Is there an "energy crisis"? Not really -- fossil fuels are collapsing, and it's high time

[marmar]

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

By CARL POPE
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 25, 2021 5:45AM


(Salon) 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). ............(more)

https://www.salon.com/2021/10/25/is-there-an-energy-crisis-not-really--fossil-fuels-are-collapsing-and-its-high-time/

[NNadir]

1. This is delusional bullshit. It's nothing more than climate denial.

It's probably too much these days to ask a fucking journalist to look at data but still...

Pretending something isn't happening doesn't prevent from happening. This is true of all climate deniers, including those who worship so called "renewable energy."

Renewable energy has not displacing dangerous fossil fuels, isn't doing so, and won't do so. Rather it entrenched them. They'll be burning lots of coal in Germany this winter and there's a reason for that.

[mopinko]

2. how about some links. at least.

you rly dont make an sense here.

[NNadir]

3. My journal at this website has thousands of links...

...on the subject of energy, most from the primary scientific literature.

I'm not going to spoonfeed thousands of these links other to say I have seriously studying this topic for decades and thus know whence I speak. Understanding energy is not something one does by perusing a simple link in a few seconds. Rather it is hard work, requiring serious attention.

I frequently post references to the IEA World Energy Outlook, which clearly describes the rising use of dangerous fossil fuels despite 50 years of delusional chanting about solar and wind energy. This reporter is clearly incapable of doing simple math.

If one doesn't want to invest much time in getting a sense of reality, the quickest approach would go to the NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 observatory web page, and look at the data. The journalist apparently was too lazy to perform that simple task.

[mopinko]

4. yeah, i have read plenty of your posts. but your underlying logic escapes me.

whether or not renewables are supplementing or replacing fossil fuels doesnt seem to the the point.
the point is that energy is being produced that does not create emissions. whether the manufacturing process adds more emissions than are saved is a valid argument. but one i havent seen you make.
maybe cuz that sort of cradle to grave accounting makes nukes look bad. i dunno.

but renewables have gone from a quirky hobby to a major input to the energy systems and the economy. i just cant figure out how you do not see their contributions as a null at least.
how you can see them as a pox, i will never understand.

[NNadir]

5. Well, if you've read my posts you know what an exajoule is.

If you understand that humanity now consumes more than 600 of them each year, and then want to say that so called "renewable energy" is a major form of energy, I really have nothing to say. To me it's the equivalent of announcing that ivermectin cures covid.

The emissions profile of so called renewable energy is frequently published. If one understands very simple things like how steel, silicon, aluminum etc., are made, one can disabuse oneself of this silly "emissions free" claim.

I do understand that no one wants to do serious work to understand the climate crisis, which is why we have that crisis, worsening at an accelerating pace.

In my experience most people, left and right would rather wallow in dogma and pretend that facts don't matter, or that there are "alternate facts."

But facts do matter.

The fact is that the reality of climate change is upon us, and all the bourgeois fantasies that solar cells on McMansion roofs are doing anything are meaningless.

History will not forgive us nor should it.

[mopinko]

6. iow, insults is what you have to say for yourself.

gotcha.

[NNadir]

7. Nevertheless facts matter.

If someone finds a statement of facts insulting it's probably not worth engaging me, is it?

If not telling you what you want to hear is insulting, DU provides an ignore button. Use it.

Why would anyone ask me for information of they insist that any amount of information I may give will be insulting?

My work on this topic speaks for itself.

Is climate change real or not? Has so called renewable energy stopped it in its tracks or not? Did we see 420 ppm of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the atmosphere this year, less than ten years after we first saw 400 ppm, or not?

[mopinko]

8. yeah, had you on ignore for a long time.

did you think that renewables would be able to meet demand right off the drawing board? i didnt.
would the kwh generated by renewables be replaced w fossil fuels, coal even, if there were no renewables?
my solar panels generate and average of 300kwh/mo. that's 300 kwh that isnt generated by nat gas or a nuke. and since it peaks when demand peaks, that's 300 kwh that doesnt come from coal.
is it a drop in the bucket? yes.
but i am a privileged character who feels that i can provide for myself, and should. leave the commons to others who need it more.


you dont know me. judge me from a few posts. whatevs.
happens i have a lifelong interest in this topic because back in the 60's my father invented an offshore wave turbine. didnt build it, of course. but built a model, had a set of plans, and took it to the physics dept at the u of chicago, where they agreed that it was feasible.
wanted to put it on the continental shelf off cali.
all he really had to go on was a slim book from the us navy on the physics of winds and tides. his calculations all checked out.

it was a long while before anyone else came up w that idea, tried it, found out how hard it is, but it is, in fact, in use today.

and i've said before that the cradle to grave costs of nukes makes them nothing like the zero impact panacea you try to paint.
but even beyond that, the idea that there is any- one size fits all- approach to energy is just flat out ludicrous. but that's what i hear you touting.