Fossil fuel peak estimates being revised earlier
A good summary of various arguments I've been making in this discussion. Basically, the economics are shifting and we're right on the edge of a 'tipping point' where renewables begin rapidly replacing fossil fuels. BNEF is estimating that coal will peak globally by 2026 and oil by 2030.
The head of the UK's Committee on Climate Change points out that ten years ago emissions were on track for ~4C warming by 2100, now they are down to ~3C, and continued improvements could get us below 2C.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of COP26 next year. I suspect that most countries will pledge to make greater emissions cuts than they did in the last round (5 years ago) simply because their people are already doing more. Even countries headed by people who deny that global warming exists are seeing rapid conversions to renewable power. Money beats ideology... and renewables cost less.
Then there's things like this:
Central heating boilers 'put climate change goals at risk'
BBC News wrote: A report from the cross-party Policy Connect says gas central heating boilers also threaten the UK’s clean air goals.
But a poll conducted among MPs suggests that most do not consider pollution from home heating to be a priority.
That is despite the fact 14% of UK greenhouse gases come from our homes, a similar level to emissions from cars.
In major cities gas boilers are also a main source of nitrogen dioxide emissions.
The government wants low-carbon heat systems to be standard for all new homes built after 2025.
But that will still leave the vast majority of existing homes in the UK with polluting heat systems.
A spokesman for the Treasury said a plan to support the move to sustainable heating systems would go out to consultation later this year.
The task is huge. Policy Connect says more than 20,000 homes a week must switch to low-carbon heating between 2025 and 2050 to meet UK climate goals.
And that'll only take a spare £130 billion. Good luck with that GB!
This is why we need Iceman and Firestar...
You suppose these types of issues are in the climate models?
Facing unbearable heat, Qatar has begun to air-condition the outdoors
WP wrote: While climate change inflicts suffering in the world’s poorest places from Somalia to Syria, from Guatemala to Bangladesh, in rich places such as the United States, Europe and Qatar global warming poses an engineering problem, not an existential one. And it can be addressed, at least temporarily, with gobs of money and a little technology.
To survive the summer heat, Qatar not only air-conditions its soccer stadiums, but also the outdoors — in markets, along sidewalks, even at outdoor malls so people can window shop with a cool breeze...
In Qatar, total cooling capacity is expected to nearly double from 2016 to 2030, according to the International District Cooling & Heating Conference.
Money, tech, and a metric ####load of GHG emissions.
.
So catch this exchange and you'll see another glimpse of the real problem with fixing AGW:
"WP wrote: One recent afternoon as the temperature eased to 110 degrees Fahrenheit, Aida Adi Baziac, an interior designer, was sharing iced lattes with a friend. They had just finished work and were perched over a cooling grate at an outdoor table at Joe’s Cafe.
“I would say it’s wasteful,” Adi Baziac said. “I know how it impacts the environment negatively.”
But it allows them to enjoy the outdoors in the summer, she added. “We can sit outside in an air-conditioned, controlled area, and we sit and mix and mingle.”
Paraphrase:
"Yeah we're totally ####### the environment but I like to sip iced lattes on an outdoor patio and, well, what's debutante to do? Ha ha ha!
Now multiply that attitude by several hundred million to a few billion.
.
WP wrote: Qatar is adding natural gas capacity faster than it’s adding solar — and at low prices. The country’s new dairy farm, a natural candidate for solar power, uses 35 megawatts from the natural-gas-fired grid to keep the cows cool enough to survive the heat.
Moreover, solar power plans will be dwarfed by the government’s plans to expand LNG production by 43 percent by 2024, adding 60 new tankers to its armada.
sarcasm
Why aren't these idiots exporting solar power instead of fossil fuels?
/sarcasm
.
Yet another glimpse of the real problem with fixing AGW:
WP wrote: A short walk away, the Qatar Foundation — a progressive organization set up by Sheikha Moza bint Nasser, the current emir’s mother — is overseeing a high-end bit of urban planning known as the Msheireb. The development’s walkways and streets point north to take advantage of breezes that come from that direction. Cylindrical pillars will blow cool air in an open courtyard featuring water fountains and a sun-blocking canopy can be closed on windy days.
The development has 6,400 solar panels that will generate 4 percent of the development’s energy.
What a relief! This "progressive" organization will get 4% of its electrical needs from solar.
I recognize that they're doing some amazing things, especially architecturally, but handling 4% of the problem means the other 96% is going unaddressed.
.
The graphics are informative too!
You'll notice things like the extra warming in the Arctic permafrost over what the global average is. Thus helping to fire off the CH4/CO2 tipping element from melting permafrost.
That the graph comparing Doha's increased average temperature to that of the globe. Notice in particular the fact that the global value given to date is +1.2°C not the usual significantly lower +1.0°C.
...Yeah... we're screwed...
Aaaand one more glimpse:
Protests in Chile against cost of living – in pictures
President Sebastián Piñera has suspended an increase in metro ticket prices after the plan triggered anti-government demonstrations across the country
Sebastián Piñera was really asking for some pretty modest increases given the overall costs of services provided. The same thing happened in France. Those countries aren't exactly similar in regards to either culture or overall economic development. The results were amazingly similar.
Of course I know the long-term economics of solar + batteries (and eventually wind + batteries) beat fossil fuels in most places for most things but there is a short-term crimp in lifestyle that needs to be accomplished to seriously aim at a nominal +1.5°C year 2100. By far most people aren't going to like that.
What's happened in Chile, with the Yellow Vests in France, with the debutantes in Doha, etc. is going to echo in virtually every country around the globe. Convincing people there is climate change and "something needs to be done about it" is only the first (and smaller!) hurdle. Next you have to convince those people to pay for it now and reap the reward in another 20 to 30 years; maybe 40 or 50 years.
Good luck with that.
Where's the bright side?
Well, maybe the necessary implementation of these anti-AGW initiatives will put the global economy in a tailspin that drops CO2 emissions to the pace they need to be at and, if we can avert a nuclear war while doing so (because we certainly won't be averting non-nuclear wars), we might come out the other side on track for something close to +1.5°C year 2100.
Again, your analysis of the protests leaves out a striking amount of information. It immediately becomes apparent that you are using it to confirm your viewpoint without investigating it at all.
My analyses of these issues is demonstrably greater than the previous post - which said precisely nothing about why the connections I draw are wrong.
I've provided links and discussion, both recently and many times up thread, and if what I've provided counts as leaving "out a striking amount of information", then there aren't superlatives enough to indicate the lack of content in the posts of my critics.
Try again.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Yah, a bunch of bankers are certainly experts on that topic.
Quark Blast wrote: My analyses of these issues is demonstrably greater than the previous post - which said precisely nothing about why the connections I draw are wrong.
I've provided links and discussion, both recently and many times up thread, and if what I've provided counts as leaving "out a striking amount of information", then there aren't superlatives enough to indicate the lack of content in the posts of my critics.
Try again.
I apologize, I was specifically referring to your characterization of the protests in Chili.
You've provided zero sources that I remember that actually back up your hypothesis about human behavior in this instances (thinking on this and the yellow vest protest).
You take headlines and read whatever you want into them.
Ed Reppert wrote: Yah, a bunch of bankers are certainly experts on that topic. I see you dare not.
:D
Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: My analyses of these issues is demonstrably greater than the previous post - which said precisely nothing about why the connections I draw are wrong.
I've provided links and discussion, both recently and many times up thread, and if what I've provided counts as leaving "out a striking amount of information", then there aren't superlatives enough to indicate the lack of content in the posts of my critics.
Try again.
I apologize, I was specifically referring to your characterization of the protests in Chili.
You've provided zero sources that I remember that actually back up your hypothesis about human behavior in this instances (thinking on this and the yellow vest protest).
You take headlines and read whatever you want into them. To meet the IPCC target requires both a steep ramp-up in Solar + Battery storage (and wind + battery storage, etc.) and a reduction in current global CO2 emissions.
Both of those require a ####-ton of money.
The former can be partially done with promises of investor ROI and government subsidies. The latter will be a major crimp in the lifestyle of pretty much everyone on the planet for one to three decades. The few can mostly buy and tax shelter their way out of that decade(s) long crimp. The many are not gonna like paying their portion and in democratic and quasi-democratic societies this will result in "protests" of the governments telling them what they have to do. QED
Quark Blast wrote: To meet the IPCC target requires both a steep ramp-up in Solar + Battery storage (and wind + battery storage, etc.) and a reduction in current global CO2 emissions. Don't steep ramp ups in solar, wind, and battery storage inherently lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions?
Quark Blast wrote: Both of those require a ####-ton of money. True... but also LESS money than continuing to power the world with fossil fuels.
Quark Blast wrote: The former can be partially done with promises of investor ROI and government subsidies. Solar, wind, and battery storage are already growing worldwide... even in places where governments are trying to hold them back. I believe they'll meet IPCC targets just based on standard market forces... though, of course, once they become dominant markets, and politicians, will move the goalposts to make them even moreso.
Quark Blast wrote: The latter will be a major crimp in the lifestyle of pretty much everyone on the planet for one to three decades. Again, increased solar, wind, and battery storage inherently lead to reduced CO2 emissions. No lifestlye crimp required. Indeed, since those clean power sources will cost less than the fossil fuel sources they are replacing... people will have MORE money available.
You post the most logically disjointed statements.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: To meet the IPCC target requires both a steep ramp-up in Solar + Battery storage (and wind + battery storage, etc.) and a reduction in current global CO2 emissions. Don't steep ramp ups in solar, wind, and battery storage inherently lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions? Quite so.
The question is: Soon enough?
The answer is: Nope.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Both of those require a ####-ton of money. True... but also LESS money than continuing to power the world with fossil fuels. Only in the long term.
Long term is the social security retirement I strongly suspect I'll never see. Making decisions now about things I'll never see come to fruition is a little hard to get motivated for.
Having the feels for global climate circa 2100 just isn't a thing for most humans now living. Why the #### can't you see that?
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: The former can be partially done with promises of investor ROI and government subsidies. Solar, wind, and battery storage are already growing worldwide... even in places where governments are trying to hold them back. I believe they'll meet IPCC targets just based on standard market forces... though, of course, once they become dominant markets, and politicians, will move the goalposts to make them even moreso. If drugs were my thing, I'd ask you to put me in contact with your supplier.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: The latter will be a major crimp in the lifestyle of pretty much everyone on the planet for one to three decades. Again, increased solar, wind, and battery storage inherently lead to reduced CO2 emissions. No lifestlye crimp required. Indeed, since those clean power sources will cost less than the fossil fuel sources they are replacing... people will have MORE money available. They will. Long term. The next 10 to 30 years... not so much.
Remember the target is a +1.5°C year 2100.
CBDunkerson wrote: True... but also LESS money than continuing to power the world with fossil fuels. Quark Blast wrote: Only in the long term. No. Not the long term. Right now. Today. Solar and wind power cost less than fossil fuel power... and that's in terms of unsubsidized nominal price. If external costs (e.g. the health, environmental, and military costs imposed by fossil fuels) are taken in to account then solar and wind cost VASTLY less.
BNEF: Unsubsidized wind, solar are now the cheapest bulk generation sources
That was a year ago.
Renewable prices have continued to drop
That chart shows that OFFSHORE wind is now starting to drop below fossil fuel prices... and battery storage is only a few years away from doing so as well.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Hey folks, had to remove some posts. Remember that our forums are not a place to debate real world politics.
Well... my posts got whacked. So I guess that means we also can't debate the scientific and sociological ramifications of ill-considered economic policies set in place to mitigate AGW. WTH?
Quark Blast wrote: Well... my posts got whacked. So I guess that means we also can't debate the scientific and sociological ramifications of ill-considered economic policies set in place to mitigate AGW. WTH? Unfortunately, at this point economics IS politics... an entire field of 'alternative economics' has been created and it is just as prevalent as the original version.
This thread largely exists due to similar attempts at creating 'alternative science', but those haven't been as successful... there is still a recognized 'mainstream science' and a minority (supposedly) 'skeptical' view.
At this point it might be easier not to post. Not in a I'm-taking-my-marbles-and-going-home sort of way but more in the sense of:
Why spend time reading, thinking, and posting here when it'll get arbitrarily censored?
Mind, I'm not arguing the right of Paizo to do so. This is a gratis forum and they can enforce company policy whatever way they want. It's more that I have no idea what will get whacked given some of the things that have been left up (from posts that are mere ad hominem to stuff completely off the thread's topic), or excised (not just my posts but others that were well said and on topic have also disappeared for... reasons), and my time is precious to me.
Suffice to say, if the AGW science is approximately right (and I think that it is), then there is no way (in a practical sense) that we'll hit the +1.5°C year 2100 target.
I know all the green tech is cheaper to implement now, but the problem is two-fold:
One, there are powerful interests that are working to slow the transition to 'go green'.
Two, even without the presence of those interests, we are too close to the year 2100 to roll out enough green tech to get any lower than a +2.5°C year 2100.*
And maybe a third factor not directly covered under those two, namely that large numbers of people rarely do anything well or in a timely manner (a possible exception is humanity's penchant for blowing #### up forthwith in times of war). We'll know which way things are headed by 2030 or maybe a few years sooner.
* As always I hold open the slight possibility of near-miracle tech for CCS in the next 30 years or so.
List for us every technological advance that will happen next year.
I don't mean a list of possible things. I don't mean general areas of improvement you think will happen. I mean precisely what things will be invented next year. And not just a couple of the things that will. All of them.
If you have a 100% accuracy for next year, I will admit that your prediction of technology over the next 30 years is likely to be correct.
If you can't predict what is happening next year... then there is no reason to assume that your predictions for the following 29 years will be accurate either.
Heck, I'll grade on a curve. You give a list, then we'll compare it with a list of everything that does get invented. If you get even close (like predicting 70% of all things that get invented next year) I'll admit that I've judged you wrongly.
Tesla Model 3s won't be significantly cheaper a year from now. Nor will Tesla have another model that is. In theory a Model 3 costs ~$35k, in practice they are averaging >$42k.
I walked through a major hospital complex the other week. The parking area (gated, naturally) used by the admin staff had several EVs, maybe 20% of the cars. The general staff and client parking had none, just a couple of hybrids.
But over the lifetime of the car EVs are cheaper to operate. Why aren't more people buying them?
Because of the upfront costs. Most people can't afford an EV and won't be able to for another decade or so. But to meet our climate goal of a +1.5°C year 2100 EVs ought to already be majority in sales instead of ~2%.
I mentioned some time ago up thread that the recycling center at my cousin's apartment complex is a total ####### mess. It still is. These are somewhat upscale apartments. The people who live there are largely college graduates with professional careers. My cousin simply throws everything into the trash to avoid the stinking chaos of the recycling area. My cousin's behavior is not unusual by human nature, nor is the behavior of his "professional" neighbors.
Also mentioned up thread previously, is the problem a FLGS owner had with the garbage company in his area. They fined his business for having "metal cans with sharp edges" in the recycling. As he said, "I've been recycling metal cans with sharp edges for over 50 years, since I was a Boy Scout fundraising for my troop". He solved this problem the same way my cousin has, he throws everything into the trash now. And voila! no more ####### ridiculous fines.
The amount of buy-in needed to meet the +1.5°C year 2100 target is truly unprecidented in human history. Therefore I'm completely comfortable in "predicting" it won't happen.
I will consider your predictions for 30 years from now as accurate as your predictions for next year.
Quark Blast wrote: I know all the green tech is cheaper to implement now, but the problem is two-fold:
One, there are powerful interests that are working to slow the transition to 'go green'.
True, but that is subject to change. Coal companies are declaring bankruptcy left and right. I'd say we're about a decade from oil and natural gas companies being where coal is now. Meanwhile, the wind and solar industries are growing rapidly. A day is coming when the balance of 'powerful interests' is going to flip... and all the benefits currently keeping fossil fuels afloat will instead be deployed to drown them.
Quark Blast wrote: Two, even without the presence of those interests, we are too close to the year 2100 to roll out enough green tech to get any lower than a +2.5°C year 2100.* We won't stay below +1.5°C, but +2.5°C is entirely possible. I'd say likely even. If fossil fuel consumption hasn't peaked ten years from now THEN it will likely be too late to avoid +2.5°C.
Quark Blast wrote: And maybe a third factor not directly covered under those two, namely that large numbers of people rarely do anything well or in a timely manner (a possible exception is humanity's penchant for blowing #### up forthwith in times of war). How long did it take 'large numbers of people' to switch to using smart phones?
Quark Blast wrote: Because of the upfront costs. Most people can't afford an EV and won't be able to for another decade or so. But to meet our climate goal of a +1.5°C year 2100 EVs ought to already be majority in sales instead of ~2%. Truish... and yet, in Norway EVs HAVE reached majority sales status. They did that, in just a few years, by shifting the up front costs... apply some taxes to ICE vehicles, provide some rebates for EVs... and suddenly the upfront EV costs are lower and people flock to them. There is no reason the same thing can't happen anywhere / everywhere else in the world at any time... and even without government intervention it'll be less than a decade before we pass that point anyway.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: I know all the green tech is cheaper to implement now, but the problem is two-fold:
One, there are powerful interests that are working to slow the transition to 'go green'.
True, but that is subject to change. Coal companies are declaring bankruptcy left and right. I'd say we're about a decade from oil and natural gas companies being where coal is now. Meanwhile, the wind and solar industries are growing rapidly. A day is coming when the balance of 'powerful interests' is going to flip... and all the benefits currently keeping fossil fuels afloat will instead be deployed to drown them. Oil and especially natural gas is not coal.
Coal is coal.
Oil is road surfaces, airplane fuel, and 10k other useful items.
Natural gas is fertilizer, portable even into extreme climates, and 10k other useful capacities.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Two, even without the presence of those interests, we are too close to the year 2100 to roll out enough green tech to get any lower than a +2.5°C year 2100.* We won't stay below +1.5°C, but +2.5°C is entirely possible. I'd say likely even. If fossil fuel consumption hasn't peaked ten years from now THEN it will likely be too late to avoid +2.5°C. That will depend entirely on the presence of Tipping Elements, how many get triggered/at what average global temperature they get triggered at, and what their respective interactions are (if any).
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: And maybe a third factor not directly covered under those two, namely that large numbers of people rarely do anything well or in a timely manner (a possible exception is humanity's penchant for blowing #### up forthwith in times of war). How long did it take 'large numbers of people' to switch to using smart phones? Smart phones needed 3G wireless deployment and better batteries to be practical. 3G wireless deployment piggybacked on 2G's global infrastructure and protocols... which piggybacked on the 1G build-out, etc.
Moving over to solar, and especially wind, requires a metric ####-ton of infrastructure build-out. Infrastructure built-out for just and only that use.
The comparison to smart phones is markedly inapt!
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Because of the upfront costs. Most people can't afford an EV and won't be able to for another decade or so. But to meet our climate goal of a +1.5°C year 2100 EVs ought to already be majority in sales instead of ~2%. Truish... and yet, in Norway EVs HAVE reached majority sales status. They did that, in just a few years, by shifting the up front costs... apply some taxes to ICE vehicles, provide some rebates for EVs... and suddenly the upfront EV costs are lower and people flock to them. There is no reason the same thing can't happen anywhere / everywhere else in the world at any time... and even without government intervention it'll be less than a decade before we pass that point anyway. Norway isn't even 1/10th of 1% of the global population. Norway gets a phat check cut from North Sea oil and gas every month to help subsidize anything they might decide to do.
Norway is an even less apt comparison than smart phones.
Quark Blast wrote: Oil and especially natural gas is not coal.
Coal is coal.
Oil is road surfaces, airplane fuel, and 10k other useful items.
Natural gas is fertilizer, portable even into extreme climates, and 10k other useful capacities.
There are plenty of secondary uses for coal as well... the point is that the use of these items as primary fuel sources for our economy, and the power/influence stemming from that, is coming to an end. Not that they will suddenly disappear from the planet.
Quark Blast wrote: Moving over to solar, and especially wind, requires a metric ####-ton of infrastructure build-out. Infrastructure built-out for just and only that use. An electric grid built out for wind and solar will actually have rather a lot of additional use... transferring power nationwide, distributing to battery storage, providing backup against blackouts, etc. As previously noted, we need to install more new electrical generation than our current total over the next 30 years anyway. Yes, that's a lot... but no reason it can't be mostly wind and solar rather than natural gas.
Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: I know all the green tech is cheaper to implement now, but the problem is two-fold:
One, there are powerful interests that are working to slow the transition to 'go green'.
True, but that is subject to change. Coal companies are declaring bankruptcy left and right. I'd say we're about a decade from oil and natural gas companies being where coal is now. Meanwhile, the wind and solar industries are growing rapidly. A day is coming when the balance of 'powerful interests' is going to flip... and all the benefits currently keeping fossil fuels afloat will instead be deployed to drown them. Oil and especially natural gas is not coal.
Coal is coal.
Oil is road surfaces, airplane fuel, and 10k other useful items.
Natural gas is fertilizer, portable even into extreme climates, and 10k other useful capacities. Secondary uses are great, but they're a tiny fraction of the current market for power. In this context, if oil and natural gas companies are reduced to the uses you list instead of gasoline and electricity generation and heat, they'll no longer be powerful interests. Not on anything like the scale they are now. Without the massive demand for them as fuel, both the volume and price will drop dramatically.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: I know all the green tech is cheaper to implement now, but the problem is two-fold:
One, there are powerful interests that are working to slow the transition to 'go green'.
True, but that is subject to change. Coal companies are declaring bankruptcy left and right. I'd say we're about a decade from oil and natural gas companies being where coal is now. Meanwhile, the wind and solar industries are growing rapidly. A day is coming when the balance of 'powerful interests' is going to flip... and all the benefits currently keeping fossil fuels afloat will instead be deployed to drown them. Oil and especially natural gas is not coal.
Coal is coal.
Oil is road surfaces, airplane fuel, and 10k other useful items.
Natural gas is fertilizer, portable even into extreme climates, and 10k other useful capacities. Secondary uses are great, but they're a tiny fraction of the current market for power. In this context, if oil and natural gas companies are reduced to the uses you list instead of gasoline and electricity generation and heat, they'll no longer be powerful interests. Not on anything like the scale they are now. Without the massive demand for them as fuel, both the volume and price will drop dramatically. Oh yes, and the prices for those "secondary uses" will increase in dramatic fashion as well. That's where the disruption will come in. It's why we can't just 'flip a switch' and convert to wind/solar.
The secondary uses for coal, with perhaps the exception of concrete production, are truly minor in the global economy. The secondary uses for oil and natural gas are most decidedly not minor. It will be a major disruption if fresh fruit and veggies go up in price by 300% or more, for example. For fear of post deletion I can't reference the many other instances where a "good idea" in adjusting the transportation/energy economy has had way, way, way outsized ramifications. But you know what I mean... <wink, wink>
CB wrote: [Says stuff about secondary uses in reference to smart phones but...] Totally misses the fact that the infrastructure for smart phones came first, hence it was relatively quick and cheap to convert to smart phones. EVs aren't that simple. Or cheap. Or quick.
Don't believe me? Well, I think that the best and only example you give (namely, Norway) is also a tiny fraction of the global population and and an even tinier fraction of the Earth's surface.
You see, it's the other 99.9% of the problem that worries me.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: I know all the green tech is cheaper to implement now, but the problem is two-fold:
One, there are powerful interests that are working to slow the transition to 'go green'.
True, but that is subject to change. Coal companies are declaring bankruptcy left and right. I'd say we're about a decade from oil and natural gas companies being where coal is now. Meanwhile, the wind and solar industries are growing rapidly. A day is coming when the balance of 'powerful interests' is going to flip... and all the benefits currently keeping fossil fuels afloat will instead be deployed to drown them. Oil and especially natural gas is not coal.
Coal is coal.
Oil is road surfaces, airplane fuel, and 10k other useful items.
Natural gas is fertilizer, portable even into extreme climates, and 10k other useful capacities. Secondary uses are great, but they're a tiny fraction of the current market for power. In this context, if oil and natural gas companies are reduced to the uses you list instead of gasoline and electricity generation and heat, they'll no longer be powerful interests. Not on anything like the scale they are now. Without the massive demand for them as fuel, both the volume and price will drop dramatically. Oh yes, and the prices for those "secondary uses" will increase in dramatic fashion as well. That's where the disruption will come in. It's why we can't just 'flip a switch' and convert to wind/solar.
The secondary uses for coal, with perhaps the exception of concrete production, are truly minor in the global economy. The secondary uses for oil and natural gas are most decidedly not minor. It will be a major disruption if fresh fruit and veggies go up in price by 300% or more, for example. If we stop burning massive amounts of oil and gas for power, the oil and gas for other uses gets cheaper, not more expensive - less demand, lower prices. That's basic economics.
thejeff wrote: If we stop burning massive amounts of oil and gas for power, the oil and gas for other uses gets cheaper, not more expensive - less demand, lower prices. That's basic economics. No.
The easy oil has been long gone - think Deep Horizon, North Slope, and Fracking, that's how we get our oil now days - only the hard stuff is there to get. The harder to get, the more it costs, and the only way to keep costs down is to produce it by the metric ####-load.
Limit production to a fraction of that metric ####-load scale and the price goes through the roof and so to do the prices for the dependent "stuff". One apple for your lunch today? That'll be $7.50...
Climate change: ‘Clear and unequivocal’ emergency, say scientists
BBC wrote: The study, based on 40 years of data on a range of measures, says governments are failing to address the crisis.
Without deep and lasting changes, the world is facing "untold human suffering" the study says...
the authors include a range of data which they believe represents a "suite of graphical vital signs of climate change over the past 40 years".
These indicators include the growth of human and animal populations, per capita meat production, global tree cover loss, as well as fossil fuel consumption...
Taken together, the researchers say most of their vital signs indicators are [still!] going in the wrong direction and add up to a climate emergency.
"An emergency means that if we do not act or respond to the impacts of climate change by reducing our carbon emissions, reducing our livestock production, reducing our land clearing and fossil fuel consumption, the impacts will likely be more severe than we've experienced to date," said lead author Dr Thomas Newsome, from the University of Sydney.
"That could mean there are areas on Earth that are not inhabitable by people."
.
Take a look at the 'take aways' and ask yourself how likely these are to be implemented:
BBC wrote: Energy: Politicians should impose carbon fees high enough to discourage the use of fossil fuels, they should end subsidies to fossil fuel companies and implement massive conservation practices while also replacing oil and gas with renewables.
Short-lived pollutants: These include methane, hydrofluorocarbons and soot - the researchers say that limiting these has the potential to cut the short-term warming trend by 50% over the next few decades.
Nature: Stop land clearing, restore forests, grasslands and mangroves which would all help to sequester CO2.
Food: A big dietary shift is needed say researchers so that people eat mostly plants and consumer fewer animal products. Reducing food waste is also seen as critical.
Economy: Convert the economy's reliance on carbon fuels - and change away from growing the world's gross domestic product and pursuing affluence.
Population: The world needs to stabilise the global population which is growing by around 200,000 a day.
.
Did I say $7.50 for an apple? Maybe I was a little optimistic.
:D
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: If we stop burning massive amounts of oil and gas for power, the oil and gas for other uses gets cheaper, not more expensive - less demand, lower prices. That's basic economics. No.
The easy oil has been long gone - think Deep Horizon, North Slope, and Fracking, that's how we get our oil now days - only the hard stuff is there to get. The harder to get, the more it costs, and the only way to keep costs down is to produce it by the metric ####-load.
Limit production to a fraction of that metric ####-load scale and the price goes through the roof and so to do the prices for the dependent "stuff". One apple for your lunch today? That'll be $7.50... So oil is a natural resource that because of its scarcity is more expensive the less of it you use? That makes no sense at all.
There's still cheap oil left, just not enough for our insatiable demand. No new fields of cheap stuff. If demand dropped to a fraction, we'd just stop developing new fields and even production in the more expensive old ones, not keep up production at every field, but in tiny quantities. Drop demand enough and those old traditional fields could supply all we need - no need for fracking or deep offshore drilling.
QB is making his response while ignoring some of the words you say. That is why it seems nonsensical. I can tell which words he's ignoring, which helps makes his response make sense (to me).
Irontruth wrote: QB is making his response while ignoring some of the words you say. That is why it seems nonsensical. I can tell which words he's ignoring, which helps makes his response make sense (to me). It's still a nonsensical response.
If he was responding to something else, it might be sensible, but since he was responding to me, it wasn't.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: If we stop burning massive amounts of oil and gas for power, the oil and gas for other uses gets cheaper, not more expensive - less demand, lower prices. That's basic economics. No.
The easy oil has been long gone - think Deep Horizon, North Slope, and Fracking, that's how we get our oil now days - only the hard stuff is there to get. The harder to get, the more it costs, and the only way to keep costs down is to produce it by the metric ####-load.
Limit production to a fraction of that metric ####-load scale and the price goes through the roof and so to do the prices for the dependent "stuff". One apple for your lunch today? That'll be $7.50... So oil is a natural resource that because of its scarcity is more expensive the less of it you use? That makes no sense at all.
There's still cheap oil left, just not enough for our insatiable demand. No new fields of cheap stuff. If demand dropped to a fraction, we'd just stop developing new fields and even production in the more expensive old ones, not keep up production at every field, but in tiny quantities. Drop demand enough and those old traditional fields could supply all we need - no need for fracking or deep offshore drilling. The "by products" of the oil industry are cheap because they are by products.
Producing the oil only for the by products makes them ####### expensive because all the attendant infrastructure costs are now absorbed by the by products and not spread across the metric ####-ton of fuel we burn hourly.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: If we stop burning massive amounts of oil and gas for power, the oil and gas for other uses gets cheaper, not more expensive - less demand, lower prices. That's basic economics. No.
The easy oil has been long gone - think Deep Horizon, North Slope, and Fracking, that's how we get our oil now days - only the hard stuff is there to get. The harder to get, the more it costs, and the only way to keep costs down is to produce it by the metric ####-load.
Limit production to a fraction of that metric ####-load scale and the price goes through the roof and so to do the prices for the dependent "stuff". One apple for your lunch today? That'll be $7.50... So oil is a natural resource that because of its scarcity is more expensive the less of it you use? That makes no sense at all.
There's still cheap oil left, just not enough for our insatiable demand. No new fields of cheap stuff. If demand dropped to a fraction, we'd just stop developing new fields and even production in the more expensive old ones, not keep up production at every field, but in tiny quantities. Drop demand enough and those old traditional fields could supply all we need - no need for fracking or deep offshore drilling. The "by products" of the oil industry are cheap because they are by products.
Producing the oil only for the by products makes them ####### expensive because all the attendant infrastructure costs are now absorbed by the by products and not spread across the metric ####-ton of fuel we burn hourly. That makes a little more sense, but it's an entirely different argument than your first one.
thejeff wrote: Irontruth wrote: QB is making his response while ignoring some of the words you say. That is why it seems nonsensical. I can tell which words he's ignoring, which helps makes his response make sense (to me). It's still a nonsensical response.
If he was responding to something else, it might be sensible, but since he was responding to me, it wasn't. On the face of it... ie... reading the back and forth like a normal person... I agree with you.
At the same time, I've gone down the rabbit hole of QB misreading posts so many times, I know precisely where ignored your words.
Quark Blast wrote: The "by products" of the oil industry are cheap because they are by products.
Producing the oil only for the by products makes them ####### expensive because all the attendant infrastructure costs are now absorbed by the by products and not spread across the metric ####-ton of fuel we burn hourly.
thejeff wrote: That makes a little more sense, but it's an entirely different argument than your first one. Not AS senseless is still senseless.
If we vastly decreased the amount of oil we used then the existing infrastructure would more than cover the need. There'd be no need to build new infrastructure at all. Heck, we could stop doing anything to even maintain the infrastructure and still be able to find enough working equipment to extract more than we need... or run extraction at full capacity for a month and thereby produce enough stored oil to last for decades.
That said, I think the most likely scenario would be that we would go back to using old 'played out' fields of easily extracted oil. There is an old scam where people would sell 'played out' oil fields by showing potential buyers / investors that there was still oil there. This worked because oil would slowly seep in to the original pocket from the surrounding rock. So you could get a little oil very cheaply, making it seem like a great deal. However, when the new owners then went to get full production they'd immediately use up the small supply that had accumulated. If we were using vastly less oil there is no reason we couldn't go back to these old easily tapped resources.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: The "by products" of the oil industry are cheap because they are by products.
Producing the oil only for the by products makes them ####### expensive because all the attendant infrastructure costs are now absorbed by the by products and not spread across the metric ####-ton of fuel we burn hourly.
thejeff wrote: That makes a little more sense, but it's an entirely different argument than your first one. Not AS senseless is still senseless.
If we vastly decreased the amount of oil we used then the existing infrastructure would more than cover the need. There'd be no need to build new infrastructure at all. Heck, we could stop doing anything to even maintain the infrastructure and still be able to find enough working equipment to extract more than we need... or run extraction at full capacity for a month and thereby produce enough stored oil to last for decades.
That said, I think the most likely scenario would be that we would go back to using old 'played out' fields of easily extracted oil. There is an old scam where people would sell 'played out' oil fields by showing potential buyers / investors that there was still oil there. This worked because oil would slowly seep in to the original pocket from the surrounding rock. So you could get a little oil very cheaply, making it seem like a great deal. However, when the new owners then went to get full production they'd immediately use up the small supply that had accumulated. If we were using vastly less oil there is no reason we couldn't go back to these old easily tapped resources. And I get accused of showing my ignorance?!?
The infrastructure required to extract, transport, and refine oil for transportation fuel is immense. It also requires constant, specialized (and therefore expensive) maintenance. Refineries and related infrastructure get torn down to component parts, cleaned and fixed annually by roving teams of specialists. They work 24/7 for several weeks to get things back up and running. The margins are that thin.
Current oil "by products" are going to become a #### of a lot more expensive. The unexpected collateral damage from a blind move off of oil will cost more than another few years of elevated emissions. Which is why the start of the EV revolution is still another decade out (to a degree that matters viz-a-viz AGW), and then another decade at least to finish.
Quark Blast wrote: And I get accused of showing my ignorance?!?
The infrastructure required to extract, transport, and refine oil for transportation fuel is immense.
The entire point of the conversation was that we were talking about uses of oil NOT including transportation fuel.
In any case, the idea that 'big wax' or some other petroleum product will continue to wield massive political power after gasoline use plummets remains ridiculous. Your insistence on branching into endless increasingly nonsensical tangents doesn't obscure the fact that your original objection was also nonsense.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: And I get accused of showing my ignorance?!?
The infrastructure required to extract, transport, and refine oil for transportation fuel is immense.
The entire point of the conversation was that we were talking about uses of oil NOT including transportation fuel.
In any case, the idea that 'big wax' or some other petroleum product will continue to wield massive political power after gasoline use plummets remains ridiculous. Your insistence on branching into endless increasingly nonsensical tangents doesn't obscure the fact that your original objection was also nonsense. Your insistence on consistently misunderstanding what I post doesn't obscure the fact that you still don't have clue about the overall situation. That I can't seem to make you see the big picture is of little concern to me.
By products of the oil-for-transportation business are just that, by products. Make them the primary product and all the attendant infrastructure costs will fall on the by products, as well as the loss in economies of scale, thus making them cost a ####-ton more than they do now.
This near future you imagine might give us virtually free transportation of our goods to market via EVs but increases in the costs of pesticides, fertilizers and road tar will still give you a $7.50 apple.
.
Then there's this:
World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency
World Scientists wrote: Exactly 40 years ago, scientists from 50 nations met at the First World Climate Conference (in Geneva 1979) and agreed that alarming trends for climate change made it urgently necessary to act. Since then, similar alarms have been made through the 1992 Rio Summit, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the 2015 Paris Agreement, as well as scores of other global assemblies and scientists’ explicit warnings of insufficient progress (Ripple et al. 2017). Yet greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are still rapidly rising, with increasingly damaging effects on the Earth's climate. An immense increase of scale in endeavors to conserve our biosphere is needed to avoid untold suffering due to the climate crisis (IPCC 2018)....
Profoundly troubling signs from human activities include sustained increases in both human and ruminant livestock populations, per capita meat production, world gross domestic product, global tree cover loss, fossil fuel consumption, the number of air passengers carried, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and per capita CO2 emissions since 2000 (figure 1, supplemental file S2)....
As of 2018, approximately 14.0% of global GHG emissions were covered by carbon pricing (figure 1m), but the global emissions-weighted average price per tonne of carbon dioxide was only around US$15.25 (figure 1n). A much higher carbon fee price is needed (IPCC 2018, section 2.5.2.1)....
Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have generally conducted business as usual and have largely failed to address this predicament (figure 1). The climate crisis has arrived and [bis accelerating faster than most scientists expected[/b] (figure 2, IPCC 2018). It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity (IPCC 2019). Especially worrisome are potential irreversible climate tipping points and nature's reinforcing feedbacks (atmospheric, marine, and terrestrial) that could lead to a catastrophic “hothouse Earth,” well beyond the control of humans (Steffen et al. 2018)....
This article says what I've been saying for a good long time now. And unlike my detractors, and their faux characterizations of my statements, these are five well-respected university scientists/researchers and 11,258 of their peers backing virtually every statement made by me regarding AGW in this thread.
I would gloat now but what's the point? My detractors would simply misread something into that too, because that's what they do.
|
