Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on February 4, 2017

More Bad News For Coal, Another Rosy Report For Clean Energy

Imperial College London has more bad news for coal and oil, too. The school’s Grantham Institute has paired with the Carbon Tracker Initiative to crunch the numbers, and the results ain’t pretty. The researchers are basically accusing fossil energy companies of using alternative facts to project relatively slow growth in the clean energy sector.

The researchers project much faster growth for clean energy and electric vehicles, too. That’s great news — if you ignore the fact that new US Secretary of State is former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, and ExxonMobil is the company notorious for leading the charge against climate science.

First, the bad news (for coal and oil)…

The new report is titled “Expect the Unexpected…The Disruptive Power of Low Carbon Technology.”

The report focuses shines a spotlight on power generation and ground transportation. These two sectors alone account for about half of global fuel production. That means solar and EVs pack a one-two punch:

The scenario analysis warns that big energy companies are seriously underestimating low-carbon advances with a business-as-usual approach, and that stranding of fossil fuel assets is likely as the low- carbon transition gathers pace. Growth in electric vehicles alone could lead to 2 million barrels of oil per day being displaced by 2025…

The analysts also warn that the pace of innovation has been so rapid, that their own analysis could prove to be conservative.

Rather than a business as usual approach, the researchers advocate for a “starting point” scenario that reflects actual facts. Their findings:

Solar PV could supply 23% of global power generation in 2040 and 29% by 2050, entirely phasing out coal and leaving natural gas with just a 1% market share. By contrast, ExxonMobil sees all renewables supplying just 11% of global power generation by 2040.

EVs could make up a third of the road transport market by 2035, more than half the market by 2040 and more than two thirds of market share by 2050. BP’s 2017 outlook expects EVs to make up just 6% of the market in 2035.

Coal demand could peak in 2020 and fall to half 2012 levels by 2050. Oil demand could be flat from 2020 to 2030 then fall steadily to 2050. Most major oil and gas companies do not expect coal to peak before 2030 and none see peak oil demand occurring before 2040.

Yikes!

Nobody Expects…Rex Tillerson!

The report makes a strong case for rapid decarbonization, but the 800-pound gorilla in the global energy room is Rex Tillerson.

As the new Secretary of State, Tillerson is going to be quite busy cleaning up after the President Trump Muslim ban and patching up relations with Mexico, Australia and Israel to name a few.

However, considering ExxonMobil’s recent deep dives into shale gas, CleanTechnica is guessing that Tillerson will reserve some time to keep the global market for natural gas humming along.

That’s all well and good in terms of killing off coal — and erasing coal jobs — but the low carbon status of natural gas is up for debate.

ExxonMobil has been touting its new position on climate change while promoting natural gas as the low carbon fuel of the future, but fugitive emissions of the greenhouse gas methane occur all along the natural gas lifecyle, and evidence involving the local public health impacts of oil and gas fracking is piling up.

Stay tuned.

clean technia

22 Comments on "More Bad News For Coal, Another Rosy Report For Clean Energy"

Kenz300 on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 11:43 am

Climate Change is real….. we will all be impacted by it……
Exxon’s Climate Change Cover-Up Is ‘Unparalleled Evil,’ Says Activist
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-evil-bill-mckibben_561e7362e4b028dd7ea5f45f?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green&section=green

Wind, solar and geothermal continue to grow in use every year while fossil fuel use declines.

23 States to Rely on Geothermal, Solar, or Wind Power as a Primary Source of Electric Generation in 2016

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/09/23-states-to-rely-on-geothermal-solar-or-wind-power-as-a-primary-source-of-electric-generation-in-2016.html

Outcast_Searcher on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 12:14 pm

Well, I wanted to buy a PHEV last month. But after reading the owner’s manual online and considering the safety issues and the fact I have no garage, I felt unsafe doing it. (Fire risk from rain/dampness, safety risk from the plug/line and kids, shock risk from rain, the plug being on the “wrong side” of the car and exposed directly to rain, etc.

I’ll bet that in the US, that well over 50% of people don’t have private safe lockable dry garages to charge a car in.

When problems like this are solved and BEV’s and PHEV’s combined are well in excess of 10% of sales instead of about 1%, the idea of significant disruption will begin to have merit.

Until then, such claims look more like super green dreams (wishful thinking).

BTW, I’m all for BEV’s and PHEV’s, but the real world issues have to be solved — not just yammered about as though things like vehicle cost and charging safety are just theoretical.

GregT on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 12:53 pm

We installed 30 EV charging stations around the Metro Vancouver area about 8 years ago. The electricity was offered for free. All but three were shut down due to lack of use, and also because thieves kept stealing the cables.

Anonymous on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 2:06 pm

Yes, that is the thing about EV’s or so-called ‘hybrids’ (oil burners actually). They resolve almost NONE of the problems created by cars, including air pollution. EVs have made no measureable impact on air-quality anywhere that I am aware of. But leaving that aside for a moment, I was about for a walk the other day, and traffic was, as usual, solid, moving slowly, mostly contained 1 person per oil-burner, and potentially hazardous to your health if you are not mindful of what they are doing.

Vancouver seems to think ‘hybrids’ and or EVs will resolve the Lower Mainlands air-quality problems. Or at least some people seem to feel that is the case. How is that working out for them? Keep in mind, the primary means of dealing with air pollution in the fraser valley is hoping the wind comes along and blows all the accumulated pollution out to the ocean. You know, that magical place, aka ‘away’.

Neither ‘hybrids’ or the few token EVs running about have done anything for air-quality there, or anywhere. If demand for oil is soft, its because people are broke and or up to their eyeballs in debt, not because they are all running out and ordering Nissan Leafs non-stop.

JuanP on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 2:29 pm

Do the Netherlands trains really run on wind power?
https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2017/02/absolution-deceit-and-renewables/

antaris on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 2:47 pm

Uh Greg. Charging stations didn’t start going in around Vancouver till about 5 1/2 years ago. I bought the first Mitsubishi Imiev sold in BC to the general public so I have a good idea of timing. BC now has close to 1000 charging stations ( that from BC Hydros site) now with a large percentage in the Vancouver area. I bought my car because I always wanted to build one (have one) . Yesterday when it started snowing I drove the Exploder home to save the Imiev from the salt. The general public don’t give a shit about polluting nor electric cars as most can’t see farther than the tip of their nose.

Hubert on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 3:28 pm

Antarctica is cracking up.

Drone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxSLg9kYyOc

Cloggie on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 3:38 pm

Antarctica is cracking up.

Me too.

Cloggie on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 3:41 pm

Do the Netherlands trains really run on wind power?

Dutch Rail claims it does.

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/dutch-rail-runs-100-on-wind-power/

This is the main source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BkyTBE7d8E

Cloggie on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 3:53 pm

From http://groenetrein.ns.nl/

– 1 wind turbine rotor turning 3 times: 1 train kilometer
– 1 wind turbine = 2 trains

P.S. it is unlikely that Dutch trains are really directly powered by the wind turbines they own, as there no cable between the new capacity and Dutch Rail. But that is irrelevant. Dutch Rail invested in new wind capacity to tune of their own average consumption. It is the thought that counts.

rockman on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 4:13 pm

Outcast – “When problems like this are solved and BEV’s and PHEV’s combined are well in excess of 10% of sales instead of about 1%, the idea of significant disruption will begin to have merit.” Just a friendly jab in the ribs: so if in 2016 if instead of 98.5% of the 82 million vehicles sold being ICE let’s say only 90% were and the other 10% were EV’s.

So you would see the world adding 74 million new ICE’s to the existing fleet of 1.2 BILLION ICE’s in 2016 as a meritorious “significant disruption”?

rockman on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 4:18 pm

Which, in case that was too subtle: until EV’s et al start reducing the number of ICE’s on the road (unlike the significant INCREASE going on now) there is NO F*CKING PROGRESS BEING MADE. LOL. We are just going down the GHG hole a tad slower.

Kevin Cobley on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 5:56 pm

The is no future in any “vehicles” for personal transport, wether electric or oil powered. They are all simply unsustainable, the metal/fuel reserves for their use non existent for any long term future, say 30 years down the road.
It’s time people started walking and catching public transit and living in more dense neighbourhoods that allow walking. In 30 years there will be nil cars, nil fossil fueled power stations it’s only a question how this will be achieved, wether it’s by total nuclear or environmental destruction or by people willingly agreeing to low energy consumption lifestyle. modification

Davy on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 6:07 pm

Kevin, density is deceptive in regards to sustainability. The denser you live the more complexity needed. Complexity is generally energy intensive.

Outcast_Searcher on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 6:24 pm

Rockman, I said when the sales of PHEV’s and BEV’s combined passes 10% of the new car market, then the idea of EV’s being “disruptive” technology will BEGIN to have merit (IMO).

Until then, it’s jabbering from super greens with lots of empty projections, given the history.

Reasonable people can easily disagree about the percentage. Should it be 25% before it BEGINS to have legitimacy as a disruptor?

I don’t know — I’m just making a point that words have meanings, and I’m not buying the fact that EV’s are a “disruptive” technology, just because Clean Technia and their ilk say it’s so.

With respect, I think we’re on the same page and you’re fretting over semantics, unless I’m missing something.

Davy on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 7:00 pm

For the “disruptive” label to be valid we need change. Rock’s point is EV’s are just extenders and enhancers. This is why we have our techno green debates. Real change will be when ICE declines and EV’s rise at a pace that is significant and sustained. The debates are similar with solar and wind. Is exponential a good choice for disruptive? Scaling and timing that is transformative is another thought.

makati1 on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 8:24 pm

Clean energy? LMAO

“… an admission from TEPCO – the Fukushima nuclear plant operator – that they discovered a hole at least one square meter in size beneath the reactor’s pressure vessel, and lethal record-high radiation levels have been detected, will not likely reassure anyone.”

“The iron scaffolding has a melting point of 1500 degrees, TEPCO said, explaining that there is a possibility the fuel debris has fallen onto it and burnt the hole. Such fuel debris have been discovered on equipment at the bottom of the pressure vessel just above the hole, it added. … The substance there is so toxic that even specially-made robots designed to probe the underwater depths beneath the power plant have previously crumbled and shut down.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-03/tepco-admits-fukushima-radiation-levels-reach-record-highs-hole-reactor-discovered

And this is less than 1% of the nukes in the world today. Think of it when the SHTF and there is no one to shut them down or keep the cooling pools operational. 100+ in the U$ alone.

makati1 on Sat, 4th Feb 2017 8:28 pm

BTW: Total safe shut down takes 5 – 10 days minimum but the radioactivity is still there for hundreds of thousands of years.

JuanP on Sun, 5th Feb 2017 8:10 am

Kevin “It’s time people started walking and catching public transit and living in more dense neighbourhoods that allow walking.” I agree with Davy on this one. I know that people living in dense urban area consume less resources than people living in suburban areas but people need to move from the suburbs to rural, not urban, areas. We already have too many people living in too many too large cities. How will we water and feed all these human animals? I will move from a dense urban environment to a very low density rural area and recommend doing the same. Densely populated urban areas are unsustainable and life in them will become a living hell. The less people around you the better when the SHTF.

makati1 on Sun, 5th Feb 2017 8:32 am

JuanP, cannot happen. IF the ~50% of Americans living in U$ cities moved to the burbs, at 1 acre per family, it would take a land area of 60,000 square miles to accommodate them. That is an area the size of Georgia. A lot of farm land lost.

! acre includes the family home, the roads, shops, etc to support them.

We cannot go back to the burbs in America. Not to mention the cost. Sorry, a few might but most will keep moving to the cities until the energy to power them is gone.

Davy on Sun, 5th Feb 2017 10:26 am

Makati, Missouri in 1900 had 3MIL now it has 6MIL. In 1900 the majority were on farms now most are in towns. This can be reversed with a big drop in the population. It can happen in some places but it will have to be accompanied by a die of sorts. A similar situation will need to happen in makatiland. The P’s had a population of 7.5MIL in 1900 and now it is 100MIL. Wow, those numbers suck.

Kenz300 on Mon, 6th Feb 2017 12:13 pm