Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 16
The Modern World Can't Exist Without These Four Ingredients. They All Require Fossil Fuels
https://time.com/6175734/reliance-on-fossil-fuels/
Four materials rank highest on the scale of necessity, forming what I have called the four pillars of modern civilization: cement, steel, plastics, and ammonia are needed in larger quantities than are other essential inputs. The world now produces annually about 4.5 billion tons of cement, 1.8 billion tons of steel, nearly 400 million tons of plastics, and 180 million tons of ammonia.

But it is ammonia that deserves the top position as our most important material: its synthesis is the basis of all nitrogen fertilizers, and without their applications it would be impossible to feed, at current levels, nearly half of today’s nearly 8 billion people.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
But it is ammonia that deserves the top position as our most important material: its synthesis is the basis of all nitrogen fertilizers, and without their applications it would be impossible to feed, at current levels, nearly half of today’s nearly 8 billion people.

DB2

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

We do not need fossil fuels for producing ammonia. There is green ammonia using renewable energy.

Iberdrola and fertilizer producer Fertiberia will launch a 100 MW green ammonia project in Puertollano, Spain. Estimated at $175 million, the 100 MW photovoltaic plant will produce green hydrogen, which Fertiberia will then combine with nitrogen at its existing fertilizer plant to produce ammonia – despite the scale of the project, Fertiberia estimates that it will reduce its natural gas consumption by only 10%. As an existing market for hydrogen, fertilizer plants offer ideal opportunities for near-term deployment of electrolysis projects. There is still a lack of financial incentives for low-carbon fertilizers, but fertilizer companies – especially in Europe – will be swept up by the momentum in decarbonization and will have to adapt.

https://members.luxresearchinc.com/research/news_commentary/...

Also we do not need fossil fuels are for cement or steel. They can be made using renewable energy.

https://www.constrofacilitator.com/green-cement-advantages-t...

https://www.bioenergyconsult.com/green-steel/#:~:text=Green%....

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Also we do not need fossil fuels are for cement or steel. They can be made using renewable energy.


"can be" is different than "being made " from renewable energy.
How do you build a new factory to make renewable fertilizer, for example, if you have to use fossil fuels to make the steel and cement for the factory?
The answer is that the transition takes a long long time.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Thanks for the extract and link. The Time story is basically one chapter from a new book that came out last week. It's called How The World Really Works by Vaclav Smil - a prof in Canada.

I pre-ordered the Kindle edition of the book which came out last week. I'm about 80% through it now. A lot of it is pretty interesting, but it's not the easiest read.

At the Berkshire annual meeting, there was an anecdote about a Washington Post editor advising Buffett that "You don't have to tell all you know." This author too often gets into too much detail when trying to make his point about how deeply fossil fuels are ingrained in all of modern civilization. Less would be more.

But his overall point is valid. Our way of life is basically built on the cheap energy available from fossil fuels. And it's going to be very difficult to replace them - not only in the time frame from now to 2050, but at all. Electricity can't do it. And the materials and massive investments required to even make a major step are vastly misunderstood.

Worth a read for those seriously interested in what will really be required to move on from fossil fuels.

Facts are stubborn things - even if they're unwelcome.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I read a review of "How The World Really Works by Vaclav Smil" a few weeks ago.

Very impressive that there's "5 cups of diesel fuel in a tomato". Maybe I should be growing some on my back deck.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
And it's going to be very difficult to replace them - not only in the time frame from now to 2050, but at all. Electricity can't do it. And the materials and massive investments required to even make a major step are vastly misunderstood.

True - but not by everyone. Smil's point is basically the reason why we have the "blah blah blah" climate policies that are in place through most of the western developed economies: grand rhetoric paired with actual measures that are far too small to make a real dent in emissions. Policy-makers are well aware of the scale involved with decarbonizing, and they know that there's no practical way to make sufficient changes at that scale. They also know their voters don't want to hear that.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.

Thanks for the extract and link. The Time story is basically one chapter from a new book that came out last week. It's called How The World Really Works by Vaclav Smil - a prof in Canada.

...

But his overall point is valid. Our way of life is basically built on the cheap energy available from fossil fuels. And it's going to be very difficult to replace them - not only in the time frame from now to 2050, but at all. Electricity can't do it. And the materials and massive investments required to even make a major step are vastly misunderstood.

...

Facts are stubborn things - even if they're unwelcome.


Thanks Tex, I think at least some are starting to see the lights (still fueled by Nat gas and coal) come on.

It is easy to predict the future for the next 30 years ... unless you want to live in the real world? I've listened to the massive BS propaganda about how the Germans were only months away from all clean energy while watching Coal, Lignite, Russian Nat gas and even burning trees from their forests for many years. Absolutely none of it was true but ... well it's coming ... someday.

Angela Merkel played her part in the fraud perfectly and chose her exit with equal perfect timing. Rare with so many fringe parties involved.

Tim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Even short reviews of the book are more informative than 50 hours of stupefying and malinformed GCC news....


david fb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How do you build a new factory to make renewable fertilizer, for example, if you have to use fossil fuels to make the steel and cement for the factory?
The answer is that the transition takes a long long time.

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

Just like the transition to EVs is taking a long time. In CA you will not be able to purchase a new ICE car in 2030. But it will happen that EVs is replace ICE cars, SAF and batteries will replace jet fuel, renewable energy will replace fossil fuel energy for electricity, and so many more modern innovations will replace the old way of making ammonia, cement and steel.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've listened to the massive BS propaganda about how the Germans were only months away from all clean energy while watching Coal, Lignite, Russian Nat gas and even burning trees from their forests for many years. Absolutely none of it was true but ... well it's coming ... someday.

Tim

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

I think you are the one that is making up stories about Germany while your own Canada is doing a worse job then Germany.

Canada has sky high CO2 emissions per capita. It has no real plans for reducing CO2 emissions. Nova Scotia is still burning coal for electricity after years of promises to not continue burning coal.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Policy-makers are well aware of the scale involved with decarbonizing, and they know that there's no practical way to make sufficient changes at that scale. They also know their voters don't want to hear that.

Albaby

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

Some policy-makers are aware of the scale and have proposed big changes to decarbonize. For example, President Biden wanted BBB passed to really make a dent into the CO2 emissions by transportation, industry, commercial and government facilities, and utilities. We know the people who did not want BBB passed. These people ignorantly think climate change will not impact them or our economy. It is already happening.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
But his overall point is valid. Our way of life is basically built on the cheap energy available from fossil fuels.

Our way of life at one time depended on the cheap energy available from the wind.

Question, if we could transition from wind to fossil fuels why can't we transition from fossil fuels to other ways of getting cheap energy?

The Captain


BTW, before wind is was galley slaves... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax7wcShvrus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Policy-makers are well aware of the scale involved with decarbonizing, and they know that there's no practical way to make sufficient changes at that scale. They also know their voters don't want to hear that.

Or about costs. From last month....

As sticker shock for solar power looms, Maine lawmakers consider options
www.pressherald.com/2022/04/12/costs-of-solar-policy-under-s...
Two bills now before the Legislature are aimed at reducing future sticker shock for electricity customers, without completely eroding the incentives that have attracted hundreds of millions of dollars in solar investment from across the world in the past few years.

If passed, the bills, L.D. 634 and L.D. 1026, would amend Maine’s net energy billing rules, which dictate how certain classes of solar developers are paid for the power generated by their projects....

One estimate from the Public Utilities Commission calculated that delivery rates could rise more than 44% by 2025, if projects totaling 1,667 megawatts of capacity come online. But if solar reimbursements are trimmed as proposed in L.D. 634 and all proposed projects are built, delivery rates could still rise 35% or so, according to Harwood’s estimates.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
As sticker shock for solar power looms, Maine lawmakers consider options ...


Oh wait a minute, aren't these the guys that block cheap clean Quebec hydro power from being delivered on the US East coast?

Let them burn the wood furniture on cold winter days!

Anymouse <probably won't be around when the proverbial poop hits the vertical fan>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Question, if we could transition from wind to fossil fuels why can't we transition from fossil fuels to other ways of getting cheap energy?

Energy density?

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
How do you build a new factory to make renewable fertilizer, for example, if you have to use fossil fuels to make the steel and cement for the factory?

From the linked article:

"A typical lithium car battery weighing about 450 kilograms contains about 11 kilograms of lithium, nearly 14 kilograms of cobalt, 27 kilograms of nickel, more than 40 kilograms of copper, and 50 kilograms of graphite—as well as about 181 kilograms of steel, aluminum, and plastics. Supplying these materials for a single vehicle requires processing about 40 tons of ores, and given the low concentration of many elements in their ores it necessitates extracting and processing about 225 tons of raw materials."

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Energy density?

Energy density is certainly a critical factor where payload is concerned. It was lead/acid batteries that were holding back EVs but not all application are hindered by low energy density. Most uses of electricity are 'stationary' where cost is much more relevant than energy density. They are already experimenting with electric airplanes and electric drones are now flying everywhere. Don't bet against progress!!!

It was over 100 years ago that Winston Churchill wanted to transition the Royal Navy from coal to petrol and declared that petrol was a legitimate war aim (to grab Mesopotamian oil fields). We still use coal. Eliminating the use of fossil fuels is a pipe dream but I see the increase of renewables as a given.

The Captain
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"A typical lithium car battery weighing about 450 kilograms contains about 11 kilograms of lithium, nearly 14 kilograms of cobalt, 27 kilograms of nickel.....

The author needs an 'over-the-air' update!

Typical lithium car batteries are transitioning to LFP with ZERO cobalt and ZERO nickel. Iron happens to be quite common and much cheaper than Nickel.

We live in a world of increasingly faster progress while Luddites live at least a century in the past. They write articles. Do they still use quill pens?

The Captain
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Most uses of electricity are 'stationary' where cost is much more relevant than energy density.

Costs are always important. :-)

Costs and the ease of transition you were asking about are both related to energy density. Density here means both the amount of energy per mass and how concentrated the supply is.

Thinking about the British navy, the energy available per mass in coal or oil is much greater than found in the wind. Local concentration is also important. Taking advantage of a large resource, say the Powder River coal deposits, is easier that finding the same amount of coal in a million back yards. (Think about Mao encouraging backyard steel furnaces during the Great Leap Forward.)

Back to your transition question. The industrial revolution was helped along by using concentrated energy. It is more difficult to collect, concentrate and store diffuse wind and solar energy.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
We live in a world of increasingly faster progress while Luddites live at least a century in the past.

Yeap.

1. The transition requires technical VISION and KNOWLEDGE which are not common traits across individuals but rather require a coherent society that is capable of finding and empowering knowledgable technical visionaries -- a difficult but doable result that first requires political and cultural wisdoms, much more difficult to achieve.Thge USA still has a lot of this (Musk, Jobs, Rickover....) but not enough. Most of the world and much of the populace and political powers of the USA still do not have a clue.

Einstein, Bucky Fuller, and some other visionaries of the last 100 years were emphatic that due to the speed of technical advancement humanity would soon face a "final exam" that we were all too likely to fail. We are currently failing.

david fb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Density here means both the amount of energy per mass and how concentrated the supply is.

I'm sorry but I don't follow how it might apply to wind and solar. What density do they have? How do you measure it?


Thinking about the British navy,

Last I heard the British navy was not "stationary." LOL


Back to your transition question. The industrial revolution was helped along by using concentrated energy. It is more difficult to collect, concentrate and store diffuse wind and solar energy.

Yes but it is a false analogy. Plants have been collecting sunlight one by one for ever. My point is that with wind and solar we are going back to distributed energy instead of using solely concentrated utility scale energy. The grid makes it possible. Homes are already pumping energy into the grid.

The Captain
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Einstein, Bucky Fuller, and some other visionaries of the last 100 years were emphatic that due to the speed of technical advancement humanity would soon face a "final exam" that we were all too likely to fail. We are currently failing.

Thanks for that! I like the Israeli spirit, "The difficult we do right away. The impossible takes a little longer."

I had the great luck of working for a company that expected me to do the impossible. Once I was asked if I knew a certain machine. "No." My boss continued, "A customer with a problem is coming this afternoon. Fix it." I replied, "I just told you, I don't know that machine!" He ended the conversation with, "That's YOUR problem."

The company? IBM back in 1961.

The Captain
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Some policy-makers are aware of the scale and have proposed big changes to decarbonize. For example, President Biden wanted BBB passed to really make a dent into the CO2 emissions by transportation, industry, commercial and government facilities, and utilities.

Your example supports Smil's point, not yours. The BBB was not a "big change," and it would not have "really made a dent" in CO2 emissions. That's Smil's point - people are so blinded to the massive scale of what it would really take to decarbonize, that politicians are able to brand tiny changes to emissions as being important, even though they will really only have a trivial impact on future climate emissions. Even what the Democrats were proposing as going big on climate change would have had a tiny impact on overall emissions. Even the BBB was just more "blah blah blah" - better than absolutely nothing, but also nowhere near the size and scale of what would be needed to actually "make a dent" in emissions.

Policy-makers know this. They know that there's no way to actually implement the kind of radically disruptive changes to the economy that actual movement towards decarbonization would require. Which is why they don't try to do it.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Policy-makers know this. They know that there's no way to actually implement the kind of radically disruptive changes to the economy that actual movement towards decarbonization would require. Which is why they don't try to do it.

Well said.

Fundamentally, we can't reduce emissions on a vast scale quickly because of the politics involved. Politics are local while climate change is global.

Equally fundamental is that we can't accomplish massive reduced emissions without lowering standards of living in developed nations. Why? Because doing so will require huge sums of money, and it must ultimately come from the citizens in terms of higher prices and taxes without immediate benefits.

But can't the governments just print the required money? Maybe, but with the accompanying impact of higher inflation as we're now seeing. Another form of taxation.

So living standards get reduced in the short range and are personal while climate change gets reduced long range and is shared by all. That's not the way to get reelected.

I recognize the foregoing is not that well said. But I think those are the basic challenges.

The technical issues can be worked over time. Even now steel makers are looking at using hydrogen to partially or totally replace the coke and natural gas used today. But that will come at a higher price unless electricity becomes almost free from wind and solar. But even then massive investments in materials and distribution will be required and the storage problems for intermittent supply must be solved for electricity. And the new steel making processes will involve modifying and replacing existing blast furnaces. More time and money.

Just one example. Technology efforts are underway in all the "four pillars" to develop more climate friendly means of supply. But all will face issues of higher costs and new investments.

And the politics involved in change on a massive scale. People don't like change.

I was discussing all this with a good Irish friend. He said that such change won't happen until the pain of not changing exceeds the pain of changing.

We're making some progress in that direction. But to quote from a song from the movie Smokey and the Bandit: "We've got a long way to go, and a short time to get there."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Even what the Democrats were proposing as going big on climate change would have had a tiny impact on overall emissions. Even the BBB was just more "blah blah blah" - better than absolutely nothing, but also nowhere near the size and scale of what would be needed to actually "make a dent" in emissions.

Policy-makers know this. They know that there's no way to actually implement the kind of radically disruptive changes to the economy that actual movement towards decarbonization would require. Which is why they don't try to do it.

Albaby


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

You missed the point that I was making. BBB was a good attempt at getting some climate change legislation completed. Your silly words on BBB is just political right wing BS. My point was that the fossil fuels industry demanded and got all conservative Senators to stop BBB from being approved.

We know that the enemy of radically disruptive changes for climate change are the conservative who are owned by the fossil fuel industry.

At least Biden administration is trying to make changes in all kinds of areas to reduce CO2 emissions. These changes include supporting EVs, increasing mileage requirements for cars, applying new emissions requirements on fossil power plants, grid improvements, energy efficiency requirements, and penalizing fossil fuels.

Several states and cities are doing even more to reduce CO2 emissions with radically disruptive changes to transportation, power generation, grid improvements, energy efficiency requirements, and penalizing fossil fuels.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Fundamentally, we can't reduce emissions on a vast scale quickly because of the politics involved. Politics are local while climate change is global.

Equally fundamental is that we can't accomplish massive reduced emissions without lowering standards of living in developed nations. Why? Because doing so will require huge sums of money, and it must ultimately come from the citizens in terms of higher prices and taxes without immediate benefits.

But can't the governments just print the required money? Maybe, but with the accompanying impact of higher inflation as we're now seeing. Another form of taxation.

So living standards get reduced in the short range and are personal while climate change gets reduced long range and is shared by all. That's not the way to get reelected.

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

You just seem to think that reducing CO2 emissions is so complex and costly.

The 4 pillars are not the dominate cause of CO2 emissions. Transportation, electrical power generation, and heating are the major causes of CO2 emissions. So what are the solutions:

1. Carbon tax
2. Transportation: Transition from ICE to EV cars, increase mileage requirement, and improve mass transit.
3. Electrical power generation: Stop burning coal and oil by 2030, stop burning nat gas by 2040-2050.
4. Improve industrial process to convert from coal and gas to electricity by 2040.
5. Improve commercial, government, and residential heating/cooling to use energy efficient electrical equipment instead of coal, oil and nat gas by 2040.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And the politics involved in change on a massive scale. People don't like change.

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

People in the America have already said they want to get rid of fossil fuels to fight climate change. It is only the conservative politicians (bought by the fossil fuels) who keep telling lies to the American people that it is too hard and too costly.

https://medialibrary.climatecentral.org/resources/growing-pu...

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Fix it." I replied, "I just told you, I don't know that machine!" He ended the conversation with, "That's YOUR problem."

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

Did you fix the machine?

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"A typical lithium car battery weighing about 450 kilograms contains about 11 kilograms of lithium, nearly 14 kilograms of cobalt, 27 kilograms of nickel, more than 40 kilograms of copper, and 50 kilograms of graphite—as well as about 181 kilograms of steel, aluminum, and plastics. Supplying these materials for a single vehicle requires processing about 40 tons of ores, and given the low concentration of many elements in their ores it necessitates extracting and processing about 225 tons of raw materials."

DB2

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

A typical ICE car would require similar amounts of raw materials with similar processing of ores, and given the low concentration of many elements in their ores it necessitates extracting and processing about the same amount of raw materials for ICE as for EV.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Back to your transition question. The industrial revolution was helped along by using concentrated energy. It is more difficult to collect, concentrate and store diffuse wind and solar energy.

DB2

--------------------------------------------------------------

The countries around the world are showing that wind and solar are cheaper and cleaner than coal. So I do not know why luddites do not see the advantages that power engineers have seen around the world.

Hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and other renewables will rule the future with a little help from nuclear. Coal, oil, and nat gas will wither and die.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You missed the point that I was making. BBB was a good attempt at getting some climate change legislation completed.

"Even what the Democrats were proposing as going big on climate change would have had a tiny impact on overall emissions."

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"Even what the Democrats were proposing as going big on climate change would have had a tiny impact on overall emissions."

Got to start somewhere. That said, lobbies will put whatever pressure they can on decision makers to slow the extinction of their industry. That's their job. It's the elected official's job to ignore the bribe and do what is best for the people they represent.

Our system of gov't started out well in theory, but has been corrupted.

IP
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's the elected official's job to ignore the bribe and do what is best for the people they represent. Our system of gov't started out well in theory, but has been corrupted.

Could be, but that doesn't change the fact that the transformations desired have enormous cost and people don't want to pay enormous costs.

The BBC interviewed Professor Sir Dieter Helm, an economist at Oxford University. It starts at 32 minutes into the program.
www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001471v
"There’s a juggernaut of cost to come..."

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
You missed the point that I was making. BBB was a good attempt at getting some climate change legislation completed.

I didn't miss your point. I agree with it - BBB was an attempt (whether good or not) at getting "some" climate change legislation completed. It's just that the "some" climate change legislation is utterly trivial relative to requirements.

Voters in western economies want their governments to fight climate change. They also do not want to pay any significant cost to fight climate change. And if required to choose between accepting a super-hot climate or paying the cost to prevent a super-hot climate, they will choose to accept the super-hot climate. They'd rather heat the planet than pay more for energy.

Smil's point is that Greens (and voters) completely downplay the enormity of the scale of actually preventing climate change, so that they can pretend to themselves that there's a way to fight climate change that doesn't require paying an enormous cost.

Politicians - even Green politicians - are aware that voters will vote them out of office if they do anything that will impose significant costs on them. That's why a carbon tax - which is necessary but not sufficient to fight climate change - is off the table, even for progressives. Voters won't support it. Not because fossil fuel companies are evil liars who lie (which is certainly true), but because voters don't actually want to pay more for energy beyond a trivial amount.

The enemies of radical disruptive changes for climate changes aren't just conservatives or the fossil fuel companies. It's the public at large. Only when we delude ourselves about the magnitude of the changes required can we convince ourselves that it's a small number of special interests that are stopping effective responses to climate change. That's because the small number of special interests are currently fighting the trivial and ineffective responses to climate change, so it looks like they're the problem. But all they're doing is stopping stuff that wouldn't solve the problem anyway. In reality, non-trivial and effective responses to climate change don't even get proposed - ever - because they are utterly impossible to get done.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"Hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and other renewables will rule the future with a little help from nuclear. Coal, oil, and nat gas will wither and die."

Probably true, just not in the lifetime of anyone currently living.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The BBC interviewed Professor Sir Dieter Helm, an economist at Oxford University. It starts at 32 minutes into the program.
www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001471v
"There’s a juggernaut of cost to come..."


I'm posting to endorse DB2's link. It's only 7 minutes if you fast forward to 32 minutes.

And Prof. Dieter speaks truth. Local citizens are going to pay the costs of decarbonizing their own operations. But they're going to be impacted by the actions of other countries - particularly China, India, and those in Africa.

As others have pointed out, these facts are known by experts and policy advisors. They're just not widely publicized. They need to be.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Politicians - even Green politicians - are aware that voters will vote them out of office if they do anything that will impose significant costs on them.

No countries have delivered on promise to improve climate plans
www.newscientist.com/article/2320379-cop26-no-countries-have...
One of the headline promises of the Glasgow Climate Pact [2021] was that this year, 196 countries would “revisit and strengthen” their plans for curbing emissions by 2030....Sharma said that the UK government is looking at ways to strengthen its 2030 national climate plan, but to date, no countries have formally submitted a blueprint that goes further than what they promised before or at COP26.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
no countries have formally submitted a blueprint that goes further than what they promised before or at COP26.

DB2


So if a country was already running a Carbon Tax that increased annually before COP26 ... that doesn't count because well they were doing it before COP26?

No wonder nations give up and go back to their good old polluting ways?

Anymouse
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
1. Carbon tax

In the last year or two we've experience an effective over 100% carbon tax (at least for vehicle carbon usage). How much do you think that will reduce overall CO2 emissions, and over what period of time?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The strongest arguments for Carbon Tax to control GCC all depend on creating a solid expectation that

1) Hydrocarbons are expensive and will
2) Continually reliably keep getting more expensive so
3) Only insane people will buy ICE vehicles and poorly insulated homes and
4) Public Utilities will push to non GCC modes of energy production as fast as possible

No one likes gas price spikes, but they are used to them coming and going.


david fb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
In the last year or two we've experience an effective over 100% carbon tax (at least for vehicle carbon usage). How much do you think that will reduce overall CO2 emissions, and over what period of time?

High gasoline prices discourage driving, but only a little. The main benefit is people tend to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Voters in western economies want their governments to fight climate change. They also do not want to pay any significant cost to fight climate change. And if required to choose between accepting a super-hot climate or paying the cost to prevent a super-hot climate, they will choose to accept the super-hot climate. They'd rather heat the planet than pay more for energy.

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

I disagree. The world is already undergoing a major/radical change away from fossil fuels because the public wants it and politicians know they only have a few years left to keep lying to voters. Also the fossil fuels companies know their years are numbered and they are busy getting into alternative energies.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
I disagree. The world is already undergoing a major/radical change away from fossil fuels because the public wants it and politicians know they only have a few years left to keep lying to voters. Also the fossil fuels companies know their years are numbered and they are busy getting into alternative energies.

I don't think either part of that statement is true. The world is undergoing a minor, relatively modest change away from fossil fuels - which still comprise the vast majority of the world's electrical power generation and virtually all of its other energy needs, because the public doesn't want to pay more for energy in order to internalize the carbon externality.

We are adopting renewables at the margins, which means there's a lot of opportunity for growth and profit in that business (which is why the fossil majors want in), and which depresses the opportunities for growth in the fossil fuels business. But shifting where marginal new production takes place and changing the production of what is already in place fast enough to matter are two very different things. That's Smil's point.

We're going to do some small, cheap things that aren't enough to fight climate change - and we'll pretend that those things are major and radical. And then we won't do the things that could be enough to fight climate change - because they're so enormous that they're effectively impossible.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"I disagree."

Do you have any evidence for disagreeing with the opinion?

You might disagree with those people, but the evidence is clear. People do NOT want to pay more for energy.

As Wendy said, it's the tragedy of the commons.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Politicians - even Green politicians - are aware that voters will vote them out of office if they do anything that will impose significant costs on them. That's why a carbon tax - which is necessary but not sufficient to fight climate change - is off the table, even for progressives. Voters won't support it. Not because fossil fuel companies are evil liars who lie (which is certainly true), but because voters don't actually want to pay more for energy beyond a trivial amount.

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

I disagree. Green politicians are gaining ground every day. Germany elected Greens, California elected Greens, EU is passing Green laws, maybe even Canada will start cutting CO2 emissions.

Voters are the ones electing Greens and voters passed Carbon taxes in many states and in Europe.

Voters are pushing the politicians to spend more money to reduce climate change effects. They are sick and tired of massive storms, floods, fires, pollution caused by fossil fuels.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The enemies of radical disruptive changes for climate changes aren't just conservatives or the fossil fuel companies. It's the public at large.

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

I disagree. The public at large are not even given a chance to vote. The conservatives and fossil fuel companies will not allow changes to come to pass (even moderate changes little BBB), and they have brain washed a segment of the country into believing that climate change is just a haux.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
I disagree. Green politicians are gaining ground every day. Germany elected Greens, California elected Greens, EU is passing Green laws, maybe even Canada will start cutting CO2 emissions.

Voters are the ones electing Greens and voters passed Carbon taxes in many states and in Europe.


None of that conflicts with my statements. Greens get elected - and then they don't even suggest, let alone really push for, the scope of changes that would *actually* be required to fight climate change.

Again, this is why Greta Thunberg has dismissed these folks - even the government ministers with official portfolio over climate change - as engaging in little but "blah blah blah." They pass Green laws, but they're all too weak to have a material impact. They pass carbon taxes (sometimes), but they're all either too low or too poorly structured to matter.

That's Smil's point - they pass things that allow Green supporters (like yourself) to mistakenly believe they're doing something significant, or even particularly useful, while failing to do any of the things that are necessary. The things that would have to be done in order to actually fight climate change enough to avoid a materially hotter world are things that are so costly that no political group is seriously putting forward.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
1. Carbon tax

In the last year or two we've experience an effective over 100% carbon tax (at least for vehicle carbon usage). How much do you think that will reduce overall CO2 emissions, and over what period of time?

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

Gasoline prices have only been higher than usual in the the last 6 months.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&...

I think we will see gasoline usage drop in direct proportion to the price of gasoline. CO2 emissions are directly related to gasoline consumption.

We do not have gasoline consumption data for the last 6 months, but here are the numbers for 2021 and first two months of 2022.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and other renewables will rule the future with a little help from nuclear. Coal, oil, and nat gas will wither and die."

Probably true, just not in the lifetime of anyone currently living.

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

It will be true in Europe and USA by 2050. I will take longer for the rest of the world.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You might disagree with those people, but the evidence is clear. People do NOT want to pay more for energy.

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

The evidence in California, New York, and Europe is that people will and do pay more for energy because they want to get rid of fossil fuels. If California can do it then the rest of the world can follow.

Californians are buying solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy, energy storage, electric vehicles, home batteries, upgrades to buildings for efficient low carbon energy, and many other innovations for energy savings.

Californians figured out that you can pay less for energy by using less energy in many ways. Going to the grocery store or commuting to work in Ford F-150, F-250 or F-350 is wasteful, but in Texas they do it because of macho image. In California EVs and Hybrids are used more than in any other state per capita.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
The evidence in California, New York, and Europe is that people will and do pay more for energy because they want to get rid of fossil fuels. If California can do it then the rest of the world can follow.

People are willing to pay a little more for energy. They are not willing to pay enough more for energy to matter.

They reconcile that reality with their desire to save the planet by pretending that the small amount they are willing to pay more for energy is enough to materially affect climate change. It is not. Which is why the types of proposals that could materially affect climate change (like a really large carbon tax) never get proposed even by very liberal governments (like that of California). Because even in California, they know that a carbon tax big enough to matter is one big enough to get them voted out of office.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
One more comment that the good professor made at the very end of his interview. He said: "It's going to be at least 2 degrees C warmer, and it may well be 3 degrees or more."

I hold the view that we're focusing too much on decarbonization and not enough on defense against a significantly warmer climate.

Can Miami be defended with dikes? How about Boston or NYC - or other major oceanside metropolises? Those steps are also going to take a long time to define, fund, and implement. Where are the studies on that in the public mind? And steps to implement? Must populations be relocated?

What about agriculture? Which major producing areas will fade away at 2C or 3C scenarios? Where will the replacement fool supply come from?

What new seeds will be needed to better cope with higher temperatures and perhaps diminished water supplies? Are those developments underway? With sufficient funding?

What populations will have to be relocated for lack of food and water? Who will be responsible?

Given the outlook reinforced by this thread that decarbonization efforts will not be sufficient to avoid 2+C higher temperatures, these are just some of the questions that come to mind. How do we prepare?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I hold the view that we're focusing too much on decarbonization and not enough on defense against a significantly warmer climate.

</snip>


What's the defense against the oceans boiling off?

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
What's the defense...

The same as always!

https://gifer.com/es/4OLZ

The moment when Al Gore during the Prez debates was unfortunately and stupidly audibly heard to sigh upon hearing W Bush's swashbuckling ignorance on GCC, I knew we were gonna be screwed for decades to come with no escape.


david fb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
We're going to do some small, cheap things that aren't enough to fight climate change - and we'll pretend that those things are major and radical.

I think the world is ready to accelerate the pace of change to Green energy. Solar is now cheaper than oil. There is NO reason to replace your HVAC going forward with gas vs. Solar?

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Fossil-Fu...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
MarkR: 1. Carbon tax

In the last year or two we've experience an effective over 100% carbon tax (at least for vehicle carbon usage). How much do you think that will reduce overall CO2 emissions, and over what period of time?



The tax started at $20 per ton in 2019 and rose $10 per ton each year until reaching $50 per ton in 2022. The goal, in part, is for Canada to meet its obligation to the Paris Agreement. That means cutting Canada's carbon pollution by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030.Apr 7, 2022


https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services...

How carbon pricing works

Information on Canada’s carbon pollution pricing system
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and other renewables will rule the future with a little help from nuclear. Coal, oil, and nat gas will wither and die."

Probably true, just not in the lifetime of anyone currently living.


I suspect that coal, oil, and methane will outlast fossil fuels by at least a century.

However (a) that'll be almost entirely for uses other than burning them for energy, and (b) first we gotta find more efficient (and faster) ways to synthesize them from air, water, and sunlight than nature has come up with.

On the latter, it'll help that producing them is not one of nature's goals - there's no evolutionary pressure on plants to turn into oil faster.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
People are willing to pay a little more for energy. They are not willing to pay enough more for energy to matter.

They reconcile that reality with their desire to save the planet by pretending that the small amount they are willing to pay more for energy is enough to materially affect climate change. It is not. Which is why the types of proposals that could materially affect climate change (like a really large carbon tax) never get proposed even by very liberal governments (like that of California). Because even in California, they know that a carbon tax big enough to matter is one big enough to get them voted out of office.

Albaby

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

You keep saying this but where is your backup that says the current efforts at reducing CO2 emissions is not enough to affect climate change?

California and some other states and countries are measurably reducing their CO2 emissions. These states and countries are not pretending anything. Their goals are to meet the UN climate change targets. They have passed carbon tax rules, renewable energy rules, electric vehicle rules, and many other rules to reduce CO2 emissions.

This is all work in progress which is reducing CO2 emissions. And as more and more requirements become mandatory more and more CO2 emissions are eliminated.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
What's the defense against the oceans boiling off?

To stop consuming disaster porn (what Wendy might call click bait).

As you may know, the earth has been generally cooling for the last 50 million years and during the last 3-5 million years. Overall, there are three basic states for climate -- hothouse, icehouse and in between. The icehouse state is characterized by ice at the poles, so you know where we find ourselves now. In fact, the Little Ice Age period which ended a couple of centuries ago was the coldest in several hundred million years.

At any rate, the oceans have never boiled off.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Also we do not need fossil fuels are for cement or steel.

For steel sector, China’s decarbonization is a costly quest
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insight...
China's lofty ambitions to hit peak carbon emission by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 have pushed major Chinese steelmakers to chart a greener route to production as they increasingly become interested in developing direct reduced iron, or DRI, plants using hydrogen and natural gas. But rising decarbonization costs and the expected dominance of traditional blast furnace-converter route in the Chinese steel industry for the foreseeable future is set to slow the sector's transition....Reducing emissions at blast furnace-converter route would also be costly and challenging....

Carbon-free steel refers to the production of one metric ton of steel that emits less than 0.5 mt of CO2, which means steelmaking in blast furnace-converter route will need to cut its carbon emissions by over 80%....Production costs will soar, requiring more than $150/mt extra to produce iron, compared to iron that comes from conventional blast furnaces, according to Baosteel data....

China last year came out with mandatory output cut measures, a short-term but effective solution to control emissions. Steel output cuts will prevent the steel industry's carbon emissions from rebounding....

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
You keep saying this but where is your backup that says the current efforts at reducing CO2 emissions is not enough to affect climate change?

California and some other states and countries are measurably reducing their CO2 emissions.


California produced more energy-related GHG emissions in 2019 than it did in 2010:

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/excel/table1...

Even taking the single most favorable comparison - 2019 emissions of 358.2 million metric tons to the peak emissions in 2007 of 402.6 million metric tons, California has only reduced emissions at a rate less than 1% per year. Most of which progress stopped some time ago (as noted above, emissions have been rising over the last decade). And that's in one of the best states in the country, and in one of the easiest states in the country (because California has always had very large hydro power and never really had a big coal generation infrastructure and is very heavily insolated), and in the easiest sector to decarbonize (electricity generation, which is only a small portion of GHG emissions).

It's nowhere near enough. I'm sure it makes some Californians feel good about their state (which isn't nothing), but it's virtually nothing compared to the scope what would need to happen for Californians to be doing what's necessary to effect their share of the change needed to fight material warming. Which involves not just reducing their own emissions to very near zero, but also to be paying a significant proportion of the cost of other countries (like China and India) to refrain from increasing their emissions.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
California produced more energy-related GHG emissions in 2019 than it did in 2010:

Even taking the single most favorable comparison - 2019 emissions of 358.2 million metric tons to the peak emissions in 2007 of 402.6 million metric tons, California has only reduced emissions at a rate less than 1% per year.

Albaby
==================================================================

I think you are cherry picking data.

California started to fight GHG emissions with the passage of Proposition 32 in 2006. I think you were expecting miracles by 2007?

----------------------------------------------
The passage of AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, marked a watershed moment in California’s history. By requiring in law a sharp reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, California set the stage for its transition to a sustainable, low-carbon future. AB 32 was the first program in the country to take a comprehensive, long-term approach to addressing climate change, and does so in a way that aims to improve the environment and natural resources while maintaining a robust economy.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/ab-32-global-wa....
-----------------------------------------------

It takes a few years to make changes to GHG emissions while the California population was growing from 36 million in 2007 to 39 million in 2019 (a 10% increase). The CA GHG emissions in 2007 were 488 million tons of CO2eq and in 2019 were 418 million tons of CO2eq. This represents a 14.3% decline in GHG CO2eq emissions of 1.1% per year. Another measure of the progress would be the per capita GHG in 2007 were 13.2 tons and in 2019 were 10.5 tons.

I think we will see the 418 million tons CO2eq GHG in 2019 rapidly being reduced to 350 million in time frame 2021-2030 because of EVs, more solar, more geothermal, more energy storage and more efficiency. CO2eq emissions will decrease at an average rate of 2% or 8 million tons of CO2eq per year.

The average rate of decrease should increase after 2030 should increase to 16 million tons of CO2eq per year until 2040 and reduce emissions to 30 million tons of CO2eq in 2050 and to zero in 2052.

https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/g...

Transportation accounts for 40% of GHG emissions in California. With insignificant ICE vehicles in California by 2035, this sector should come down rapidly.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
As you may know, the earth has been generally cooling for the last 50 million years and during the last 3-5 million years.

Also over the last 11,000 years - the current interglacial period began 12,000 years ago. There has been a cycle with a period of about 1,000 years, with most (not all) peaks being cooler than the previous peak and most bottoms being cooler than the previous bottom. ALL peaks - including the current temperature which may or may not be a peak - have been cooler than the *second* previous peak.

The prior interglacial period shows a similar pattern.

If the current interglacial ends, we can expect the global mean temperature to drop by 4-7 degrees celsius over a few hundred years. If the current ice age ends, we can expect a similar rise. This is based on what appears to have happened in regard to prior interglacials and ice ages, and therefore due to causes beyond human control (and, possibly, mentionable human influence).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
It takes a few years to make changes to GHG emissions while the California population was growing from 36 million in 2007 to 39 million in 2019 (a 10% increase). The CA GHG emissions in 2007 were 488 million tons of CO2eq and in 2019 were 418 million tons of CO2eq. This represents a 14.3% decline in GHG CO2eq emissions of 1.1% per year. Another measure of the progress would be the per capita GHG in 2007 were 13.2 tons and in 2019 were 10.5 tons.

None of which conflicts with what I was saying.

If your climate policies are resulting in so small a decrease in per capita emissions that your total emissions are barely declining each year, then you're not doing anything that's going to materially help climate change. It's better than nothing, but it's nowhere near enough. And while it's all well and good to point to the prospect of future emissions reductions, if it's taking that long to get any material reductions in emissions then your policies aren't fast enough or strong enough (or both) to have a material effect on climate change, either.

Again, the argument isn't that states like California are doing nothing. It's that they're doing things that give the appearance of progress, but actually are nowhere near large enough to have any real effect. Dropping emissions by 1.1% per year means that CA will cut emissions from present levels in half (not big enough) some time after 2080 (not fast enough). And that's in one of the most environmentally supportive states and one of the richest states in the country - and they can't get the political will to do anything even remotely approaching a sufficient impact.

That's Smil's thesis. The amount of carbon-emitting infrastructure is so much vaster than the public really appreciates that the idea we can actually prevent significant warming is little more than a delusion. Nothing big enough to actually change the emissions is feasible, so we do things that aren't anywhere big enough in order to pretend that we're going to be able to prevent significant warming. Like California is doing.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It takes a few years to make changes to GHG emissions while the California population was growing from 36 million in 2007 to 39 million in 2019 (a 10% increase). The CA GHG emissions in 2007 were 488 million tons of CO2eq and in 2019 were 418 million tons of CO2eq. This represents a 14.3% decline in GHG CO2eq emissions of 1.1% per year. Another measure of the progress would be the per capita GHG in 2007 were 13.2 tons and in 2019 were 10.5 tons.

From 2005 to 2018, NC had a 23% decrease in GHG emissions while it had a population increase of almost 20%.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and other renewables will rule the future with a little help from nuclear. Coal, oil, and nat gas will wither and die.

Under Duke's carbon plan, nuclear will still represent over 60% of the energy mix in 2050 in the Carolinas.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I think we will see gasoline usage drop in direct proportion to the price of gasoline. CO2 emissions are directly related to gasoline consumption.

The EIA disagrees with your first sentence. Not only do they think it won't drop proportionately, but they appear to think it will hardly drop at all. See second graph here -

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50878
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The tax started at $20 per ton in 2019 and rose $10 per ton each year until reaching $50 per ton in 2022. The goal, in part, is for Canada to meet its obligation to the Paris Agreement. That means cutting Canada's carbon pollution by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030.

We are more than halfway through that time period (2005-2030 is 25 years, we are 18 years in so far) ... what percent below 2005 have y'all reached to date?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
High gasoline prices discourage driving, but only a little. The main benefit is people tend to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.

Usually. Unfortunately the recent supply chain issues have upended the whole car purchasing calculus. Nowadays most people simply buy whatever car (in the desired class) they can get hold of ... regardless of fuel efficiency. Add to that, because the carmakers are production constrained, they are choosing to build the bigger (read as "more profitable") vehicles that typically have bigger engines and are less fuel efficient.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The EIA disagrees with your first sentence. Not only do they think it won't drop proportionately, but they appear to think it will hardly drop at all. See second graph here -

To be fair, that report is from much earlier this year. Before the Ukraine invasion, actually. So it's not really addressing how consumers will respond to gas prices over $4.50 per gallon.

That said, gasoline demand is typically price inelastic over the short term ("inelastic" means that it doesn't move much in response to price changes). Demand is much more elastic over the medium and long terms. That's because only a portion of gasoline consumption is discretionary and/or easy to avoid in the very short run for most people. We should expect that dynamic to be even more pronounced in the current situation. People generally have pretty high savings right now, and a pent-up demand for travel - so they neither have to nor want to give up discretionary transport as a first response to higher gasoline prices. And of course, supply chain problems make it difficult to change one's vehicle quickly in response to gas prices.

As the short term blends into the medium term, though, we would expect that $4+ per gallon gas in the U.S. would start to affect consumption patterns (if it persists). The mid-2000's increase in gasoline prices were eventually accompanied by a sizable increase in new car fleet fuel economy, as manufacturers started to emphasize fuel efficiency in response to consumer demand. We would probably see that here.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
To be fair, that report is from much earlier this year. Before the Ukraine invasion, actually. So it's not really addressing how consumers will respond to gas prices over $4.50 per gallon.

True. But that isn't the salient point of the graph. The salient point is that gasoline increasing from ~$2 to ~$3 didn't reduce demand, and increasing from ~$3 to ~$3.45 didn't reduce demand, and EVEN knowing that gasoline increased from ~$2 to ~$3.45, they didn't predict any decrease in use of the commodity. The only reductions that appear in their charts are seasonal and the initial pandemic drop.

That said, gasoline demand is typically price inelastic over the short term ...

Yep, and this is precisely why consumption hasn't gone down, and won't go down much.

In fact, I am rather surprised that there isn't any lasting reduction in consumption considering that so many more people are working from home now than pre-2020. I would mention a million EVs, but a million out of 100 million doesn't make much of a dent. When we hit 5 or 10 million EVs in a few years, it will begin to make a dent in gasoline consumption, but that's at least 3 or 4 years away. Unfortunately EVs are severely supply constrained, and are therefore expensive, so the EV revolution will be a few more years in coming. We are a 2 EV family right now, and looking for a 3rd one, but it has to be a 7 seater (we are a family of 7). Once I replace the minivan with an EV, we will consume ZERO fossil fuels directly (house is all electric, and vehicles will be all electric, and I have no gas-operated tools, don't even have a gas grill anymore!).

As the short term blends into the medium term, though, we would expect that $4+ per gallon gas in the U.S. would start to affect consumption patterns (if it persists). The mid-2000's increase in gasoline prices were eventually accompanied by a sizable increase in new car fleet fuel economy, as manufacturers started to emphasize fuel efficiency in response to consumer demand. We would probably see that here.

Two comments:
1. I don't think $4+ will do much at all. I think we would need to get to near European prices to see any meaningful effect. Probably beginning at $5.50 or $6 we would see people make meaningful change.
2. Manufacturers are kind of in a pickle. In the short-term, they can't get enough material to make enough to meet demand, so they've obviously chosen to build bigger, fancier, more profitable vehicles. Those generally get lower mileage. And since that's all that is available, consumers have no choice but to buy them. In the medium/long term, manufacturers are shifting almost all their investment toward EVs, so they won't be designing new IC engines that are more efficient. I seem to recall reading about at least one auto manufacturer that has completely discontinued their gasoline engine design team.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Under Duke's carbon plan, nuclear will still represent over 60% of the energy mix in 2050 in the Carolinas.

PSU

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

How are they going to do that without building new nuclear power plants?

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
True. But that isn't the salient point of the graph. The salient point is that gasoline increasing from ~$2 to ~$3 didn't reduce demand, and increasing from ~$3 to ~$3.45 didn't reduce demand, and EVEN knowing that gasoline increased from ~$2 to ~$3.45, they didn't predict any decrease in use of the commodity. The only reductions that appear in their charts are seasonal and the initial pandemic drop.

Well, because they didn't predict that gasoline would increase from ~$2 to ~$3. Their chart showed average 2021 prices at $3.00 per gallon, and projected average 2022 prices at $3.06 per gallon and $2.80 per gallon. It's hardly a surprise they would show demand as relatively flat, given that they were projecting that annual gas prices would be flat as well (and real prices probably falling slightly).

As for this:

1. I don't think $4+ will do much at all. I think we would need to get to near European prices to see any meaningful effect. Probably beginning at $5.50 or $6 we would see people make meaningful change.

It depends on how you define 'meaningful.' Fleetwide new car fuel economy spiked in the mid 2000's in response to higher gas prices caused by that decade's commodity boom. From 1985 to 2005, the average real world fuel economy of new cars had been steadily declining from 22 to 20 mpg. Not because individual vehicles were getting less efficient, but because the composition of the fleet changed as consumers switched massively from sedans/coupes to SUV's. But as soon as gas prices started rising again in 2005, fuel economy reversed as well - rising sharply from 20 mpg to 25 mpg in the space of the next decade - as consumers started to rank fuel economy much more highly in their stated (and demonstrated) preferences in what they found important in new vehicles. The market completely reversed course as consumers changed their preferences, and the SUV market share actually started to decline for the first time since the early 1980's. Once gas prices dropped again after the Great Recession, consumers again switched back to SUV's.

If gas prices remain high, we will probably see a repeat of that phenomenon, and we'll see sedans/coupes claw back market share at the expense of larger SUV's.

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013L1O.pdf (pages 17 and 22 in particular)

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The EIA disagrees with your first sentence. Not only do they think it won't drop proportionately, but they appear to think it will hardly drop at all. See second graph here -

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50878

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

EIA website you reference is not up to date. It was published January 13,2022, based on 2021 data. The world energy prices and supply lines have been turned upside down in the last 4 months. I think EIA will catch up and support my position in their new reports:

I think we will see gasoline usage drop in direct proportion to the price of gasoline. CO2 emissions are directly related to gasoline consumption.

People are leaving their gasoline hogs home and driving their small cars much more.
People are looking to buy new cars that require very little of no gasoline.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
People are willing to pay a little more for energy. They are not willing to pay enough more for energy to matter.

I don't know about "people", I only know about myself. I want to pay LESS for energy. That's why I have switched to EVs when possible. My previous ICE 4-door sedan got me about 50 miles out of $10 of gasoline. When it needed to be replaced, I replaced it with an equivalent 4-door EV which gets me about 250 miles out of $10 of electricity. That has reduced my cost of energy by quite a lot.

When I replaced my hot water heater a few years ago, from a typical resistive one to a heat pump one, my electric bill immediately went down by a noticeable amount each month. That has reduced my cost of energy.

So I am confused why you are saying people want to pay a little more for energy??? The good solutions for reducing carbon emissions often result in LOWER costs of energy. Now I understand that CA and NY allow for people to pay more for "green" electricity today, but if the green electricity is done right, eventually it will COST LESS than other electricity. I'm pretty sure that a solar array requires less "fuel" than a coal/gas turbine. 😎
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
None of which conflicts with what I was saying.

If your climate policies are resulting in so small a decrease in per capita emissions that your total emissions are barely declining each year, then you're not doing anything that's going to materially help climate change. It's better than nothing, but it's nowhere near enough. And while it's all well and good to point to the prospect of future emissions reductions, if it's taking that long to get any material reductions in emissions then your policies aren't fast enough or strong enough (or both) to have a material effect on climate change, either.

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

Yes it does conflict with what you were saying. The CA emissions reductions are not trivial.

The fact that CA reduced emissions by 70 million tons in 9 years is significant. The CA reduction rate in the future will be more geometric than linear because CA voters are electing politicians that support these reduction. As I said before, CA will be very close to achieving 95% reduction in emissions by 2050.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
From 2005 to 2018, NC had a 23% decrease in GHG emissions while it had a population increase of almost 20%.

PSU

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

Every state had high emissions in 2005. What we are comparing is the reductions in emissions from 2010 to 2019. So can you provide the numbers of a link to NC emissions for that time period.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
My previous ICE 4-door sedan got me about 50 miles out of $10 of gasoline. When it needed to be replaced, I replaced it with an equivalent 4-door EV which gets me about 250 miles out of $10 of electricity. That has reduced my cost of energy by quite a lot.

Sure - but unless you're in the luxury segment, it almost certainly increased the cost of the car by quite a lot relative to alternatives, and it's that total cost that counts. You can't replace the average sedan (about $25K) with an EV without paying a $10K or more premium over the ICE alternative, and it's very hard to make that up through lower fuel costs.

So I am confused why you are saying people want to pay a little more for energy??? The good solutions for reducing carbon emissions often result in LOWER costs of energy.

People are willing to pay a little more for energy to reduce emissions.

Most, if not all, solutions for materially reducing carbon emissions result in significantly higher costs of energy. In small amounts at the margins, improving green technology means that there exist circumstances where the cost of renewables can be lower than fossil alternatives. So, for example, today it can often be the case that for new electricity generation capacity, in wealthy western countries in heavily insolated or wind-rich areas where there is substantial dispatchable baseload generation and good existing transmission facilities, it is cheaper to meet new demand with renewables.

But that is a tiny, tiny, tiny slice of what needs to be done in order to materially reduce the impacts of global warming. In order to do that, you can't just use renewables for new facilities in developed countries (either to meet new demand or as old facilities reach the end of their useful life). You need to start tearing down existing fossil fuel facilities that still have plenty of useful life. You need to start eliminating new fossil fuel construction in countries where environmental protections are so much laxer than the U.S. (like, say, India) that it's still cheaper to build coal plants - and have Western voters pay for it. You need to start forcing people to buy electric cars even when the total cost of ownership of the car is higher than the equivalent ICE.

There's no free lunch. Replacing fossil fuel infrastructure with green infrastructure will cost a lot more money than just continuing with the fossil fuel infrastructure (which is why it isn't already happening to any material degree) - because you have to destroy a lot of existing, still valuable infrastructure and replace it.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The CA emissions reductions are not trivial.

The fact that CA reduced emissions by 70 million tons in 9 years is significant. The CA reduction rate in the future will be more geometric than linear because CA voters are electing politicians that support these reduction.


They are trivial. CA emissions have reduced about 1.1% per year, taking the very most favorable time frame. Over the last ten years, they've increased.

There's no evidence at all that the reduction rate will be more geometric than linear in the future. Again, CA emissions have been slightly, but steadily, increasing for the last ten years.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Every state had high emissions in 2005. What we are comparing is the reductions in emissions from 2010 to 2019. So can you provide the numbers of a link to NC emissions for that time period.

Here's the relevant data (figures in millions of metric tons of CO2).

2010 2019 Change
California 356.6 358.2 0.5%
North Carolina 147.2 122.6 -16.7%


https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/excel/table1...

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The CA emissions reductions are not trivial.

https://phys.org/news/2022-04-halve-energy-climate-catastrop...
The research, published recently in Climate Policy, models different energy-use scenarios for reducing global energy-related CO2 emissions to zero by 2050. It found that simply substituting fossil fuels with renewable energy at current energy usage levels is no longer enough....

"We have a situation where renewable electricity and total energy consumption are growing quite rapidly alongside one another. So renewables are chasing a retreating target that keeps getting further away," says Mark Diesendorf, author of the study and Honorary Associate Professor at the School of Humanities & Languages, UNSW Arts, Design & Architecture. "The research shows it is simply impossible for renewable energy to overtake that retreating target."

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The research shows it is simply impossible for renewable energy to overtake that retreating target."

When I was in grad school, I tried to explain measuring the change in the rate of change, and watched people's eyes glaze over.

An inability of one strategy to hit a moving target is not a reason to abandon the strategy as futile, if the strategy will reduce the net rate of change.

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
An inability of one strategy to hit a moving target is not a reason to abandon the strategy as futile, if the strategy will reduce the net rate of change.

Steve, Albaby has explained the situation at some length, but here is a simple analogy: It is like the Germans offering to send 5,000 helmets to help the Ukrainians.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It is like the Germans offering to send 5,000 helmets to help the Ukrainians.

You and 4999 of your mates are staring across a field at Russian troops, bareheaded. A crate of helmets appears. Do you grab a helmet?

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
he research, published recently in Climate Policy, models different energy-use scenarios for reducing global energy-related CO2 emissions to zero by 2050. It found that at current energy usage levels is no longer enough....

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

CA is not simply substituting fossil fuels with renewable energy. CA has programs for electrification of transportation, energy storage, building energy efficiency, carbon credits, and much more.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How are they going to do that without building new nuclear power plants?

They are looking to extend the licenses of the current 11 generating units until 2050.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It is like the Germans offering to send 5,000 helmets to help the Ukrainians.
---
You and 4999 of your mates are staring across a field at Russian troops, bareheaded. A crate of helmets appears. Do you grab a helmet?


Sure. However:
a) Your helmets don't stop the armored column coming towards you.
b) The helmets aren't free; they currently cost at least 6-7% of global GDP.

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 (£6.8tn). The world is already spending $5.7tn a year to lower the impact of fossil fuels and use alternatives.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Every state had high emissions in 2005. What we are comparing is the reductions in emissions from 2010 to 2019. So can you provide the numbers of a link to NC emissions for that time period.

Your previous posts were using 2007 through 2019.

I picked a time period close to that since the data was readily available.

https://deq.nc.gov/media/12360/open

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The research, published recently in Climate Policy, models different energy-use scenarios for reducing global energy-related CO2 emissions to zero by 2050. It found that at current energy usage levels is no longer enough....
---
CA is not simply substituting fossil fuels with renewable energy. CA has programs for electrification of transportation, energy storage, building energy efficiency, carbon credits, and much more.


Yes, the authors know all about that stuff. Their conclusion was that it resulted in an Alice in Wonderland/Red Queen type of situation, running to stay in place. To make any more progress you needed "de-growth", shrinking the world economy. Which, as Albaby has pointed out, people aren't willing to do.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
They are looking to extend the licenses of the current 11 generating units until 2050.

PSU

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

Lots of luck to Duke trying to make old reactors last 80 years. I do not know of any reactor that has operated more than 50 years.

As a nuclear engineer, I do not believe their plan has any merits. They will face huge repair costs, new equipment costs and climate change dangers from storms, hurricanes, tornadoes and flooding.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
They are trivial. CA emissions have reduced about 1.1% per year, taking the very most favorable time frame. Over the last ten years, they've increased.

There's no evidence at all that the reduction rate will be more geometric than linear in the future. Again, CA emissions have been slightly, but steadily, increasing for the last ten years.

Albaby

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

You must be looking at the wrong data.

Over the last 10 years California has reduced GHG emissions per California state government reports:

https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/g...

Figure 1 shows GHG emissions dropped during the last 10 years:
2009 - 450
2019 - 418

Executive Summary
The annual statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emission inventory is an important tool in
tracking progress of California’s climate programs towards achieving the statewide GHG
goals. This document summarizes the trends in emissions and indicators in the California
GHG Emission Inventory (“the GHG Inventory”). The 2021 edition of the inventory includes
GHG emissions released during 2000-2019 calendar years. In 2019, emissions from GHG
emitting activities statewide were 418.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MMTCO2e), 7.2 MMTCO2e lower than 2018 levels and almost 13 MMTCO2e below the 2020
GHG Limit of 431 MMTCO2e.

It is important to note that trends in this inventory cannot be used to predict future GHG
emissions reductions relating to actions taken, or programs enacted or amended, after 2019.
These include, but are not limited to, the effect of the changes to the Cap-and-Program
required by AB 398 (E. Garcia, Chapter 135, Statutes of 2017) that were implemented in
2021 and the impacts on the transportation sector of Governor Newsom’s 2020 Executive
Order on zero-emission vehicles (N-79-20) that has yet to be fully implemented. The
emissions included in the inventory and presented here represent actual emissions released
pursuant to the guidelines established in AB32 into the atmosphere and have not been
adjusted in any way. Wildfire and other natural & working lands emissions are tracked
separately, and more information can be found in the “Additional Information” portion at the
bottom of this report. The most notable highlights in the 2021 edition inventory include:

• California statewide GHG emissions dropped below the 2020 GHG Limit in 2016 and
have remained below the 2020 GHG Limit since then, generally dropping since 2004.
• Transportation emissions continued to decline in 2019 as they had done in 2018, with
even more substantial reductions due to a significant increase in renewable diesel (up
61 percent from 2018), making diesel fuel bio-components (biodiesel and renewable
diesel) 27 percent of total on-road diesel sold in California.
• Total electric power emissions decreased by almost 7 percent in 2019, due to a
continuing increase in renewable energy, including a 46 percent increase in available
in-state hydropower in 2019.

Read the whole report and see how well California has done.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yes, the authors know all about that stuff. Their conclusion was that it resulted in an Alice in Wonderland/Red Queen type of situation, running to stay in place. To make any more progress you needed "de-growth", shrinking the world economy. Which, as Albaby has pointed out, people aren't willing to do.

DB2

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

Totally hogwash. When the new data on CO2 emissions by state and country come out we will see how California and the EU are doing compared to Texas and China.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
...when carbon dioxide emissions are completely reduced or offset - will be $9.2tn

Shinyland creates a Trillion a year out of thin air, created $3T in 2020 alone.

https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/defic...

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Yes, the authors know all about that stuff. Their conclusion was that it resulted in an Alice in Wonderland/Red Queen type of situation, running to stay in place.
---
Totally hogwash.


We know you don't like it -- but that doesn't mean their research is wrong. Here's the work of another group:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211014141949.htm
"The production of renewable energy is increasing every year. But after analysing the growth rates of wind and solar power in 60 countries, researchers at Chalmers University of Technology and Lund University in Sweden and Central European University in Vienna, Austria, conclude that virtually no country is moving sufficiently fast to avoid global warming of 1.5°C or even 2°C."

And looking back, the change has been 0.1% in 10 years.
www.reuters.com/business/environment/global-fossil-fuel-use-...
"The share of fossil fuels in the world's total energy mix is as high as a decade ago, despite the falling cost of renewables and pressure on governments to act on climate change, a report by green energy policy network REN21 showed on Tuesday....REN21 said the share of fossil fuels in the global energy mix was 80.2% in 2019, compared to 80.3% in 2009, while renewables such as wind and solar made up 11.2% of the energy mix in 2019 and 8.7% in 2009, the report said."

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
...when carbon dioxide emissions are completely reduced or offset - will be $9.2tn
---
Shinyland creates a Trillion a year out of thin air, created $3T in 2020 alone.


And at what a cost. Now imagine more than triple that -- every year. Or are you one of those MMT types?

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
You must be looking at the wrong data.

I'm looking at the federal government's data for state emissions by year, prepared by the EIA and updated recently on April of this year, which can be found here:

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/

The specific table I linked to is Table 1, which shows CA's emissions relatively unchanged over the time period, but a significant reduction in North Carolina's.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yes, the authors know all about that stuff. Their conclusion was that it resulted in an Alice in Wonderland/Red Queen type of situation, running to stay in place.
---
Totally hogwash.
---
We know you don't like it -- but that doesn't mean their research is wrong.
---

The many countries are not running in place. They are reducing CO2 as shown in my previous
posts.

USA
Germany
France
UK

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm looking at the federal government's data for state emissions by year, prepared by the EIA and updated recently on April of this year, which can be found here:

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/

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

So we have been talking past each other because I used California emissions data. Did you read the fine print that goes along with the EIA data. It explains why we are seeing different numbers.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Now imagine more than triple that -- every year.

Shinyland only accounts for about 25% (or 16%, depending on methodology) of global GDP, so, if the rest of the world followed Shinyland's example, that $9+T/year could be covered.

And at what a cost.

What is the value of all the real estate in Florida?

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What is the value of all the real estate in Florida?

At high or low tide?


;-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The many countries are not running in place.

Hmmm. Globally, the percentage of renewables increased 0.1% over 10 years; 0.01% a year certainly looks like running in place.

And, over that same period of time, carbon dioxide levels went from 388ppm to 412ppm -- certainly not running in place.

And, more importantly, total greenhouse gas forcing went from 2.76 to 3.14 W/m2, an increase of 14% -- definitely not running in place.
https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/aggi.html

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And it's going to be very difficult to replace them - not only in the time frame from now to 2050, but at all. Electricity can't do it. And the materials and massive investments required to even make a major step are vastly misunderstood.

True - but not by everyone. Smil's point is basically the reason why we have the "blah blah blah" climate policies that are in place through most of the western developed economies: grand rhetoric paired with actual measures that are far too small to make a real dent in emissions. Policy-makers are well aware of the scale involved with decarbonizing, and they know that there's no practical way to make sufficient changes at that scale. They also know their voters don't want to hear that.

Albaby

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

How do you explain the hundrds of billions dollars countries around the world are investing in energy transition and renewable energy in just 2021 if you say the world politicians are doing too little? I think Smil is a pessimist.

China increased its overall energy transition investment by 60% from 2020 levels, further cementing its position as a global leader. The country’s wind and solar capacity increased by 19% in 2021, with electrified transport also accounting for a large portion of the investment.

Next, the U.S. invested $114 billion in clean energy last year, up 17% from 2020. Several European countries also made the top 10 list, with Germany, U.K., and France rounding out the top five. In total, European countries invested $219 billion in the energy transition.

Given that the dawn of clean energy is still in its early hours, technologies in the sector are constantly evolving. As the race to net-zero continues, which energy technologies will draw even more investment in the future?

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-top-10-countries...

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
...that $9+T/year could be covered.

I suppose it could be; it still is more than 10% of global GDP every year. And McKinsey noted that their cost estimate is a conservative one. Meanwhile, as noted upthread, the share of renewables has been increasing 0.01% per year, running in place.

Even at double the current rate of penetration, renewables would gain 2% market share after a century. That is why Greta says "blah, blah, blah".

DB2
A thousand helmets here, a thousand helmets there....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
How do you explain the hundrds of billions dollars countries around the world are investing in energy transition and renewable energy in just 2021 if you say the world politicians are doing too little? I think Smil is a pessimist.

Or a realist.

Let that renewable penetration rate sink in -- 0.01% per year. Even if we increase that by two orders of magnitude we're still tinkering at the edges.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>What is the value of all the real estate in Florida?<<

At high or low tide? ;-)


Ever watch "Waterworld"? It was released by Universal. Universal's logo is a picture of the Earth. They did a clever thing with the Universal logo in that film. Unfortunately, the only video of that full sequence I find on youtube is one a guy shot off of his TV screen.


Opening to Waterworld UK DVD (2002)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uybDS_K0jaE

Steve...cult of one, likes "Waterworld" and "The Postman"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
DB2
A thousand helmets here, a thousand helmets there....


"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hmmm. Globally, the percentage of renewables increased 0.1% over 10 years; 0.01% a year certainly looks like running in place.

DB2

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

Where do you get this information . Link please.

The growth of renewable enrgy is not linear as you try to present. Look at the following graphs:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/modern-renewable-energy-c...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source

Renewables generation (solar and wind) is increasing every year while fossil fuel generation is declining from previous peaks in 2015.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think we will see gasoline usage drop in direct proportion to the price of gasoline.

When gasoline goes up from $3 to $4.50, how much do you expect usage of gasoline to go down?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Globally, the percentage of renewables increased 0.1% over 10 years; 0.01% a year certainly looks like running in place.
---
Link please.


Sure; upthread in post 651511.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
When gasoline goes up from $3 to $4.50, how much do you expect usage of gasoline to go down?

The media has been touting a $6 estimate by an analyst at JPM this past week.

iirc, every sharp increase in the price of gas over the last 50 years as been followed by a recession.

In previous price jumps, the US auto industry offered something that was more fuel efficient, be it a Pinto, or Chevette, or Escort. But now, in their hot pursuit of escalating ATP and GP, the more fuel efficient models, like the Cruze, Spark, Sonic, Ecosport, Fiesta and Focus, have been discontinued. Are you up for another auto industry bailout? Another "cash for clunkers"? More "voluntary import restraints"?

And the dislocation in the oil and gas markets is likely to persist as long as Putin's pursuit of empire persists.

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
So we have been talking past each other because I used California emissions data. Did you read the fine print that goes along with the EIA data. It explains why we are seeing different numbers.

I looked at the fine print and I don't understand it. Does it mean that is CA uses power plants that are 1/4 mile over the border (in NV, AZ, etc) that those emissions don't count for CA?

The many countries are not running in place. They are reducing CO2 as shown in my previous posts.

USA
Germany
France
UK


I believe that the earth doesn't care very much (a little, but not in the overall scheme of climate change) about how the emissions is distributed around the globe, but rather the total emissions. Have total worldwide emissions gone down significantly? I mean if CA reduces by 70,000 tons, but China/India increases by 700,000 tons, we're still all gonna die.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
What is the value of all the real estate in Florida?

It's a fascinating phenomenon. People, left leaning, centrists, and right leaning, buy real estate in FL constantly. It's one of the fastest growing places, AND the prices are rapidly rising. Yet there is rarely a shortage of buyers, the last time there was a shortage of buyers was after the GFC with overbuilding of condos, and even that shortage didn't last more than a few years.

It's almost as if people (left/center/right) don't quite believe that FL will start being underwater in 3 1/2 years and almost fully inundated in 23 1/2 years. I mean they really don't believe because they are putting their cold hard cash into that property!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<< When gasoline goes up from $3 to $4.50, how much do you expect usage of gasoline to go down?>>

The media has been touting a $6 estimate by an analyst at JPM this past week.

iirc, every sharp increase in the price of gas over the last 50 years as been followed by a recession.


Someone asserted that "we will see gasoline usage drop in direct proportion to the price of gasoline". I'm trying to determine what they think that "direct proportion" is exactly. If gasoline goes up from $3 to $4.50, and the "direct proportion" is 1% drop in usage, and if gasoline goes up from $4.50 to $6 and then it is another 1% drop in usage, then that proportion is useless and not at all effective. And it would even be silly to mention it since it is insignificant in terms of climate change.

A deep recession with unemployment jumping significantly is the only real thing that can meaningfully drop usage. Another 5% unemployed means another 5% not driving much anymore. So you might see 4% drop in usage, plus perhaps an additional percentage of people who are watching their spending closely because they see their friends and neighbors losing their jobs and are worried about themselves.

And the dislocation in the oil and gas markets is likely to persist as long as Putin's pursuit of empire persists.

Probably. But Putin is banking on a "cold Europe" and a "friendly China" and a "growing India" making all sorts of exceptions to buy their energy products ... at a discount of course. If this persists, the markets for oil/gas will adjust to the new reality (China will buy at a discount, India will buy at a discount, Europe will create all sorts of convoluted rules to make it look non-Russian, etc).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
<<My previous ICE 4-door sedan got me about 50 miles out of $10 of gasoline. When it needed to be replaced, I replaced it with an equivalent 4-door EV which gets me about 250 miles out of $10 of electricity. That has reduced my cost of energy by quite a lot.>>

Sure - but unless you're in the luxury segment, it almost certainly increased the cost of the car by quite a lot relative to alternatives, and it's that total cost that counts. You can't replace the average sedan (about $25K) with an EV without paying a $10K or more premium over the ICE alternative, and it's very hard to make that up through lower fuel costs.


Aren't you the one arguing that reducing carbon-based energy will cost a lot? 😅

I suppose I was lucky. One EV was purchased new (from Tesla) before all the recent price increases, and it was smack in the middle of my price range, so it didn't cost more or less than what I was planning on spending on a replacement in any case. I suppose you can argue (and I would at least partly agree) that I bought a lesser EV car when compared to the ICE car I could have purchased instead. However, after driving my EV for a few months, my agreement is now lessened because even though my car has MANY fewer buttons/dials/etc, it has tons of features and new ones appear via software every two or three months. About the only real difference at this point is that my current EV 4-door sedan is slightly smaller than the ICE 4-door sedan I may have purchased instead.

My second EV was purchased used, and is used for commuting by a family member who previously used our minivan (14-16 mi/gal at best) to get back and forth to work. This family member has a free charger at work supplied by a giant solar array above the parking lot. So it is really free, and has zero emissions as it rarely if ever draws power from other sources (people only charge during the day there). This EV is literally a no-brainer, it cost under $20k, it replaced 23 1/2 gallons a week of gasoline (that's now $105) with ZERO, yes a complete ZERO since that car has never ever been charged at home (except once for 5 minutes to test that the charger was working). That's about 40 weeks so far, saving about 80-105 bucks a week, so savings to date is $3,200-$4,200 (I won't even include oil changes and other ICE maintenance that doesn't have to be done anymore). Total no-brainer and we regret not going EV the day they started working there!!! And now I get to fill up the minivan once a month instead of once or twice a week.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm trying to determine what they think that "direct proportion" is exactly.

When the "news" was howling about the "SHOCKING!!ALARMING!!!" cost for gas to drive from Motown to Traverse City, I wondered to myself "and, what would those people be paying for a hotel room when they get there?"

The piece on the "news" complained gas for the trip would cost $79. Let's pick a fantasy alternate price for gas, $3.10, instead of the $6.20 they are pricing in. So the "SHOCKING!!ALARMING!!!" price increase is all of $40.

The cheapest motel room in TC that Expedia shows is $57. Most of the hotels are over a Benjamin a night. So, someone doesn't have a problem shelling out triple digits for lodging and meals for a three day weekend, but paying an extra $40 for gas is the end of the civilized world?

The hysteria feeding report I saw is at this link. Listen to how the "reporters" speak. Feed that hysteria!!!

National average for a gallon of gas could reach $6 this summer, report says

If gas reaches $6.20 per gallon, and you average about 20 miles per gallon, a trip from Detroit to Traverse City will cost $79.


https://www.clickondetroit.com/consumer/help-me-hank/2022/05...

I mentioned their unrealistic 20mpg estimate in their example before. For the record, the highway mpg on a mammoth Ford Expedition is 23. The highway estimate for a huge Cadillac Escalade is 27.

This is Shinyland. Don't give the mob facts. Feed them hype and hysteria.

Steve...whose VW wagon does 32 on the highway, not curtailing driving one bit.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The cheapest motel room in TC that Expedia shows is $57. Most of the hotels are over a Benjamin a night. So, someone doesn't have a problem shelling out triple digits for lodging and meals for a three day weekend, but paying an extra $40 for gas is the end of the civilized world?

At the same time, Steve, all lodging and meals are not created equal. (I know, I'm talking to someone who eats fast food all the time.) Gasoline, on the other hand, is what they call fungible, i.e., interchangeable.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
For the record, the highway mpg on a mammoth Ford Expedition is 23. The highway estimate for a huge Cadillac Escalade is 27.

I just have to note that EPA mileage is total BS in the real world. Very few people drive at exactly 55, don't accelerate quickly, don't brake quickly, don't change lanes, and don't turn on the HVAC system, and leave the windows shut, and never get caught in traffic. Most normal people drive 75-85 on the highway, have the A/C full blast in the summer, and accelerate all the time, brake sometimes, and change lanes all the time, especially in traffic to try to beat it somehow. In the real world, those behemoths are getting 14-16 mpg most of the time.

I used to rent a behemoth (Suburban, Tahoe, Expedition, etc) all the time for business trips with some equipment in the back, and having to use the vehicle 6-10 hrs a day. And for the long drives, on decent highways without excessive traffic, they got 15-16, maybe 17 if I used cruise control and just let the truck do its thing alone for a few hundred miles.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It depends on how you define 'meaningful.'

In the context of THIS conversation, "meaningful" means what the earth finds meaningful to reduce climate change. I suspect that the earth doesn't care about the mix of vehicles, or about the average new car fuel economy. I think the earth cares about total carbon emissions (and a few other types). So it makes no difference if average fleet goes up by 2 mpg, but the actual mix of purchased vehicles spew out 1% more carbon emissions. Heck, the earth doesn't care if 100 cars spew 100 tons or if 120 cars spew 100 tons. 100 tons is 100 tons is 100 tons to the earth.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
... all lodging and meals are not created equal... gas, on the other hand, is what they call fungible, i.e., interchangeable.

Might be missing the point there. That government standard "family of four" is going to spend a few hundred on a three day, holiday weekend, stay in Traverse City, but, according to the media, an extra $40 for gas is the end of the world.

I would submit that people don't really care what they spend for gas, otherwise so many of them would not be driving a huge SUV or pickup. They would be driving what people drove in the 90s: Camry, Accord, Taurus, Malibu.

Camry 28 city/39 highway

Accord 30 city/38 highway

Instead, they are driving these things.

Ford Explorer 21 city/28 highway

Ford F-150 20 city/24 highway

What makes people think they have a gripe about how much gas their car burns, if they buy an Explorer or an F-150?

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I just have to note that EPA mileage is total BS in the real world.

My VW is rated for 30 on the highway. I get 32, with the A/C on, and "keeping up with traffic" at the least. My 98 Civic was rated for 37 on the highway. I got 40, and that car had a disconcerting way of gaining speed, as I often found myself zipping along significantly over the posted limit of 70.

Very few people drive at exactly 55, don't accelerate quickly, don't brake quickly, don't change lanes, and don't turn on the HVAC system, and leave the windows shut, and never get caught in traffic.

Again, I contend people really don't care how much gas their car burns. They *do* love to complain for the TV camera tho.

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So we have been talking past each other because I used California emissions data. Did you read the fine print that goes along with the EIA data. It explains why we are seeing different numbers.

I looked at the fine print and I don't understand it. Does it mean that is CA uses power plants that are 1/4 mile over the border (in NV, AZ, etc) that those emissions don't count for CA?

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

California utilities have ownership in power plants outside the state and imports the electritcity. For example Palo Verde Nuclear plant in Arizona, various power plants in NV, UT, AZ, and other states. California utilities also sign long term contracts with power plant owners in other sates. For example Boneville Power Authority has contracts with California utilites for electricity imported by California.

In the last several years the California grid system operator (CASIO) has developed an organization with other Western States utilities/grids to share/trade power for the benefits of everyone. When California has excess solar power during daylight hours other utilites can have the execess power cheaply so that they can turnoff their expensive fossil fueled power plants. When California needs power at night or when the wind does not blow, then California can import hydro or nuclear power.

Here is their website which explains how it works and how they have already saved customers over $2 billion:

https://www.westerneim.com/Pages/About/HowItWorks.aspx

https://www.westerneim.com/Documents/WEIM-2-Billion-in-Benef...

The Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM) allows participants to buy and sell power close to the time electricity is consumed, and gives system operators real-time visibility across neighboring grids. The result improves balancing supply and demand at a lower cost.

The WEIM platform balances fluctuations in supply and demand by automatically finding lower-cost resources to meet real-time power needs. The WEIM manages congestion on transmission lines to maintain grid reliability and supports integrating renewable resources. In addition, the market makes excess renewable energy available to participating utilities at low cost rather than turning the generating units off.

More specifically, regional coordination in generating and delivering energy produces significant benefits in three main areas:

* Reduced costs for participants by lowering the amount of costly reserves utilities need to carry, and more efficient use of the regional transmission system.

*Reduced carbon emission and more efficient use and integration of renewable energy. For instance, when one utility area has excess hydroelectric, solar or wind power, the ISO can deliver it to customers in California or to another participant. Likewise, when the ISO has excess solar energy, it can help meet demand outside of California that otherwise would be met by more expensive – and less clean – energy resources.

*Enhanced reliability by increasing operational visibility across electricity grids, and improving the ability to manage transmission line congestion across the region’s high-voltage transmission system.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Globally, the percentage of renewables increased 0.1% over 10 years; 0.01% a year certainly looks like running in place.

And in today's news we read...

India's insatiable power appetite to keep coal relevant for decades
www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest...
The share of coal in India's power generation will fall from 74% to about 54% by 2030, but the exponential growth in the size of the country's power market would mean that the sector would still be consuming more coal 10 years from now than at present, Prashant Jain, managing director of GE Power India Ltd., told S&P Global Commodity Insights.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
That doesn't answer the question - "Does it mean that if CA uses power plants that are 1/4 mile over the border (in NV, AZ, etc) that those emissions don't count for CA?"

Or maybe it does answer it ... maybe that long bunch of information says "yes" (because the distributed power helps everyone). So now the next question is - how much of the 70,000 ton reduction "in" CA came from simply moving power generation over the border to a different state? Or does CA get ONLY green power from across the border? (probably impossible because of the fungibility of electricity)

I will however agree that if states other than CA are better at producing green energy (maybe fewer NIMBY issues? less regulation? whatever) then it makes sense for them to do so. But the "credit" for overall reduction in emissions has to be allocated somehow.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Trillions of dollars need to be spent every year for almost three decades to hit net zero targets...

One small example from New York earlier this year...

Activists, progressives say state needs to spend $15B in climate fight
www.timesunion.com/news/article/Activists-progressives-say-1...
With a 2019 state law calling for a zero-carbon economy by 2040, a broad coalition of environmental and social justice activists Wednesday said lawmakers and Gov. Kathy Hochul need to commit $15 billion this year to start toward that goal....The speakers didn’t have a lot of immediate detailed answers about where the $15 billion should come from or if it should supplant other spending priorities....

[That $15 billion would be 7% of the state's budget.]

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Lots of luck to Duke trying to make old reactors last 80 years. I do not know of any reactor that has operated more than 50 years.

As a nuclear engineer, I do not believe their plan has any merits. They will face huge repair costs, new equipment costs and climate change dangers from storms, hurricanes, tornadoes and flooding.


I trust Duke knows more about their reactors than a retired engineer.

As for natural gas being dead, Duke plans on adding 800 MW of CT and 1200 MW of CC by 2029.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I just have to note that EPA mileage is total BS in the real world. Very few people drive at exactly 55, don't accelerate quickly, don't brake quickly, don't change lanes, and don't turn on the HVAC system, and leave the windows shut, and never get caught in traffic.

Have you looked at EPA testing lately? It isn't just a steady 55 mph test. They test lows speeds, high speeds, cold temperatures AC use, hard acceleration and braking.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Have you looked at EPA testing lately? It isn't just a steady 55 mph test. They test lows speeds, high speeds, cold temperatures AC use, hard acceleration and braking.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml


That's very interesting! They FINALLY did it, I've been discussing this for decades already. It's still not fully representative of real life, but it is definitely closer.

Thanks for posting!

Ideally, they would use the car for a week as a typical customer does. Get in car, drop kid #1 at friend half a mile away, idle out front until kid is safely inside, then drive over to supermarket 3/4 mi away, drive around 30 seconds for a good parking spot, then sit in car for 2 minutes while finding grocery list that is hidden somewhere in console, then shop, put groceries in car, drive home, but just as you get home, kid #2 texts and needs a ride from soccer practice to friend to do a project with them, then drive home, unload groceries, then pick up husband from train station, then go back home, then pick up kids from friends, begin preparing dinner, out of an important ingredient, jump in car, drive to supermarket, pick it up, drive home. Saturday morning, drag the whole family out for a family event, drive 50 miles, stop after 25 miles because someone REALLY needs the bathroom, keep car running while waiting for them to get out to keep everyone else cool. Parking lot is crazy full at event, drive around a few times looking for parking. Etc. THIS kind of test would show what the real world gas mileage is. 😂
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I trust Duke knows more about their reactors than a retired engineer.

PSU

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

Feds walk back plans for nuclear reactors to run 80 years
By Kristi E. Swartz, Jeremy Dillon | 02/25/2022 07:14 AM EST

Federal nuclear regulators have reversed course on letting three of the nation’s nuclear power plants run for an unprecedented 80 years, arguing an updated environmental study is needed beforehand.

The surprising decision is a blow to the nuclear industry, which has been pushing to keep existing reactors running for as long as possible while simultaneously touting next-generation technology that could be ready in the coming decade.

What’s more, many electric companies have said their large, baseload nuclear plants are the key to maintaining a reliable grid while they shut down fossil fuel plants and add renewable technologies.

https://www.eenews.net/articles/feds-walk-back-plans-for-nuc...

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I will however agree that if states other than CA are better at producing green energy (maybe fewer NIMBY issues? less regulation? whatever) then it makes sense for them to do so. But the "credit" for overall reduction in emissions has to be allocated somehow.

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

The biggest problem CA has with CO2 emissions is gasoline/diesel transportation. Over 40% of CO2 emissions in CA are due to transportation.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"We are making unprecedented investments in offshore wind, electric vehicle adoption and infrastructure, building electrification, environmental remediation and protection, and more," Hochul spokeswoman Madia Coleman said.

She added that Hochul's budget proposal overall includes a total of approximately $6 billion in climate funding.

In addition to offshore wind, the plan calls for $400 million to go into the state's Environmental Protection Fund and $500 million for clean water investments, as well as money for energy and environment initiatives.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hochul spokeswoman Madia Coleman said...that Hochul's budget proposal overall includes a total of approximately $6 billion in climate funding.

"With a 2019 state law calling for a zero-carbon economy by 2040, a broad coalition of environmental and social justice activists Wednesday said lawmakers and Gov. Kathy Hochul need to commit $15 billion this year to start toward that goal...."

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The biggest problem CA has with CO2 emissions is gasoline/diesel transportation. Over 40% of CO2 emissions in CA are due to transportation.

Well, that 40% will go away pretty soon as I've read that they are banning non-EV vehicles in a few years.
Print the post Back To Top