The global energy crisis - Green fairy tales collide with reality

[Moviefan-2]

So, CNN's Fareed Zakaria has explained the global energy crisis that has led to skyrocketing prices and severe shortages of reliable energy.

"(W)e do not have sufficient green energy today to replace fossil fuels. We will, but not today."

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1452286553536016402

There you have it. Apparently, when you reduce your supply of energy from fossil fuels and have nothing to replace it with, you get higher prices. In fact, some traders are speculating the price of oil could hit $200 a barrel by the end of next year.

‘Crazy’ Bets on $200 Oil Invade the Options Market

Traders are wagering U.S. crude’s rally to a seven-year high is just the beginning, despite a softening global economic expansion.

www.wsj.com

I don't think the skyrocketing prices should come as a surprise. It seems pretty consistent with those supply and demand charts they teach in high school economics.

Still, it's been pretty funny seeing how world leaders have responded to the crisis. For example, Germany -- one of the darlings of the green world -- saw a 24% increase in its use of fossil fuels in the first half of this year. Meanwhile, Russia is putting the squeeze on Europe by controlling its supply of natural gas.

The best response of all was U.S. President Joe Biden getting down on his knees and begging the OPEC+ nations to burn more oil.

U.S. calls on OPEC and its allies to pump more oil

U.S. President Joe Biden's administration on Wednesday urged OPEC and its allies to boost oil output to tackle rising gasoline prices that they see as a threat to the global economic recovery.

www.reuters.com

One might hope the thousands of elitists flying to the U.N.'s global-warming gab fest next Sunday are paying attention. If the well-to-do pearl clutchers truly "believe in the science" as much as they claim, they should join France's Emmanuel Macron and embrace reality. As Macron knows, the only way to significantly reduce man-made C02 emissions is through massive investments in nuclear power.

Wasting billions on wind and solar power won't get them anywhere.

They can keep peddling the renewable fairy tales, if they like. But as Beggin' Joe has discovered in the U.S., voters have a way of turning on leaders who can't provide affordable and reliable energy.

Something Kathleen Wynne also knows all too well.

 

[Frankfooter]

Another science denier cheering for the burning of fossil fuels.

The answer is to build more renewable generation, not send more money to Saudi Arabia.

 

[poker]

So, CNN's Fareed Zakaria has explained the global energy crisis that has led to skyrocketing prices and severe shortages of reliable energy.

"(W)e do not have sufficient green energy today to replace fossil fuels. We will, but not today."

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1452286553536016402

There you have it. Apparently, when you reduce your supply of energy from fossil fuels and have nothing to replace it with, you get higher prices. In fact, some traders are speculating the price of oil could hit $200 a barrel by the end of next year.

‘Crazy’ Bets on $200 Oil Invade the Options Market

Traders are wagering U.S. crude’s rally to a seven-year high is just the beginning, despite a softening global economic expansion.

www.wsj.com

I don't think the skyrocketing prices should come as a surprise. It seems pretty consistent with those supply and demand charts they teach in high school economics.

Still, it's been pretty funny seeing how world leaders have responded to the crisis. For example, Germany -- one of the darlings of the green world -- saw a 24% increase in its use of fossil fuels in the first half of this year. Meanwhile, Russia is putting the squeeze on Europe by controlling its supply of natural gas.

The best response of all was U.S. President Joe Biden getting down on his knees and begging the OPEC+ nations to burn more oil.

U.S. calls on OPEC and its allies to pump more oil

U.S. President Joe Biden's administration on Wednesday urged OPEC and its allies to boost oil output to tackle rising gasoline prices that they see as a threat to the global economic recovery.

www.reuters.com

One might hope the thousands of elitists flying to the U.N.'s global-warming gab fest next Sunday are paying attention. If the well-to-do pearl clutchers truly "believe in the science" as much as they claim, they should join France's Emmanuel Macron and embrace reality. As Macron knows, the only way to significantly reduce man-made C02 emissions is through massive investments in nuclear power.

Wasting billions on wind and solar power won't get them anywhere.

They can keep peddling the renewable fairy tales, if they like. But as Beggin' Joe has discovered in the U.S., voters have a way of turning on leaders who can't provide affordable and reliable energy.

Something Kathleen Wynne also knows all too well.

When you quote that Germany saw a 24% increase in use of fossil fuels…. From when? Last year when the world stopped? From 3 years ago when we all humming along.

 

[JohnLarue]

When you quote that Germany saw a 24% increase in use of fossil fuels…. From when? Last year when the world stopped? From 3 years ago when we all humming along.

it does not matter
it is higher than before
24% is very significant

usually % increases are Year over Year

 

[poker]

it does not matter
it is higher than before
24% is very significant

usually % increases are Year over Year

You’re back! I was worried you had a stroke on election night.

 

[JohnLarue]

You’re back! I was worried you had a stroke on election night.

the disaster on election night was not unexpected

 

[oil&gas]

When you quote that Germany saw a 24% increase in use of fossil fuels…. From when? Last year when the world stopped? From 3 years ago when we all humming along.

Considering that we are still in the middle of the pandemic and that the prospect
of complete recovery from it in the near term is uncertain I think even a 24% increase
from the lowest point should be worrisome to climate activists. Try imagine how much
more fossil fuel we will need by the end of the pandemic when all travel restrictions
are lifted.

 

[poker]

Considering that we are still in the middle of the pandemic and that the prospect
of complete recovery from it in the near term is uncertain I think even a 24% increase
from the lowest point should be worrisome to climate activists. Try imagine how much
more fossil fuel we will need by the end of the pandemic when all travel restrictions
are lifted.

Not if we were down 50% or 60% last year, when Oil went into negative pricing, and we literally ran out of tankers to store it.

I do not know the numbers. That’s not not my bag…. But I know context matters, and biases, agenda and spin kinda dictate media.

So a timeline on consumption would be great, instead of random numbers with zero context being blindly defended by the usual suspects.

 

[Frankfooter]

Considering that we are still in the middle of the pandemic and that the prospect
of complete recovery from it in the near term is uncertain I think even a 24% increase
from the lowest point should be worrisome to climate activists. Try imagine how much
more fossil fuel we will need by the end of the pandemic when all travel restrictions
are lifted.

ExxonMobil lobbyists filmed saying oil giant’s support for carbon tax a PR ploy

Undercover reporter hears company worked to undermine Biden efforts and funded shadow groups to deny global heating

www.theguardian.com

 

[oil&gas]

Not if we were down 50% or 60% last year, when Oil went into negative pricing, and we literally ran out of tankers to store it.
.............................

I guess whatever the exact number is shouldn't really matter
at least to the climate change sheeple if every sign points to
carbon emission going to rise above the pre-pandemic level
very soon.

Carbon emissions from rich countries rose rapidly in 2021
Matt McGrath
Oct 14, 2021

Carbon emissions are rebounding strongly and are rising across the world's 20 richest nations, according to a new study.

The Climate Transparency Report says that CO2 will go up by 4% across the G20 group this year, having dropped 6% in 2020 due to the pandemic.

China, India and Argentina are set to exceed their 2019 emissions levels.

The authors say that the continued use of fossil fuels is undermining efforts to rein in temperatures.

With just two weeks left until the critical COP26 climate conference opens in Glasgow, the task facing negotiators is stark.

One of the key goals of the gathering is to take steps to keep the important 1.5C temperature threshold alive and within reach.

With the world currently around 1.1C warmer than pre-industrial times, limiting future incremental increases is extremely challenging.

If Glasgow is going to succeed on this question, then the countries that create the most carbon will have to put ambitious policies into place.

The evidence from this new report is that it isn't happening fast enough.

The G20 group is responsible for around 75% of global emissions, which fell significantly last year as economies were closed down in response to Covid-19.

But this year's rebound is being powered by fossil fuel, especially coal.

According to the report, compiled by 16 research organisations and environmental campaign groups, coal use across the G20 is projected to rise by 5% this year.

This is mainly due to China who are responsible for around 60% of the rise, but increases in coal are also taking place in the US and India.

Coal use in China has surged with the country experiencing increased demand for energy as the global economy has recovered.

Coal prices are up nearly 200% from a year ago.

This in turn has seen power cuts as it became uneconomical for coal-fired electricity plants generate electricity in recent months.

With the Chinese government announcing a change in policy this week to allow these power plants to charge market rates for their energy, the expectation is that this will spur even more coal use this year.

When it comes to gas, the Climate Transparency Report finds that use is up by 12% across the G20 in the 2015-2020 period.

While political leaders have promised that the global recovery from Covid should have a green focus, the financial commitments made by rich nations don't bear this out.

Of the $1.8tn that has been earmarked for recovery spending, just $300bn will go on green projects.

To put that figure into context, it almost matches the $298bn spent by G20 countries in subsidising fossil fuel industries in the eighteen months up to August 2021.

The report also points to some positive developments including the growth of solar and wind energy in richer countries, with record amounts of new capacity installed across the G20 last year.

Renewables now supply around 12% of power compared to 10% in 2020.

Politically, there has been significant progress as well with the G20 group as the majority recognise that net zero targets are needed for around the middle of this century.

All members of the group have agreed to put new 2030 carbon plans on the table before the Glasgow conference.

However, China, India, Australia and Saudi Arabia have not yet done so.

"G20 governments need to come to the table with more ambitious national emission reductions targets. The numbers in this report confirm we can't move the dial without them - they know it, we know it - the ball is firmly in their court ahead of COP26," said Kim Coetzee from Climate Analytics, who coordinated the overall analysis.

Report highlights

Coal consumption is projected to rise by almost 5% in 2021, with this growth driven by China (accounting for 61% of the growth), the USA (18%) and India (17%)

The US (4.9 tCO2/capita) and Australia (4.1 tCO2/capita) have the highest building emissions per capita in the G20 (average is 1.4 tCO2/capita), reflecting the high share of fossil fuels, especially natural gas and oil, used for heat generation

Between 1999 and 2018 there have been nearly 500,000 fatalities and close to $3.5 trillion of economic costs due to climate impacts worldwide, with China, India, Japan, Germany, and the US being hit particularly hard in 2018

Across the G20, the current average market share of electric vehicles (EVs) in new car sales remains low at 3.2% (excluding the EU), with Germany, France, and the UK having the highest shares of EVs


There are expectations that both India and China will submit new national plans before the meeting in Glasgow, which could give a significant boost to attempts to keep the 1.5C target in view.

The G20 group will meet in Rome in the days leading up to COP26 and the UK minister who will lead the talks has in recent days urged the leaders of these countries to now step up.

"It is leaders who made a promise to the world in Paris six years ago, and it is leaders that must honour it," said Alok Sharma.

"Responsibility rests with each and every country, and we must all play our part. Because on climate, the world will succeed, or fail, as one."

Climate change: Carbon emissions from rich countries rose rapidly in 2021

Emissions from the richest countries are going up again this year as the global economy rebounds.

www.bbc.com

 

[oil&gas]

I guess whatever the exact number is shouldn't really matter
at least to the climate change sheeple if every sign points to
carbon emission going to rise above the pre-pandemic level
very soon.

There is one scenario wherein I could turn out to be wrong. If
global oil production has maxed out as I believe and is going to drop
like falling off the cliff in 2022 which I am not sure about then carbon
emission will likely go down as well. How quick emission level is
going to drop will depend on how quick the world ramp up coal
consumption for power generation.

 

[Frankfooter]

There is one scenario wherein I could turn out to be wrong. If
global oil production has maxed out as I believe and is going to drop
like falling off the cliff in 2022 which I am not sure about then carbon
emission will likely go down as well. How quick emission level is
going to drop will depend on how quick the world ramp up coal
consumption for power generation.

No, this is just OPEC and Russia are manipulating the market and the answer is just to invest more in renewables.

Is there an "energy crisis"? Not really — fossil fuels are collapsing, and it's high time
Why are energy prices spiking? Mostly because we're not making the transition to wind and solar fast enough


The Economist calls it "The Energy Shock." Forbes and the Wall Street Journal go further, resurrecting a term from the 1970s: "Energy Crisis." The media is hyperventilating.

But what is going on, really? I'd describe it as the first fossil fuel collapse of the clean energy transition, or even as proof that cleaner and faster means cheaper and stable energy." That's quite different from the Economist subhead, which pushes the idea there are "grave problems with the transition to clean energy."

What does the evidence show? First, renewable wind and solar increased their contribution to global energy supply by a record 8% in 2021, providing 8,300 TeraWatt hours (TWH) of clean, cheap power. Wind generation globally grew by 17%, in spite of poor winds in parts of Europe. Overall, renewable power delivered 30% of the world's electrons in the first year of pandemic recovery.

This clean energy growth occurred despite the fact that governments provide $600 billion per year to subsidize the use of fossil fuels. This new wind and solar power was cheaper than coal and gas in virtually every case. Indeed, the only major exceptions — meaning economies where fossil fuel generation is still cheaper than renewables — are Russia and Mexico (cheap gas), along with Japan and Indonesia (cheap coal).


Current spikes in energy prices are primarily the result of market manipulation, which is hampering an adequate response to rapid economic recovery from the pandemic. We've seen this play before. A similar set of price spikes followed the 2008 financial crisis: Oil prices jumped by 68%, seaborne coal by 88% and U.S. natural gas by 33%. Indeed, volatile prices that jump up and down dramatically are normal for fossil fuels. For the last 15 years, the Brent oil price index and the U.S. Henry Hub gas benchmark have both varied year to year by more than 20% — and the Newcastle index for exported coal has leaped by a shocking 47% in an average year.

Unlike fossil fuel energy, renewable power displays intrinsic price stability. Even a partial market share for renewables reduces an economy's vulnerability to fossil-fuel price volatility, and the larger that share grows, the greater the buffer. Electric utilities in Sweden, because of that country's large renewable power share, don't much care about the price of gas.



The biggest single factor in the market failure we see at the moment is manipulation: The consortium of oil-producing nations known as OPEC+ has withheld crude oil, while Russia has restricted exports of natural gas. Massive pre-pandemic losses on shale gas and oil has deterred investors, understandably enough, from renewing their commitment to rapidly depleting shale wells. Energy markets overall are inadequately designed and lack buffers against volatility caused by factors like these.
A second major challenge has come from weather disruptions caused by climate change: Floods have obstructed coal production in India; hurricanes have shut down oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico; winds have been lethargic in Europe. This problem will increase as we see more climate-related supply chain issues in critical parts of the world. Texas gas production will be affected by more hard freezes, droughts will shut down coal plants in China and India, and floods may well close coal mines in Australia.
The final problem is underinvestment. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that the world is investing only half as much overall in cheap new power sources as is required by a growing global economy. One factor in this capital strike is large-scale collective unfamiliarity with the dynamics of an energy transition, and a persistent but incorrect belief that a slow and gradual transition from dirty fossil fuels to clean renewable power will be safer and more affordable. In reality, essentially the opposite is true: The faster a country or region (or the world, for that matter) increases its stock of wind turbines and solar panels, the cheaper its energy bills become and the less exposure it has to the volatility associated with generating power with coal, oil or gas.
Advertisement:

So the solutions for today's energy bottlenecks are quite different than conventional wisdom. The Economist, for example, correctly argues that market reforms are needed to prevent small shifts in supply and demand from producing huge price swings. It correctly endorses the IEA position that we are not investing enough in energy overall to power growing economies.
But the magazine then goes on to argue that "Many countries … need gas to be a bridge fuel ... as they ditch coal and before renewables have ramped up." In fact, if time and capital are in short supply, renewables beat gas as gap-fillers, hands down. Solar panels and wind turbines go up faster than gas plants, and far faster than terminals to handle liquefied natural gas (LNG). Vietnam, realizing it would be unable to meet its goals for new coal plants, shifted its major investments to solar power and increased its generation capacity by 25% in two years. That also drove down the cost for its next round of solar investments. If the world has a genuine shortage of generating capacity, fossil fuels come online too slowly to remedy that problem — but renewables do not.
Advertisement:

The most important lesson from this energy shock is that the conventional, gradual path to renewable energy is risky, not safe. A slow transition extends the period during which fossil fuel shortages or other volatility drivers can erupt, and stretches out the process by which expanding clean energy capacity lowers energy costs. Increases in the cost of gas afflict Norway and Sweden, with grids powered more than 50% by renewables, far less than Belgium and the Netherlands, which are still overwhelmingly dependent on coal and gas.
Investing more ambitiously in the cheapest, most secure and least volatile energy sources — which chiefly means wind and solar power — and embracing rather than slow-walking the energy transition, is the key to ending this supposed energy crisis. It will minimize the economic costs of future price volatility, begin to solve the climate crisis and largely eliminate the curse of air pollution.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Another science denier cheering for the burning of fossil fuels.

The answer is to build more renewable generation, not send more money to Saudi Arabia.

Wasting money on inefficient and unreliable renewables is what leads to more money ultimately going to Saudi Arabia and to Russia.

 

[Moviefan-2]

For those who are insisting on more context, the U.N. is saying global emissions will be 16% higher in 2030 than they were in 2010.

UN sounds alarm on missing climate pledges

Global governments' plans to cut emissions in the years ahead are not enough to avert catastrophic climate change which would lead to "endless suffering", a U.N. report said on Monday.

www.reuters.com

Meanwhile, China has now gone all-in on coal, with a surge that puts it on track for the country's largest coal output ever.

China coal surge puts supply record, power jump within reach

China's new coal output rate, hiked this week in the teeth of an energy crunch, puts it on pace to produce more of the fuel this year than ever before if the increase is sustained, according to Reuters' calculations based on official Beijing data.

www.reuters.com

 

[danmand]

Wasting money on inefficient and unreliable renewables is what leads to more money ultimately going to Saudi Arabia and to Russia.

You are welcome to not like renewable power generation, but you are not correct in calling solar and wind energy generation inefficient, when their cost is lower than generation from fossil fuel.

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[danmand]

Global levelized cost of generation (US$ per MWh)

Source	Solar (utility)	Wind onshore	Gas CC	Geothermal	Wind offshore	Coal	Nuclear	Gas peaker	Storage (1:4)
NEA 2020[43] (at 7% discount rate)	54	50	92	100	88	114	68
NEA 2018[44] (at 3% discount rate)	100	60	100		135	90	55
IPCC 2018[45] (at 5% discount rate)	110	59	71	60	120	61	65
BNEF 2021[46]	39	41			79				132
Lazard 2020[47]	36	40	59	80	86	112	164	175	189
IRENA 2020[48]	68	53		73	113
Lazard (ranges)	29-42	26-54	44-73	59-101	86	65-159	129-198	151-198	132-245

 

[Frankfooter]

Wasting money on inefficient and unreliable renewables is what leads to more money ultimately going to Saudi Arabia and to Russia.

Nope.

Renewables are cheaper and neither OPEC or Russia can raise their prices.
And you're incredibly wrong on climate change, if you remember.

You really want to send more money to OPEC?

 

[NotADcotor]

When you quote that Germany saw a 24% increase in use of fossil fuels…. From when? Last year when the world stopped? From 3 years ago when we all humming along.

"saw a 24% increase in its use of fossil fuels in the first half of this year."
So it was stated... and it's a bit suspect considering the timing.

 

[barnacler]

Global levelized cost of generation (US$ per MWh)

Source	Solar (utility)	Wind onshore	Gas CC	Geothermal	Wind offshore	Coal	Nuclear	Gas peaker	Storage (1:4)
NEA 2020[43] (at 7% discount rate)	54	50	92	100	88	114	68
NEA 2018[44] (at 3% discount rate)	100	60	100		135	90	55
IPCC 2018[45] (at 5% discount rate)	110	59	71	60	120	61	65
BNEF 2021[46]	39	41			79				132
Lazard 2020[47]	36	40	59	80	86	112	164	175	189
IRENA 2020[48]	68	53		73	113
Lazard (ranges)	29-42	26-54	44-73	59-101	86	65-159	129-198	151-198	132-245

LOL, right, renewables are cheaper! I have some swampland to sell you then, my friend. But before we go, lets stock up on some of that Kool Aid that you've already been guzzling, you may need more.

Baloney, renewables are insanely INNIFICIENT, because they require 100% backup. So you have double the infrastructure. CASE CLOSED.

Then, the oil and gas plants have to keep throttling up and down, because their power CAN be throttled up and down, and that, just like a car continuously accelerating and decelerating (i.e. city driving versus hwy driving) is also incredibly inefficient. So power costs skyrocket.

LOL, if solar etc was so efficient, so much better, IT would not require massive subsidies and priority in the energy grid to be established in the first place. Power companies would have been using it all along. it would not require enormous taxes on its main competitor to stay in business.

I love this: green energy policies are a disaster - and the solution is to do much more of the same.

Oil companies that are willing to withstand activist's pressure and actually increase production are going to make a fortune over the next 3 years.

 

[danmand]

LOL, right, renewables are cheaper! I have some swampland to sell you then, my friend. But before we go, lets stock up on some of that Kool Aid that you've already been guzzling, you may need more.

Baloney, renewables are insanely INNIFICIENT, because they require 100% backup. So you have double the infrastructure. CASE CLOSED.

Then, the oil and gas plants have to keep throttling up and down, because their power CAN be throttled up and down, and that, just like a car continuously accelerating and decelerating (i.e. city driving versus hwy driving) is also incredibly inefficient. So power costs skyrocket.

LOL, if solar etc was so efficient, so much better, IT would not require massive subsidies and priority in the energy grid to be established in the first place. Power companies would have been using it all along. it would not require enormous taxes on its main competitor to stay in business.

I love this: green energy policies are a disaster - and the solution is to do much more of the same.

Oil companies that are willing to withstand activist's pressure and actually increase production are going to make a fortune over the next 3 years.

I don't think you know much about what you are posting.

What you write is true only if you have an isolated area of electricity production, like Texas, who has cut off its distribution system from the rest of USA.

In Europe, the electricity networks are interconnected.

As an example, in Denmark, 80% of electricity comes from renewables, 57% from wind, 20% from biomass. Electricity prices have lately increased a modest 2.2%, primarily because there has been less rainfall in Norway, such that the hydro power generation in Norway have become more expensive.

Natural gas prices have increased dramatically.