A moment of truth is coming for the oil and gas industry This is the opening line of the International Energy Agency’s latest report on the global oil and gas industry in the energy transition. Around 97 mb/d of oil and 4 150 bcm of natural gas were consumed globally in 2022. This resulted in just over 18 Gt CO2 emissions, around half of total energy-related CO2 emissions.
There is no pathway to reduction in petroleum combustion. Indeed any prosperity that accrues to any society results in bigger cars and more energy consumption. Going green without fossil fuels would require massive investment in nuclear energy , which is not happening. Going green means vast new infrastructure, such as rail , again, not happening. Just a simple improvement in mileage standards in the USA would reduce gasoline consumption, but that easy policy is NOT happening. Planting trillions of trees would help blunt the problem, NOT HAPPENING. The fault is not oil companies, it is the lack of policy from governments big and small to blame.
It’s the oil companies and their shareholders that are fighting efforts to respond to Climate breakdown. It’s not that people don’t want to change. There is just a well funded propaganda effort to make change impossible.
But Green kept telling us the world was ending all our lives, in fact it's flooded over on the East Coast already, NYC is supposed to be under water already...
And yet...
The climate isn't breaking down, it's operating normally.
The only breakdowns are nervous breakdowns ....that and the Green scam is ending.
This is the last cleaning out of the cash registers.
Well how about instead of boasting about how much greater the current and future investment in green energy is and will be you focus on the return on that investment in terms of increase in energy produced? What is the benefit to society of spending billions of dollars on eg offshore wind projects that are abandoned as absurdly uneconomic?
The IEA report didn't say the return on wind and solar was greater, they said it was slightly less (6% vs. 6-9% for gas and oil.) But that's enough of a return to justify investment in renewables (which is maybe why $1.6 trillion got invested in renewables last year) and enough to call into question investments in oil and gas, since the risk is greater but the payoff isn't that much greater.
Adam, thanks for this article. Much appreciated. I see the propaganda approach working in other industries too. The big corporations sign up for the altruistic goals, but it's nothing much more than a marketing campaign.
We recently did a study of the Aluminum industry's commitment to net zero by 2050. Our study included 98% of all primary aluminum produced in the world today, and found that only about a third of all operating capacity has a stated commitment to net zero. But many companies have launched new "low carbon" products, seeking to cash in on the wave. Naturally, most of them do not define what they mean by "low carbon" - is it Scope 2 as well as Scope 1? Is it 4t CO2/t AL, or 2t, or what exactly is the level of CO2 emitted in your process? Lots of talk, lots of market positioning, little progress.
I would think most aluminum is made with hydropower? So I suppose a company that's been making aluminum since the 1940's with hydropower could now advertise that their aluminum is "Made with renewable energy", but I don't see the harm in that?
Except that you would think wrong. (Perhaps you live in Canada, where it's true.) Canada, Russia and the southwest of China run mostly on hydropower. The middle east runs on gas, Iceland runs on geo-thermal energy. Oh, and New Zealand uses hydro (how could I forget NZ). But most of the world's aluminum is made using fossil fuel, as do most of the aluminum companies, by number and by capacity. The only companies operating since the 1940s on hydropower are the ones in the Quebec region, formerly called Alcan, now part of Rio Tinto, with some assets part-owned by Alcoa, the American company.
And within your answer lies part of the problem. Aluminum production uses a process that was invented in the late 19th century, and although there have been many improvements, it's still the same basic process. The industry desperately needs the next technology breakthrough, but that opens a whole new can of worms.
I doubt there's any plant left in the world today that was built in the 1940s (though it's possible - I would have to check my database, and it's a Saturday so I am not going to), and although they may have had upgrades to their Fume Treatment Centre, their baking ovens and hopefully the pots have been converted from Soderberg to pre-bake, in today's terms the only reason to leave such a plant running is because there's no capital cost charge. Any plant built in the 1940s is going to be very old inefficient technology.
Huh, interesting. I guess I was thinking of the Pacific northwest, and the TVA, big hydropower projects in the US churning out lots of cheap electricity, and I figured there must be lots of aluminum production associated with that.
First of all, better definitions of the various scenarios would be helpful: These forecasts try to capture a range of possible outcomes by using the different scenarios, such as STEPS, APS, and NZE. Here is more detail about those scenarios: (1)The Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS): Assumes prevailing policy settings and projects a four percent increase in natural gas demand until 2030, followed by flat demand until 2050. This scenario is associated with a projected rise of around 2.5 °C in global average temperatures by 2100. (2) The Announced Pledges Scenario (APS): Incorporates climate commitments made by governments, including Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and net zero targets, resulting in an eight percent lower natural gas demand in 2030 compared to 2021, with a gradual two percent per year decline from 2030 to 2050. APS is associated with a projected temperature rise of 1.7 °C by 2100. (3) The Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE): Aims to limit global warming to 1.5 °C and assumes aggressive gains in energy efficiency and consumer behavior changes. Compared to 2021 levels, it projects a 22 percent decline in natural gas supply and demand below 2021 by 2030, with a little over five percent annual demand decline from 2030 to 2050. NZE anticipates significant reductions in fossil fuel demand and relies on renewables, while potentially underestimating the role of Carbon Capture Technology and wider adoption of low-cost, reliable base load natural gas.
The IEA forecasts are sophisticated and regarded seriously in the oil and gas industry (just read energy companies' annual reports and shareholder communications if you don't believe me), but necessarily rely on assumptions and unknowns, which are many and important. (An example of how economic conditions and supply variances can strongly impact actual prices can be seen in natural gas prices in the U.S. over the past two years. In 2022, natural gas prices started and ended the year at $4-5 per Mbtu (as forecasted) but swung wildly and stayed at $9-10 for most of the year. The IEA forecast is for natural gas in real dollars to be (as in 2022) at $4 by 2030 and remain there through 2050 under current policy. In fact, so far this year, they have ranged between $2 and $3, (which is what they are forecasted to be in 2030-2050 under the rigorous NZE scenario). Perhaps the markets are actually forecasting that alternative energy sources will, in fact, change the energy use future, so producers are willing to sell their gas at prices lower than IEA forecasts. Certainly, the claims above that fossil fuel usage will not be impacted by competing energy sources and government policy are unpersuasive.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I'm new here, and was starting to wonder if any of the commenters actually read the articles.
Also, I didn't read this as IEA predicting what will happen, just as "If A happens then B." If we actually do follow the emissions reductions promised at the various COP meetings, then oil and gas production will have to go down, but there's no guarantee that countries will follow through on their pledges.
Yeah, it's sort of like a long-term weather forecast--you wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be wrong, but you imagine the odds are at least better than 50/50 that it will be right, based on past data and correlations.
So many well-stated, persuasive critiques here! It's "idiotic", it's "drivel", who can argue with that? No, seriously, how can you argue when no argument is presented, or even attempted?
Alex Epstein rails against dishonest environmentalists misrepresenting the costs of alternative energy sources, but never mentions the elephant in the room--negative externalities. They destroy his conclusions. Care to enlighten us on this topic?
Isn't this typical of most transitions in technologies? Incumbent firms don't disrupt themselves, they compete with the new technology. Makers of horse-drawn carriages did not become car companies. Most manufacturers of mainframe computers are gone. Etc.
Yes, oil and gas companies may well be wasting capital. But are they getting clear signals from governments? Didn't the UK push back the deadline for EVs? What if Donald Trump is elected next year? When will the US tax carbon?
Ironically, policies to squeeze supply will put upward pressures on prices, encouraging more investment. Policies to curb demand for fossil fuels work two ways, both directly and through price signals. Where are they?
You mean like this forecast made by the UN’s Environmental Affairs Director, Mr Hussein Shihab in 1988 of an estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next
20 to 40 years, which would be catastrophic for most of the Maldive islands.
In case you’t can do the maths, that failed prediction was 45 years and the Maldives have actually grown in the meanwhile. Didn’t happen, as with all concrete climate change predictions.
Thanks for this. Massive growth in renewables -which is already happening - is going to be disastrous for the oil industry, as renewables become the lowest-cost energy source (already the case for new electricity generation).
But keep investing in oil if you want, lots of people held stock in the Stanley Steam Car company right up to the end.
Thanks again for the article, but it's the same problem I'm seeing with a lot of the nay-sayer comments here. He does some calculations and decides that nuclear is actually more cost-effective than solar and wind. OK, but why so few orders for nuclear plants when there are massively growing orders for wind and solar? All the world's utilities just did the math wrong? Let's remember these are people who are in the business of making money off selling the rest of us electricity, they might know a few things about what's likely to be profit-making and what's not.
Once built, solar and wind keep generating for decades, the embedded energy need to build the things are recouped in a year or two.
This is like arguing that electric cars don't actually reduce GHG emissions because it takes more energy to build them. Yes, it does, and that effect is nullified in about 10,000 miles of driving.
I am old. In last twenty years typical vehicle size in USA has got bigger and bigger. I drive a midsized suv. Why? For safety reasons because less chance of dying in an accident due to size. But now many pickup trucks and suvs much bigger than my vehicle. It’s like and arms race pump me up. Also there seems to be no understanding of thermodynamics and physics. Batteries are heavy. If you want electric as others have mentioned new big grid improvements and also nuclear power as solar and wind are not reliable. If wind and solar are cheaper it’s due to subsidies and cherry picking of data and location. China and India and Vietnam adding lots of new coal plants. To change things need to end charging of interest and fractional reserve banking which requires infinite growth and move to a sustainable economy model based on quality of life instead of growth and central banking debt slavery
If we really “swept aside the fossil fuel industry” on anything like the timetable the Greens demand billions would die. Of course nothing like that will ever happen, just look, for example, at China’s soaring coal usage. What will happen however is the collapse of Western civilization.
China's coal usage is falling. Renewable energy is growing so fast, coal will soon become the peaking energy source there. Refer the CREA report, the Carbon Brief story and the Daily Telegraph story
Apparently I can’t post a graphic here, or perhaps I just don’t know how. However, if you go to Our World in Data and search for Energy Consumption by Source, China, you’ll see that far from falling coal consumption is soaring.
I think it was the last post AT did, was about how growth in renewables in China for the first time exceeded overall growth in consumption. If that continues (and no reason to think it won't) then other sources will have to produce less, won't they?
Please be careful with the facts. China is approving an enormous number of power stations, but you will find that several of them are located overseas, and are part of their BRI initiative.
There is no doubting the coal lobby is enormously powerful in China, and they have a lot to lose. Many people in China have become very rich on coal, and many politicians come from "electorates" which rely on coal for their GDP growth. But they will have to be careful fighting an authoritarian who has many times shown his ability to silence critics.
Half right. Western civilization will not collapse. It is the poor and hungry that will suffer the most, they are getting screwed right now and it's not gonna stop.
Many poor countries are poor because they don't have oil and gas of their own, and have to spend their limited hard currency importing the stuff. Now you hand these countries the means to generate energy from wind and solar, how is that not a benefit?
This is straight up soft-handed mental masturbation, written by somebody who has never had a real job or done an honest day's work. All of us working poors are not just going to lay down and let you far green marxist boomers fuck it up for us. It doesn't matter how much time you wasted ascending the ranks of your academy, or how much the corrupt politicians try to dictate who lives and who dies. This whole nonsense about net zero is based on the foolish assumption that you can predict the future, with your fancy computers, and your smug attitude toward the facts, but we see through your bullshit.
A billion people, who have no access to electricity, burn wood and dung to cook. Another two billion people live on less energy than an average refrigerator.
Far green racists and their indoctrinated supporters want to stop these people using fossil fuel to advance their lives... I say FU!
This is a nonsensical piece as numerous folks have said below. As long as wind and solar are the primary sources of energy being used as part of the transition oil and gas use around the world is not going anywhere. For those who live in a fantasy land like the IEA, and apparently Adam (as well as many lefty economists, historians, etc), who thinks we are well on our way to a major energy transition, I offer you this analysis below which is actual reality on the ground. Places like Germany and CA have shown that rapid energy transition is a road to disaster and as long as solar and wind are the primary benefactors of this green delusion, oil and gas consumption is not going anywhere. These rapid transition projections are based on there not being any pushback for higher energy costs. If you actually believe there won't be major pushback as higher energy costs continue to hit peoples' pocketbooks, you need a reality check.
But $1.6 trillion doesn't get allocated by "lefty economists", it gets allocated by decision-makers at the world's electric utilities, who tend to be pretty conservative in their outlook and decision-making. Maybe they're seeing something your Substack guy isn't seeing?
The IEA is a indeed a gov spout and has officially joined the wholly righteous and alarming set of western middle classes in search of a new religion which separates them from the fossil hoi polloi:
Climate Activism Isn't About the Planet. It's About the Boredom of the Bourgeoisie
(Not that driving a gov subsidized Tesla is that boring).
IEA predictions are typically reversed - by the IEA - about 6 months later. It should be renamed the International Roller Coaster Agency.
Just like western middle classes the IEA makes a lot of noise and then continuous business as usual (bau).
BAU is also the unofficial (nick)name of the most used yet utterly unrealistic because technically impossible climate scenario RCP/SSP8.5. This scenario has been and is all over the media since without it studies' headers and media articles become a lot less 'interesting'. (We need to add 23.000 coal fired utility plants to the current 7000 to reach its predicted emissions).
The IPCC expects the RCP/SSP4.5 scenario to be the realistic expectation for 2100 with a temperature rise of less than half that of RCP/SSP8.5 - 2.2C / 2.5C. We're already at 1.5C of that warming, not 'global' warming btw since global warming in reality is northern hemisphere warming. Europe (+ 2C) and the arctic (+ 3C / 4C) especially.
But you know...numbers...statistics...
Media: 'Europeans most at risk from climate deaths! Hungary leads!'
Of course Europe and Hungary are most at risk. Aging increases the number of deaths from heat, and Hungary is the fastest aging country in Europe. Yet 90% of global deaths-from-the-weather (climate-deaths do not exist) still come from the cold. Which to a degree is related to wealth and wealth distribution: a 1% rise in US energy costs leads to a 12% rise in annual US deaths from cold.
Anyway, while psychologists have found new business in setting up faculties where 'denier-brains' are researched (no one denies climate change, it's more a matter of belief systems), and marketers have found new business in researching how 'to reach denier brains with the right message', this is our reality:
Environmental knowledge is inversely associated with climate change anxiety
The most recent report, IPCC AR6 , chapter 12: Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment. Page 90 shows the (un)detected weather extremes:
Then again, degrowth is in fashion and has also captured the non-scientific IPCC working group 2 focused on adaption etc. Their 'science' is far from settled (obviously) but their language is funky:
'transformation is the resulting ‘fundamental reorganisation of large-scale socio-economic systems’ (Hölscher et al. 2018). Such a fundamental reorganisation often requires dynamic multi-stage transition processes that change everything from public policies and prevailing technologies to individual lifestyles, and social norms to governance arrangements and institutions of political economy...
The starting point for this virtuous circle are inner transitions. Inner transitions occur within individuals, organisations and even larger jurisdictions that alter beliefs and actions involving climate change (Woiwode et al. 2021). An inner transition within an individual (see e.g., Parodi and Tamm 2018) typically involves a person gaining a deepening sense of peace and a willingness to help others, as well as protecting the climate and the planet . . .
Examples have also been seen in relation to a similar set of inner transitions to individuals, organisations and societies, which involve embracing post-development, degrowth, or non-material values that challenge carbon-intensive lifestyles and development models . . .
Consumption reductions, both voluntary and policy-induced, can have positive and double-dividend effects on efficiency as well as reductions in energy and materials use . . . a low-carbon transition in conjunction with social sustainability is possible, even without economic growth (Kallis et al. 2012; Jackson and Victor 2016; Stuart et al. 2017; Chapman and Fraser 2019; D’Alessandro et al. 2019; Gabriel and Bond 2019; Huang et al. 2019; Victor 2019). Such degrowth pathways may be crucial in combining technical feasibility of mitigation with social development goals (Hickel et al. 2021; Keyßer and Lenzen 2021)'
Amen. And now let's get really fired up:
Kohei Saito: ‘Marx in the Anthropocene: Towards the Idea of Degrowth Communism’
Yes! It's in The Holy Bible, you see?! (Well, not in The Holy Bible perse, but in HIS notes musings about the environment and sustainability have been identified by eager monks).
The wholly righteous left has clearly piled all its hopes and wants on 'climate' but as so often it's somewhat clueless when it comes to economics and statistics. Two current examples of righteous zeal ending as comedy:
1) ESG motivated pension funds and asset managers to remove fossil energy companies from their portfolios, while banks became more conservative lenders since fossil was 'destroying The Planet'. Yet the renewables industry has been fully underpinned by the effects of QE and low interest rates. Now that both have changed and the real costs of renewables become visible, inflation on top of that, we are also beginning to see the effects of underinvestment in energy exploration (effects predicted long ago): building out the humongous amount of windmills and solar panels will be extravagantly expensive. And inflationary. (The mining industry shows the same underinvestment although there company & shareholder actions also have had an impact on investments).
2) ESG also motivated the financial industry to divest from the European weapons industry. An industry which is now supposed to quickly scale up vs the Russian 'threat'. But they can't find private funds - anymore. So now gov's are contemplating subsidies.
Just like gov subsidies enabled the renewables industry. Which caused industrial and household energy prices to climb much higher. Now those two will have to be subsidized as well.
It seems Capitalism may end up in Socialism after all.
But we won't all drive Teslas. Having the right car is as important as having the right opinion (Teslas are clearly the new Saabs).
Let's finish on a fun note with a classic example of economists's utility through futility:
'In my never-ending series on ‘Economists who think they can apply their tools to every situation, no matter how ridiculous’, let me introduce you to Robert Michael from the University of Chicago. His paper is called The Nature of Sexual Capital and it literally starts with the following sentence:
“It is surprising that there has been so little economic research on the subject of sexual behaviour.”'
So it's all just a case of mass hysteria? Just another case of Tulip-o-mania? $1.6 trillion invested in renewables last year, but all the profit-making businesses that invested that money forgot to hire some engineers and physicists who could tell them that it was all a boondoggle?
Look, I can understand the appeal of this sort of thinking, believing that everyone else is crazy and that just you and a few of your pals who understand what's REALLY going on. Not like the nay-sayers have never been right, it's just that it's much more likely that you're wrong.
'Invested'? Don't kid yourself. You forgot to add the word subsidy. Profit making? What are you on? One renewables projects after another is been cancelled. Companies like Siemens Electric are in great trouble.
The renewables industry has been massively subsidized: 3 T invested and now a global share of renewables of 3%. Cheers.
And since there was such a generous gov titty for all those years the McKinseys and PE of this world were and are all over them (McKinsey wrote a huge and alarming report in 2021 solely based on the RCP/SSP8.5 scenario...And why not, everybody does it).
THEY are making a profit while running no risk. But just take a look at the electricity prices of the EU countries with the highest share of renewable energy.
Who has been making a profit apart from consultants and private equity? Middle class European home owners who could buy subsidized solar panels and then sell back their energy at a guaranteed price. The Netherlands have reached the #1 spot in Europe for solar in just a few years (we have a jolly climate don't we?). Now, hardly any panel is sold anymore because the guaranteed price scheme will be halted...
Let's hope for those poor people they found ways to benefit from the 13 B that the Dutch gov put in a Tesla factory employing 300 people (sic) but which made the gov look 'green' (and 'tech savvy'). And let's hope they found ways to benefit from the gov subsidizing BMW and Jaguar owners to change brand...
If there were that many smart people involved the EU would have focused on nuclear 20 years ago, not wind and sun. Plus, if there were that many smart people involved elec grids would have been preemptively and massive built out because renewables cause huge fluctuations.
Yet no country, not a single one, took care of its elec grid. Like leaders of banana republics 'giving' their underlings fancy projects (roads, not invisible sewage systems, because they'll remember the road when in the voting box) the EU gave us a forest of windmills. Without roots so to speak.
Now EU nation's grid operators warn of a decade (or more: UK) of grid problems. In the NL neighborhoods can't be build and 6600 companies are on a waiting list for electricity.
And most hilariously, renewables projects can't be connected to the grid:
National Grid told to hurry up as solar projects face 15 year waiting times
Were are all your brilliant thinkers? It seems more like a brilliant fuck up. Maybe Monty Python should quickly before they're all dead - they're old and thus most at risk from heat-death - make a scene about the Ministry of silly Thoughts...
Did you know what the UK Met Office calls a 'heat day' since a few years?
Any day with a temp above 20C (sic). And so warnings go out for these 'heat days'. And if you take a look at the Met Office UK summer's stats you'll see that they've counted almost an entire summer's worth of 'heat days'.
Hello nannystate.
Luckily the UK is in the global #3 for streetcamera surveillance (with China and the US, way to go Liberal Democracy, just a few more to reach the top!), so they can quickly identify the elderly in trouble from these incredibly dangerous 'heat days'...
Renewables have all sorts of functions but they're not 'saving The Planet'. They're saving Biden's ass for instance, here's a WH briefing:
FACT SHEET: Biden Administration Jumpstarts Offshore Wind Energy Projects to Create Jobs
And here is New York State in 2018 looking at the viability of a wind park. Economics come last and matter for about 10%:
'As part of the state’s Offshore Wind Standard Scoring Criteria for bids, the weighting was as follows: 70% Bid Price (primarily focused on ORECS), 20% on Economic Benefits, and 10% on Project Viability.[3] Yes, only 10% of the bid focused on Project Viability. In other words, whether or not it works is clearly not the main concern here'.
Luckily for me my mother is getting old and she has become addicted to buying me warm (Japanese) socks. And the coming decade will be the decade of warm socks, though not necessarily Japanese.
OK, $1.6 trillion invested in renewables this year, which was more than last year, and probably even more will be invested next year. But everyone's going bankrupt, the whole industry is in collapse, they're all idiots and you know better. Got it.
All borrowed money, no tax raises or budget cuts anywhere to finance it. And about 60% of the inflation reducation act and other US fiscal measures (the bulk of that 1.6 T is Biden's attack on the US deficit which is gigantic - but probably not for Tooze commenter) are sucked up by the US construction sector which is building facilities like semi conductor etc that will never become true competitors to the existing foreign companies.
Also, any idea what the level of solar and wind subsidies were from the IRA last year? Not even a tiny fraction of the total $1.6 trillion spent worldwide on renewables, that's for sure. The IRA did have an eye-popping price tag, but it was spread over 10 years, the subsidies per year aren't that great compared with the amount being spent on wind and solar by private investors. And all that private investment must be coming in with an expectation that it will be profit-making. But I know, they're all wrong and you're right. Let's talk again in five years and you can crow about how you saw the crash coming when no one else did.
Hmmm... I got that you're changing the subject to semiconductor manufacturing for some reason?
Let's try again. A utility invests... um, excuse me, spends a couple of hundred million on a solar farm. The same utility spent a couple of hundred million on a wind farm a few years ago. They plan to spend another couple of hundred million on either solar or wind a few years from now. Must be happening, how else do you get to $1.6 spent globally in one year?
Now, why make these repeated expenditures for new projects unless the previous projects were profitable to them? All of the utility-company executives been brainwashed by Greta Thunberg? Or, is it that, as directors of profit-making businesses, they've found these projects to be profitable, and not the bankruptcy-inducing boondoggles you claim they are?
You do not seem to grasp the concept of subsidies nor that of crony capitalism.. The NL gov spent 13 B on Tesla having their European assembly plant with paltry 300 employees, and on subsidizing BMW and Jaguar drivers to change brands. The year the gov ended its subsidies scheme Tesla packed and left. This year the gov ended it's scheme subsidizing middle class to buy solar panels and sell back their energy at a guaranteed price. The NL solar panel market now is in shambles.
Also love driving my EV... but they are just toys for the wealthy! The real opportunity is to use electric vehicles to remove air and noise pollution from cities, even if they are powered by coal generated elsewhere - my strong preference is for nuclear though. There is a place for solar in sunny climates, but the ROEI elsewhere is disastrous and as for the bird mincers...
We really should encourage delusional people like SteveB and Adam... the profits from fossil fuel are all the more epic with their help!
'the profits from fossil fuel are all the more epic with their help!'
Just like with energy sanctions on Russia ('We buy their energy, we have the power!') this requires understanding economics. And since for most involved economics is a morals game and a way of viewing the world, an economical understanding of economics is a rare feat. Especially amongst economists.
Who are mostly shaman's and function to hand some political pov a stamp of approval. By the time their advice has played out everybody has moved on. (Philip Tetlock - Super forecasters: ordinary nobodies with a decent amound of smarts and a willingness to change their pov when the facts change (i.e. their ego is not involved), forecast better than the pro's).
There is no pathway to reduction in petroleum combustion. Indeed any prosperity that accrues to any society results in bigger cars and more energy consumption. Going green without fossil fuels would require massive investment in nuclear energy , which is not happening. Going green means vast new infrastructure, such as rail , again, not happening. Just a simple improvement in mileage standards in the USA would reduce gasoline consumption, but that easy policy is NOT happening. Planting trillions of trees would help blunt the problem, NOT HAPPENING. The fault is not oil companies, it is the lack of policy from governments big and small to blame.
It’s the oil companies and their shareholders that are fighting efforts to respond to Climate breakdown. It’s not that people don’t want to change. There is just a well funded propaganda effort to make change impossible.
But Green kept telling us the world was ending all our lives, in fact it's flooded over on the East Coast already, NYC is supposed to be under water already...
And yet...
The climate isn't breaking down, it's operating normally.
The only breakdowns are nervous breakdowns ....that and the Green scam is ending.
This is the last cleaning out of the cash registers.
That's the "Climate Breakdown".
The IEA’s message is utter nonsense.
Well, that's a persuasive argument.
Well how about instead of boasting about how much greater the current and future investment in green energy is and will be you focus on the return on that investment in terms of increase in energy produced? What is the benefit to society of spending billions of dollars on eg offshore wind projects that are abandoned as absurdly uneconomic?
The IEA report didn't say the return on wind and solar was greater, they said it was slightly less (6% vs. 6-9% for gas and oil.) But that's enough of a return to justify investment in renewables (which is maybe why $1.6 trillion got invested in renewables last year) and enough to call into question investments in oil and gas, since the risk is greater but the payoff isn't that much greater.
You did read before commenting, right?
Adam, thanks for this article. Much appreciated. I see the propaganda approach working in other industries too. The big corporations sign up for the altruistic goals, but it's nothing much more than a marketing campaign.
We recently did a study of the Aluminum industry's commitment to net zero by 2050. Our study included 98% of all primary aluminum produced in the world today, and found that only about a third of all operating capacity has a stated commitment to net zero. But many companies have launched new "low carbon" products, seeking to cash in on the wave. Naturally, most of them do not define what they mean by "low carbon" - is it Scope 2 as well as Scope 1? Is it 4t CO2/t AL, or 2t, or what exactly is the level of CO2 emitted in your process? Lots of talk, lots of market positioning, little progress.
It's not marketing.
It's Bribery, or Extorted payoffs.
Granted neither is altruistic.
Altruism is rare.
I would think most aluminum is made with hydropower? So I suppose a company that's been making aluminum since the 1940's with hydropower could now advertise that their aluminum is "Made with renewable energy", but I don't see the harm in that?
Except that you would think wrong. (Perhaps you live in Canada, where it's true.) Canada, Russia and the southwest of China run mostly on hydropower. The middle east runs on gas, Iceland runs on geo-thermal energy. Oh, and New Zealand uses hydro (how could I forget NZ). But most of the world's aluminum is made using fossil fuel, as do most of the aluminum companies, by number and by capacity. The only companies operating since the 1940s on hydropower are the ones in the Quebec region, formerly called Alcan, now part of Rio Tinto, with some assets part-owned by Alcoa, the American company.
And within your answer lies part of the problem. Aluminum production uses a process that was invented in the late 19th century, and although there have been many improvements, it's still the same basic process. The industry desperately needs the next technology breakthrough, but that opens a whole new can of worms.
I doubt there's any plant left in the world today that was built in the 1940s (though it's possible - I would have to check my database, and it's a Saturday so I am not going to), and although they may have had upgrades to their Fume Treatment Centre, their baking ovens and hopefully the pots have been converted from Soderberg to pre-bake, in today's terms the only reason to leave such a plant running is because there's no capital cost charge. Any plant built in the 1940s is going to be very old inefficient technology.
Huh, interesting. I guess I was thinking of the Pacific northwest, and the TVA, big hydropower projects in the US churning out lots of cheap electricity, and I figured there must be lots of aluminum production associated with that.
First of all, better definitions of the various scenarios would be helpful: These forecasts try to capture a range of possible outcomes by using the different scenarios, such as STEPS, APS, and NZE. Here is more detail about those scenarios: (1)The Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS): Assumes prevailing policy settings and projects a four percent increase in natural gas demand until 2030, followed by flat demand until 2050. This scenario is associated with a projected rise of around 2.5 °C in global average temperatures by 2100. (2) The Announced Pledges Scenario (APS): Incorporates climate commitments made by governments, including Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and net zero targets, resulting in an eight percent lower natural gas demand in 2030 compared to 2021, with a gradual two percent per year decline from 2030 to 2050. APS is associated with a projected temperature rise of 1.7 °C by 2100. (3) The Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE): Aims to limit global warming to 1.5 °C and assumes aggressive gains in energy efficiency and consumer behavior changes. Compared to 2021 levels, it projects a 22 percent decline in natural gas supply and demand below 2021 by 2030, with a little over five percent annual demand decline from 2030 to 2050. NZE anticipates significant reductions in fossil fuel demand and relies on renewables, while potentially underestimating the role of Carbon Capture Technology and wider adoption of low-cost, reliable base load natural gas.
The IEA forecasts are sophisticated and regarded seriously in the oil and gas industry (just read energy companies' annual reports and shareholder communications if you don't believe me), but necessarily rely on assumptions and unknowns, which are many and important. (An example of how economic conditions and supply variances can strongly impact actual prices can be seen in natural gas prices in the U.S. over the past two years. In 2022, natural gas prices started and ended the year at $4-5 per Mbtu (as forecasted) but swung wildly and stayed at $9-10 for most of the year. The IEA forecast is for natural gas in real dollars to be (as in 2022) at $4 by 2030 and remain there through 2050 under current policy. In fact, so far this year, they have ranged between $2 and $3, (which is what they are forecasted to be in 2030-2050 under the rigorous NZE scenario). Perhaps the markets are actually forecasting that alternative energy sources will, in fact, change the energy use future, so producers are willing to sell their gas at prices lower than IEA forecasts. Certainly, the claims above that fossil fuel usage will not be impacted by competing energy sources and government policy are unpersuasive.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I'm new here, and was starting to wonder if any of the commenters actually read the articles.
Also, I didn't read this as IEA predicting what will happen, just as "If A happens then B." If we actually do follow the emissions reductions promised at the various COP meetings, then oil and gas production will have to go down, but there's no guarantee that countries will follow through on their pledges.
Yeah, it's sort of like a long-term weather forecast--you wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be wrong, but you imagine the odds are at least better than 50/50 that it will be right, based on past data and correlations.
What an idiotic post, Adam Tooze... all you are doing is parrot the official narrative - did you use AI to write this?
Suggest you spend a few weeks listening to the likes of Doomberg, Alex Epstein & Simon Michaux, before posting more of this drivel.
So many well-stated, persuasive critiques here! It's "idiotic", it's "drivel", who can argue with that? No, seriously, how can you argue when no argument is presented, or even attempted?
Why don’t you follow up the sources I quoted and come back when you’ve leaned something?
If these sources have such brilliant things to say, I wonder why you're unable to share a single brilliant insight with us right here, right now.
Hard to argue with such silliness -- so what is the message? Oil and gas companies should invest more in wind power? Coal companies in solar?
See, the problem here is once I filter out the insults there's no content left to respond to.
Alex Epstein rails against dishonest environmentalists misrepresenting the costs of alternative energy sources, but never mentions the elephant in the room--negative externalities. They destroy his conclusions. Care to enlighten us on this topic?
Isn't this typical of most transitions in technologies? Incumbent firms don't disrupt themselves, they compete with the new technology. Makers of horse-drawn carriages did not become car companies. Most manufacturers of mainframe computers are gone. Etc.
Yes, oil and gas companies may well be wasting capital. But are they getting clear signals from governments? Didn't the UK push back the deadline for EVs? What if Donald Trump is elected next year? When will the US tax carbon?
Ironically, policies to squeeze supply will put upward pressures on prices, encouraging more investment. Policies to curb demand for fossil fuels work two ways, both directly and through price signals. Where are they?
Also, your lack of understanding of impact of imposing the “green revolution” on those less fortunate is frankly astounding and racist.
Given any thought to the impact of climate change on those less fortunate?
You mean like this forecast made by the UN’s Environmental Affairs Director, Mr Hussein Shihab in 1988 of an estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next
20 to 40 years, which would be catastrophic for most of the Maldive islands.
In case you’t can do the maths, that failed prediction was 45 years and the Maldives have actually grown in the meanwhile. Didn’t happen, as with all concrete climate change predictions.
Ah, so you're just a denier then. Conversation over, thanks.
Very strange response... you don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story, do you?
You should visit the Maldives, to see this “catastrophe” first hand...
Yours sincerely, Denier
😃😁🤣
Thanks for this. Massive growth in renewables -which is already happening - is going to be disastrous for the oil industry, as renewables become the lowest-cost energy source (already the case for new electricity generation).
But keep investing in oil if you want, lots of people held stock in the Stanley Steam Car company right up to the end.
Renewables are the lowest cost in electricity generation? That’s precisely the kind of silliness that I was referring to.
Once again, insults but no facts. I'm afraid you're wasting your time.
Here SteveB...let me help you out since you think you are the smartest one here....Steve Fisher is absolutely correct in calling you out on saying renewables offer the lowest cost energy...take some time to read this and actually understand how energy works...https://zionlights.substack.com/p/what-is-the-true-cost-of-energy?utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2
Thanks again for the article, but it's the same problem I'm seeing with a lot of the nay-sayer comments here. He does some calculations and decides that nuclear is actually more cost-effective than solar and wind. OK, but why so few orders for nuclear plants when there are massively growing orders for wind and solar? All the world's utilities just did the math wrong? Let's remember these are people who are in the business of making money off selling the rest of us electricity, they might know a few things about what's likely to be profit-making and what's not.
I think you need to understand the history of nuclear and why we are where we are with it. I have included a few additional articles...
https://a16z.com/how-to-scale-nuclear-power/
https://juliadewahl.com/nuclear-energy-past-present-future
https://www.nuclearinnovationalliance.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/5b05b3_bdbc49c10e3c4f4a811421b4a627b785.pdf
Well, thanks for including an actual link to an article instead of just insults. Progress!
Do you even know how the steel and concrete required to build your short-lived renewables are made?
Once built, solar and wind keep generating for decades, the embedded energy need to build the things are recouped in a year or two.
This is like arguing that electric cars don't actually reduce GHG emissions because it takes more energy to build them. Yes, it does, and that effect is nullified in about 10,000 miles of driving.
I am old. In last twenty years typical vehicle size in USA has got bigger and bigger. I drive a midsized suv. Why? For safety reasons because less chance of dying in an accident due to size. But now many pickup trucks and suvs much bigger than my vehicle. It’s like and arms race pump me up. Also there seems to be no understanding of thermodynamics and physics. Batteries are heavy. If you want electric as others have mentioned new big grid improvements and also nuclear power as solar and wind are not reliable. If wind and solar are cheaper it’s due to subsidies and cherry picking of data and location. China and India and Vietnam adding lots of new coal plants. To change things need to end charging of interest and fractional reserve banking which requires infinite growth and move to a sustainable economy model based on quality of life instead of growth and central banking debt slavery
Tell him he's dreaming son!
If we really “swept aside the fossil fuel industry” on anything like the timetable the Greens demand billions would die. Of course nothing like that will ever happen, just look, for example, at China’s soaring coal usage. What will happen however is the collapse of Western civilization.
China's coal usage is falling. Renewable energy is growing so fast, coal will soon become the peaking energy source there. Refer the CREA report, the Carbon Brief story and the Daily Telegraph story
Apparently I can’t post a graphic here, or perhaps I just don’t know how. However, if you go to Our World in Data and search for Energy Consumption by Source, China, you’ll see that far from falling coal consumption is soaring.
China is building two large coal-fired power stations PER WEEK. India has just committed to expanding coal usage by 40%.
Doesn’t seem that usage is falling, does it?
I think it was the last post AT did, was about how growth in renewables in China for the first time exceeded overall growth in consumption. If that continues (and no reason to think it won't) then other sources will have to produce less, won't they?
Please be careful with the facts. China is approving an enormous number of power stations, but you will find that several of them are located overseas, and are part of their BRI initiative.
There is no doubting the coal lobby is enormously powerful in China, and they have a lot to lose. Many people in China have become very rich on coal, and many politicians come from "electorates" which rely on coal for their GDP growth. But they will have to be careful fighting an authoritarian who has many times shown his ability to silence critics.
Half right. Western civilization will not collapse. It is the poor and hungry that will suffer the most, they are getting screwed right now and it's not gonna stop.
Many poor countries are poor because they don't have oil and gas of their own, and have to spend their limited hard currency importing the stuff. Now you hand these countries the means to generate energy from wind and solar, how is that not a benefit?
This is straight up soft-handed mental masturbation, written by somebody who has never had a real job or done an honest day's work. All of us working poors are not just going to lay down and let you far green marxist boomers fuck it up for us. It doesn't matter how much time you wasted ascending the ranks of your academy, or how much the corrupt politicians try to dictate who lives and who dies. This whole nonsense about net zero is based on the foolish assumption that you can predict the future, with your fancy computers, and your smug attitude toward the facts, but we see through your bullshit.
A billion people, who have no access to electricity, burn wood and dung to cook. Another two billion people live on less energy than an average refrigerator.
Far green racists and their indoctrinated supporters want to stop these people using fossil fuel to advance their lives... I say FU!
Why spend so much time putting together charts and analysis on a fantasy?
This is a nonsensical piece as numerous folks have said below. As long as wind and solar are the primary sources of energy being used as part of the transition oil and gas use around the world is not going anywhere. For those who live in a fantasy land like the IEA, and apparently Adam (as well as many lefty economists, historians, etc), who thinks we are well on our way to a major energy transition, I offer you this analysis below which is actual reality on the ground. Places like Germany and CA have shown that rapid energy transition is a road to disaster and as long as solar and wind are the primary benefactors of this green delusion, oil and gas consumption is not going anywhere. These rapid transition projections are based on there not being any pushback for higher energy costs. If you actually believe there won't be major pushback as higher energy costs continue to hit peoples' pocketbooks, you need a reality check.
https://zionlights.substack.com/p/what-is-the-true-cost-of-energy?utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2
But $1.6 trillion doesn't get allocated by "lefty economists", it gets allocated by decision-makers at the world's electric utilities, who tend to be pretty conservative in their outlook and decision-making. Maybe they're seeing something your Substack guy isn't seeing?
Yes, they see lots of subsidies.
And, in the end, subsidies included, it's profitable for the utilities to install wind and solar? They do this because it makes them money?
The foundation of everything: Why Dumb Ideas Capture Smart and Successful People
Intelligent individuals are better at understanding the reputational consequences of their beliefs
ROB HENDERSON
https://bit.ly/40PlzHt
The IEA is a indeed a gov spout and has officially joined the wholly righteous and alarming set of western middle classes in search of a new religion which separates them from the fossil hoi polloi:
Climate Activism Isn't About the Planet. It's About the Boredom of the Bourgeoisie
https://bit.ly/3iMrE61
(Not that driving a gov subsidized Tesla is that boring).
IEA predictions are typically reversed - by the IEA - about 6 months later. It should be renamed the International Roller Coaster Agency.
Just like western middle classes the IEA makes a lot of noise and then continuous business as usual (bau).
BAU is also the unofficial (nick)name of the most used yet utterly unrealistic because technically impossible climate scenario RCP/SSP8.5. This scenario has been and is all over the media since without it studies' headers and media articles become a lot less 'interesting'. (We need to add 23.000 coal fired utility plants to the current 7000 to reach its predicted emissions).
The IPCC expects the RCP/SSP4.5 scenario to be the realistic expectation for 2100 with a temperature rise of less than half that of RCP/SSP8.5 - 2.2C / 2.5C. We're already at 1.5C of that warming, not 'global' warming btw since global warming in reality is northern hemisphere warming. Europe (+ 2C) and the arctic (+ 3C / 4C) especially.
But you know...numbers...statistics...
Media: 'Europeans most at risk from climate deaths! Hungary leads!'
Of course Europe and Hungary are most at risk. Aging increases the number of deaths from heat, and Hungary is the fastest aging country in Europe. Yet 90% of global deaths-from-the-weather (climate-deaths do not exist) still come from the cold. Which to a degree is related to wealth and wealth distribution: a 1% rise in US energy costs leads to a 12% rise in annual US deaths from cold.
Anyway, while psychologists have found new business in setting up faculties where 'denier-brains' are researched (no one denies climate change, it's more a matter of belief systems), and marketers have found new business in researching how 'to reach denier brains with the right message', this is our reality:
Environmental knowledge is inversely associated with climate change anxiety
https://bit.ly/3BJMwAZ
But if we examine 'climate-brains' their activism becomes logical:
Climate change anxiety and mental health: Environmental activism as buffer
https://bit.ly/41ZyWDW
let's hope it's good therapy, young women are having abortions because of climate doom:
Zoé had her child aborted because of the climate
https://bit.ly/3VZumnQ
And let's hope activists will finally begin to read climate science:
Don't overstate 1.5 degrees C threat, new IPCC head says
https://bit.ly/3Qky3nA
The most recent report, IPCC AR6 , chapter 12: Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment. Page 90 shows the (un)detected weather extremes:
https://bit.ly/452idBO
Then again, degrowth is in fashion and has also captured the non-scientific IPCC working group 2 focused on adaption etc. Their 'science' is far from settled (obviously) but their language is funky:
The Political Agenda of the IPCC
https://bit.ly/42QxGo4
'transformation is the resulting ‘fundamental reorganisation of large-scale socio-economic systems’ (Hölscher et al. 2018). Such a fundamental reorganisation often requires dynamic multi-stage transition processes that change everything from public policies and prevailing technologies to individual lifestyles, and social norms to governance arrangements and institutions of political economy...
The starting point for this virtuous circle are inner transitions. Inner transitions occur within individuals, organisations and even larger jurisdictions that alter beliefs and actions involving climate change (Woiwode et al. 2021). An inner transition within an individual (see e.g., Parodi and Tamm 2018) typically involves a person gaining a deepening sense of peace and a willingness to help others, as well as protecting the climate and the planet . . .
Examples have also been seen in relation to a similar set of inner transitions to individuals, organisations and societies, which involve embracing post-development, degrowth, or non-material values that challenge carbon-intensive lifestyles and development models . . .
Consumption reductions, both voluntary and policy-induced, can have positive and double-dividend effects on efficiency as well as reductions in energy and materials use . . . a low-carbon transition in conjunction with social sustainability is possible, even without economic growth (Kallis et al. 2012; Jackson and Victor 2016; Stuart et al. 2017; Chapman and Fraser 2019; D’Alessandro et al. 2019; Gabriel and Bond 2019; Huang et al. 2019; Victor 2019). Such degrowth pathways may be crucial in combining technical feasibility of mitigation with social development goals (Hickel et al. 2021; Keyßer and Lenzen 2021)'
Amen. And now let's get really fired up:
Kohei Saito: ‘Marx in the Anthropocene: Towards the Idea of Degrowth Communism’
https://bit.ly/3FQWkeC
Yes! It's in The Holy Bible, you see?! (Well, not in The Holy Bible perse, but in HIS notes musings about the environment and sustainability have been identified by eager monks).
The wholly righteous left has clearly piled all its hopes and wants on 'climate' but as so often it's somewhat clueless when it comes to economics and statistics. Two current examples of righteous zeal ending as comedy:
1) ESG motivated pension funds and asset managers to remove fossil energy companies from their portfolios, while banks became more conservative lenders since fossil was 'destroying The Planet'. Yet the renewables industry has been fully underpinned by the effects of QE and low interest rates. Now that both have changed and the real costs of renewables become visible, inflation on top of that, we are also beginning to see the effects of underinvestment in energy exploration (effects predicted long ago): building out the humongous amount of windmills and solar panels will be extravagantly expensive. And inflationary. (The mining industry shows the same underinvestment although there company & shareholder actions also have had an impact on investments).
2) ESG also motivated the financial industry to divest from the European weapons industry. An industry which is now supposed to quickly scale up vs the Russian 'threat'. But they can't find private funds - anymore. So now gov's are contemplating subsidies.
Just like gov subsidies enabled the renewables industry. Which caused industrial and household energy prices to climb much higher. Now those two will have to be subsidized as well.
It seems Capitalism may end up in Socialism after all.
But we won't all drive Teslas. Having the right car is as important as having the right opinion (Teslas are clearly the new Saabs).
Let's finish on a fun note with a classic example of economists's utility through futility:
'In my never-ending series on ‘Economists who think they can apply their tools to every situation, no matter how ridiculous’, let me introduce you to Robert Michael from the University of Chicago. His paper is called The Nature of Sexual Capital and it literally starts with the following sentence:
“It is surprising that there has been so little economic research on the subject of sexual behaviour.”'
https://bit.ly/3MV66zS
So it's all just a case of mass hysteria? Just another case of Tulip-o-mania? $1.6 trillion invested in renewables last year, but all the profit-making businesses that invested that money forgot to hire some engineers and physicists who could tell them that it was all a boondoggle?
Look, I can understand the appeal of this sort of thinking, believing that everyone else is crazy and that just you and a few of your pals who understand what's REALLY going on. Not like the nay-sayers have never been right, it's just that it's much more likely that you're wrong.
'Invested'? Don't kid yourself. You forgot to add the word subsidy. Profit making? What are you on? One renewables projects after another is been cancelled. Companies like Siemens Electric are in great trouble.
The renewables industry has been massively subsidized: 3 T invested and now a global share of renewables of 3%. Cheers.
And since there was such a generous gov titty for all those years the McKinseys and PE of this world were and are all over them (McKinsey wrote a huge and alarming report in 2021 solely based on the RCP/SSP8.5 scenario...And why not, everybody does it).
THEY are making a profit while running no risk. But just take a look at the electricity prices of the EU countries with the highest share of renewable energy.
Who has been making a profit apart from consultants and private equity? Middle class European home owners who could buy subsidized solar panels and then sell back their energy at a guaranteed price. The Netherlands have reached the #1 spot in Europe for solar in just a few years (we have a jolly climate don't we?). Now, hardly any panel is sold anymore because the guaranteed price scheme will be halted...
Let's hope for those poor people they found ways to benefit from the 13 B that the Dutch gov put in a Tesla factory employing 300 people (sic) but which made the gov look 'green' (and 'tech savvy'). And let's hope they found ways to benefit from the gov subsidizing BMW and Jaguar owners to change brand...
If there were that many smart people involved the EU would have focused on nuclear 20 years ago, not wind and sun. Plus, if there were that many smart people involved elec grids would have been preemptively and massive built out because renewables cause huge fluctuations.
Silence of the Grid Experts
https://bit.ly/3Wifykl
Yet no country, not a single one, took care of its elec grid. Like leaders of banana republics 'giving' their underlings fancy projects (roads, not invisible sewage systems, because they'll remember the road when in the voting box) the EU gave us a forest of windmills. Without roots so to speak.
Now EU nation's grid operators warn of a decade (or more: UK) of grid problems. In the NL neighborhoods can't be build and 6600 companies are on a waiting list for electricity.
And most hilariously, renewables projects can't be connected to the grid:
National Grid told to hurry up as solar projects face 15 year waiting times
https://bit.ly/3qzWB1f
Were are all your brilliant thinkers? It seems more like a brilliant fuck up. Maybe Monty Python should quickly before they're all dead - they're old and thus most at risk from heat-death - make a scene about the Ministry of silly Thoughts...
Did you know what the UK Met Office calls a 'heat day' since a few years?
Any day with a temp above 20C (sic). And so warnings go out for these 'heat days'. And if you take a look at the Met Office UK summer's stats you'll see that they've counted almost an entire summer's worth of 'heat days'.
Hello nannystate.
Luckily the UK is in the global #3 for streetcamera surveillance (with China and the US, way to go Liberal Democracy, just a few more to reach the top!), so they can quickly identify the elderly in trouble from these incredibly dangerous 'heat days'...
Renewables have all sorts of functions but they're not 'saving The Planet'. They're saving Biden's ass for instance, here's a WH briefing:
FACT SHEET: Biden Administration Jumpstarts Offshore Wind Energy Projects to Create Jobs
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/29/fact-sheet-biden-administration-jumpstarts-offshore-wind-energy-projects-to-create-jobs/
And here is New York State in 2018 looking at the viability of a wind park. Economics come last and matter for about 10%:
'As part of the state’s Offshore Wind Standard Scoring Criteria for bids, the weighting was as follows: 70% Bid Price (primarily focused on ORECS), 20% on Economic Benefits, and 10% on Project Viability.[3] Yes, only 10% of the bid focused on Project Viability. In other words, whether or not it works is clearly not the main concern here'.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/david-blackmon-2325189_required-reading-from-meghan-lapp-the-wind-activity-7131619436565852160-TQEI/?utm_source=pocket_saves
Luckily for me my mother is getting old and she has become addicted to buying me warm (Japanese) socks. And the coming decade will be the decade of warm socks, though not necessarily Japanese.
OK, $1.6 trillion invested in renewables this year, which was more than last year, and probably even more will be invested next year. But everyone's going bankrupt, the whole industry is in collapse, they're all idiots and you know better. Got it.
All borrowed money, no tax raises or budget cuts anywhere to finance it. And about 60% of the inflation reducation act and other US fiscal measures (the bulk of that 1.6 T is Biden's attack on the US deficit which is gigantic - but probably not for Tooze commenter) are sucked up by the US construction sector which is building facilities like semi conductor etc that will never become true competitors to the existing foreign companies.
You got that too?
Also, any idea what the level of solar and wind subsidies were from the IRA last year? Not even a tiny fraction of the total $1.6 trillion spent worldwide on renewables, that's for sure. The IRA did have an eye-popping price tag, but it was spread over 10 years, the subsidies per year aren't that great compared with the amount being spent on wind and solar by private investors. And all that private investment must be coming in with an expectation that it will be profit-making. But I know, they're all wrong and you're right. Let's talk again in five years and you can crow about how you saw the crash coming when no one else did.
Hmmm... I got that you're changing the subject to semiconductor manufacturing for some reason?
Let's try again. A utility invests... um, excuse me, spends a couple of hundred million on a solar farm. The same utility spent a couple of hundred million on a wind farm a few years ago. They plan to spend another couple of hundred million on either solar or wind a few years from now. Must be happening, how else do you get to $1.6 spent globally in one year?
Now, why make these repeated expenditures for new projects unless the previous projects were profitable to them? All of the utility-company executives been brainwashed by Greta Thunberg? Or, is it that, as directors of profit-making businesses, they've found these projects to be profitable, and not the bankruptcy-inducing boondoggles you claim they are?
You do not seem to grasp the concept of subsidies nor that of crony capitalism.. The NL gov spent 13 B on Tesla having their European assembly plant with paltry 300 employees, and on subsidizing BMW and Jaguar drivers to change brands. The year the gov ended its subsidies scheme Tesla packed and left. This year the gov ended it's scheme subsidizing middle class to buy solar panels and sell back their energy at a guaranteed price. The NL solar panel market now is in shambles.
Love your words and quotes, Joel!
Also love driving my EV... but they are just toys for the wealthy! The real opportunity is to use electric vehicles to remove air and noise pollution from cities, even if they are powered by coal generated elsewhere - my strong preference is for nuclear though. There is a place for solar in sunny climates, but the ROEI elsewhere is disastrous and as for the bird mincers...
We really should encourage delusional people like SteveB and Adam... the profits from fossil fuel are all the more epic with their help!
'the profits from fossil fuel are all the more epic with their help!'
Just like with energy sanctions on Russia ('We buy their energy, we have the power!') this requires understanding economics. And since for most involved economics is a morals game and a way of viewing the world, an economical understanding of economics is a rare feat. Especially amongst economists.
Who are mostly shaman's and function to hand some political pov a stamp of approval. By the time their advice has played out everybody has moved on. (Philip Tetlock - Super forecasters: ordinary nobodies with a decent amound of smarts and a willingness to change their pov when the facts change (i.e. their ego is not involved), forecast better than the pro's).