2050.

PSU

1 Like

The fate of all species is extinction, eventually. But climate change isn’t likely to do it.

=============================================

You do not know that climate change will not cause massive global deaths in the billions.

What happens to humans at 90% relative humidity and 100 Fahrenheit for days?

https://www.livescience.com/hottest-temperature-people-can-t…

With climate change causing temperatures to rise across the globe, extreme heat is becoming more and more of a health threat. The human body is resilient, but it can only handle so much. So what is the highest temperature people can endure?

The answer is straightforward: a wet-bulb temperature of 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 degrees Celsius), according to a 2020 study in the journal Science Advances.

If the humidity is low but the temperature is high, or vice versa, the wet-bulb temperature probably won’t near the human body’s tipping point, said Colin Raymond, a postdoctoral researcher at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory who studies extreme heat. But when both the humidity and the temperature are very high, the wet-bulb temperature can creep toward dangerous levels. For example, when the air temperature is 115 F (46.1 C) and the relative humidity is 30%, the wet-bulb temperature is only about 87 F (30.5 C). But when the air temperature is 102 F (38.9 C) and the relative humidity is 77%, the wet-bulb temperature is about 95 F (35 C).

Although no one can live at a wet-bulb temperature higher than about 95 F, lower temperatures can also be deadly.

Luckily, air conditioning can save people from unlivable heat. But, of course, not all people have access to it, and even in places where many people have air conditioning, the electrical grid may be unreliable.

Few locations have hit a wet-bulb temperature of 95 F in recorded history, according to the Science Advances study.


Any you agree that the only solution for human survival is to abandon fossil fuels to stay under 2 to 3 degrees centigrade!

Jaak

1 Like

Has anyone heard any talk about building more nuclear power plants?

It’s in two of Duke’s four proposed portfolios for reaching carbon neutrality by 2050.

PSU

================================================

So Duke should already be working on the pre-construction engineering and licensing since it will take 20 years to complete construction and start producing electricity by 2050.

Jaak

1 Like

You do not know that climate change will not cause massive global deaths in the billions.

Well, the modelling right now says that it’s not going to.

Part of believing the science is acknowledging when the science starts telling you different things than it did before. The global economy used to be on track to emit sufficient carbon that 4-5 degree increases were possible, and that level of increase made it credible (though by no means certain) that there would be massive global deaths from temperature increases. It’s not on that track any more.

Now the projections are for more modest increases - and since they’re happening over the same time frame, it means that temperatures are growing much more slowly. We’re very unlikely to get to a temperature level that could cause massive global deaths - and by the time we get to the hottest temperatures, a much larger percentage of the globe will be living in much more developed nations than under the old “Business as Usual” scenarios.

IOW, while no one knows for absolute certain what the future holds, there’s very little scientific basis for a catastrophic scenario any more. We’ve already achieved too much carbon reduction, with more ‘baked in’ to future economic development, for that to happen.

Albaby

3 Likes

IOW, while no one knows for absolute certain what the future holds, there’s very little scientific basis for a catastrophic scenario any more. We’ve already achieved too much carbon reduction, with more ‘baked in’ to future economic development, for that to happen.

Albaby

=============================================================

Is that what UN IPCC is reporting? Why don’t you post some references to your claims.

Jaak

latest figures from EIA US - electricity generation…

60.8% of world energy from fossil fuels - coal, oil, NG

19.8 % from nuclear

Renewables? 20%


So how fast will renewables grow? Will they replace airline fuel and truck fuel? Replace fuel for electricity at night when the sun doesn’t shine?

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3


Btt the bad news for the green folks thinking of replacing all.

“Fossil Fuels Still Supply 84 Percent Of World Energy — And Other Eye Openers From BP’s Annual Review”

“This week BP released its Statistical Review of World Energy 2020. The Review covers energy data through 2019, and provides a comprehensive picture of supply and demand for major energy sources on a country-level basis.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-ne…

"However, as an overall share of energy consumption, oil remained on top with 33% of all energy consumption. The remainder of global energy consumption came from coal (27%), natural gas (24%), hydropower (6%), renewables (5%), and nuclear power (4%).

Cumulatively, fossil fuels — shown below in shades of gray — still accounted for 84% of the world’s primary energy consumption in 2019."

Energy use increased that year…year after year to new highs. However, half the addition was not fossil fuel, but half was. Likely all the new green energy was not even half of the increase in total energy use, no less reducing the number , percent, of use of fossil fuels.

t.

t

1 Like

So Duke should already be working on the pre-construction engineering and licensing since it will take 20 years to complete construction and start producing electricity by 2050.

Then you go argue with them. I’m just reporting the facts.

PSU

1 Like

Is that what UN IPCC is reporting? Why don’t you post some references to your claims.

Yes, it is.

I had posted to the two articles upthread (which I’ll post again now) - the Yglesias piece contains the links to the UN report, as well as to numerous other sources. The first link is to his article, the second is to the UNFCCC Secretariat report (putting 2.7 degrees as the risk if we don’t improve the NDC levels under Paris), and the third is a link to an analysis of the International Energy Association’s assessment:

https://www.slowboring.com/p/people-need-to-hear-the-good-ne…
https://unfccc.int/news/updated-ndc-synthesis-report-worryin…
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4ebf

The Ezra Klein piece in the NYT is just quotes from climate scientists, pointing out that no - the world won’t be worse for humans in 2100 than it was in 1950.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/opinion/climate-change-sh…

The Yglesias piece also has a bunch of more technical discussion about the issue. It also contains this quote from one of the folks who developed the IPCC’s socioeconomic pathways (their best and worst and in-between case models):

So what does this SSP 2 world feel like? It depends, [climate scientist Brian O’Neill, the director of the Joint Global Change Research Institute] told me, on who you are. One thing he wants to make very clear is that all the paths, even the hottest ones, show improvements in human well-being on average. IPCC scientists expect that average life expectancy will continue to rise, that poverty and hunger rates will continue to decline, and that average incomes will go up in every single plausible future, simply because they always have. “There isn’t, you know, like a Mad Max scenario among the SSPs,” O’Neill said. Climate change will ruin individual lives and kill individual people, and it may even drag down rates of improvement in human well-being, but on average, he said, “we’re generally in the climate-change field not talking about futures that are worse than today.”

Albaby

2 Likes

Then you go argue with them. I’m just reporting the facts.

PSU

The only “fact” is they are in the “plans”.

Plans are for business people to get their way on something or other. Plans are not even intentions. We all know that, right?

Plans are for business people to get their way on something or other. Plans are not even intentions. We all know that, right?

Carbon neutrality is required by state statute. Their proposals right now are mandated by the same legislation.

PSU