Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on April 19, 2018
Are Iran and Israel Headed for Their First Direct War?
SYRIA-ISRAEL BORDER, Golan Heights — Ever since the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran and Israel have been fighting each other in the shadows — through proxies, assassination squads and cyber-virus attacks, but never as rival armies meeting on the field of battle. That may be about to change, and if it does, it will have vast implications for Syria, Lebanon and the whole Middle East.
I’m sure neither side really wants a war. It could be devastating for Israel’s flourishing high-tech economy and for Iran’s already collapsing currency. But Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force seems determined to try to turn Syria into a base from which to pressure Israel, and Israel seems determined to prevent that. And in the past few weeks — for the first time ever — Israel and Iran have begun quietly trading blows directly, not through proxies, in Syria.
They have already gone through two rounds, and Round 3, now pending, could blow Syria sky-high.
Round 1 occurred on Feb. 10, when an Iranian drone launched by a Quds Force unit operating out of Syria’s T4 air base, in central Syria, was shot down with a missile from an Israeli Apache helicopter that was following it after it penetrated northern Israel airspace.
Initial reports were that the drone was purely on a reconnaissance mission. But the Israeli Army’s spokesman, Brig. Gen. Ronen Manelis, said Friday that the flight path and Israel’s analysis of the drone indicated that “the aircraft was carrying explosives” and that its mission was “an act of sabotage in Israeli territory.”
If true, that suggests that the Quds Force — commanded by Iran’s military mastermind Qassem Suleimani — was trying to launch an actual military strike on Israel.
“This is the first time we saw Iran do something against Israel — not by proxy,” a senior Israeli military source told me. “This opened a new period.”
It certainly did, because in Round 2, on April 9, Israeli jets launched a missile strike on T4, the drone’s home base — directly targeting, for the first time, an Iranian facility and personnel in Syria. Seven Quds Force members were killed, including Col. Mehdi Dehghan, who led the drone unit.
While the Israeli Army spokesman refused to confirm or deny the Israeli raid, Iran’s government unusually highlighted it — and Iran’s casualties — and vowed to take revenge.
“The Zionist entity will sooner or later receive the necessary response and will regret its misdeeds,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Bahram Qasemi, said Monday.
So now the whole neighborhood is holding its breath: Will there be a Round 3? Israeli defense officials let it be known that if the Iranians strike back, Israel may use the opportunity to mount a massive counterstrike on Iran’s entire military infrastructure in Syria, where Iran is attempting to establish forward air bases and factories for GPS-guided missiles that could hit targets inside Israel with much greater accuracy — inside a 50-meter radius. Iran also plans to provide the missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
These Israeli defense officials say there is zero chance Israel will make the same mistake it made in Lebanon — letting Hezbollah establish a large missile threat there — by letting Iran do so in Syria.
On Tuesday, to drive home that point, the Israeli government reportedly distributed maps to Israeli news organizations showing five Iranian-controlled bases in Syria. All that was missing on them were bull’s-eyes of exactly where Israel will drop its bombs if the Iranians carry out their threats. The message from Israel to the Quds Force was hard to miss: “Beware. We know exactly where to find you.”
As Israel’s defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman, put it to a gathering of Israeli soldiers on Monday: “We are facing a new reality — the Lebanese Army, in cooperation with Hezbollah, the Syrian Army, the Shiite militias in Syria and above them Iran — are all becoming a single front against the state of Israel.”
Iran has legitimate security concerns in the gulf; it faces a number of hostile, pro-American Sunni Arab powers trying to contain its influence and undermine its Islamic regime. From Iran’s perspective, these are a threat. I get that.
But what is Iran doing in Syria?
Tehran’s building of bases and missile factories in Syria, after having helped President Bashar al-Assad largely crush the uprising against him, appears to be a move by the Quds Force’s Suleimani to extend Iran’s grip on key parts of the Sunni Arab world and advance his position at home in his struggle for power with Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president. The Quds Force now more or less controls — through proxies — four Arab capitals: Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad and Sana.
Indeed, Iran has become the biggest “occupying power” in the Arab world today. But Suleimani may be overplaying his hand.
Even before the recent clashes with Israel, many average Iranians were publicly asking: What is Iran doing spending billions of dollars — which were supposed to go to Iranians as a result of the lifting of sanctions from the Iran nuclear deal — fighting wars in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen?
That concern is surely one reason Iran, for all its fist-shaking — has not retaliated — yet. The Israeli airstrike on T4, along with the U.S.-British-French airstrike on the Syrian regime’s suspected chemical weapons facilities, have actually exposed the strategic vulnerabilities of both Russia and Iran in Syria. Their forces are very powerful versus the rebels there, but not so powerful versus the Western forces and Israel. Iran, which has to depend largely on Syria’s air defense system, is particularly exposed to Israel’s Air Force.
“Russia’s appearance of omnipotence in the Syrian arena has been shattered,” military writer Anshel Pfeffer noted in Haaretz on Monday. “Appearances of power count for a lot in this region.” Russia’s “forces there are insufficient to take on any of the other nations who have operated, and may operate again, in Syria. … The United States, Britain and France, as well as Israel and Turkey, can all deploy larger and more capable forces to the region much faster than Russia can.”
Suleimani could opt to strike back at Israel through proxies, either in the Middle East or against Israeli targets globally. But he now has to think twice about that, both because his forces in Syria are exposed — and for another reason: Iran is exposed financially. Iran’s currency is collapsing back home. The Iranian rial has lost one-third of its value just this year, which a wider confrontation with Israel would only exacerbate.
It would seem, in other words, that Suleimani is at odds with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iran’s President Rouhani. Putin and Rouhani share an interest in Syria quieting down now, and not becoming a financial drain or a military quagmire — by Suleimani turning it into an arena for a direct war with Israel.
But economic restraints have never stopped Suleimani and his Quds Force before and may not now. Their ambitions are big — to create a base to pressure Israel directly, to dominate the Arab states around them and to maintain the fervor of the Islamic Revolution. Everyone is basically awaiting Suleimani’s next move. Does he back down, lose a little face, and wait until he is stronger? Does Israel let him?
These are momentous days for both countries. One thing I know for sure. The status quo is not sustainable.
158 Comments on "Are Iran and Israel Headed for Their First Direct War?"
MASTERMIND on Sat, 21st Apr 2018 10:17 pm
Greg
Just wait til the oil shortages hit! Then the masses will wake up! It will likely be too little too late. but better late than never..
GregT on Sat, 21st Apr 2018 10:35 pm
When the oil shortages hit MM, it is the masses that will be the first to go without. The upper echelons of society, and their militaries, will be the last to go without.
MASTERMIND on Sat, 21st Apr 2018 10:52 pm
Greg
Can you imgaine what Wall Street is going to think? What do you mean we are running out of oil? I thought we had 1.7 trillion barrels of PROVEN reserves? LOL
GregT on Sat, 21st Apr 2018 10:58 pm
The world isn’t going to be running out of oil anytime soon MM, but I’m sure that by the time you get to be my age, you’ll be wishing it had of.
makati1 on Sat, 21st Apr 2018 11:15 pm
MM, you are slipping down the insanity slope faster and faster everyday. I want the Us to collapse so it is not able to terrorize the rest of the world like it has been doing. I want it put down, permanently. I have a few billion ‘friends’ who are cheering the collapse on with me.
Why cannot you make an intelligent, mature rebuttal? I just laugh at the 3rd grader you really are. Scared shitless and too much of a coward to face the future like a man. Snowflake! LMAO
BTW: Here is an article that likely includes yourself:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-19/1-4-millennials-rely-their-parents-pay-some-bills-even-while-working-full-time
Sound familiar? ^_^
MASTERMIND on Sat, 21st Apr 2018 11:17 pm
Greg
The world doesn’t need to run out of oil to collapse. it just needs to run short.. And just wait til the hordes show up to your property with a couple assault rifles. And start pumping 100 rounds a minute through your door! LOL And remember if you get wounded there won’t be any hospital to stitch you up..So I hope you are sleeping in body armor!
MASTERMIND on Sat, 21st Apr 2018 11:25 pm
Madkat
Zerohedge again? real sophisticated stuff. At least I have a girlfriend unlike you. You are going to die all alone by yourself. Shitting and pissing in your adult diapers…LOL
Here is a tip for after the collapse so you dont have to suffer. I learned it in college. if you want to kill yourself with the least painful way. burn charcoal indoors, because it gives off carbon monoxide. which will kill you if you inhale it. Its called a “Charcoal Suicide”. It was invented by a chemist in Asia. And its actually one of the most popular ways to kill yourself in Asia even today. Just get a little camping grill and a ten dollar bag of Kingsford. And fire it up in room before you go to bed. And you will never wake up in the morning.
MASTERMIND on Sat, 21st Apr 2018 11:34 pm
Tesla’s report card: An ‘F’ from the Better Business Bureau
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/20/teslas-report-card-an-f-from-the-better-business-bureau/
GregT on Sat, 21st Apr 2018 11:44 pm
The world isn’t going to collapse from a shortage of oil MM, but it is very likely going to collapse from humans burning too much of it. Assault rifles are restricted firearms here in Canada. I know of very few people who have restricted firearms licences, and I would be one of them.
Cloggie on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 12:57 am
“The world isn’t going to collapse from a shortage of oil MM, but it is very likely going to collapse from humans burning too much of it.”
Hear, hear. Peak conventional oil, somewhere between 2010-2020, is true. Fracking postponed peak oil with a decade or so. But the amount of non-minable coal is simply staggering and although not minable it is still combustable and gasifiable underground, a rather dirty process, you want to avoid as much as possible.
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/fracking-is-for-amateurs/
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/01/01/underground-coal-gasification/
This coal garbage should only be used to help set up a renewable energy base as quickly as possible.
Emergy shortages are no longer the problem, the environment is the bottleneck.
makati1 on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 1:06 am
MM,all you ‘learned’ in that supposed college education is how to close your mind to any truth not published by your masters. If you could only her yourself like the rest of us do, you would see that we are correct. With ZERO experience in the outside world, you are just as delusional as Davy. Certifiable. Laughable, actually.
YOU are the only one on here talking about suicide. Not man enough to face the future? Get a pair boy! Grow up. Join the adult part of life. Even your putdowns are third rate.
GregT on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 1:24 am
“This coal garbage should only be used to help set up a renewable energy base as quickly as possible.”
“Energy shortages are no longer the problem, the environment is the bottleneck.”
Completely agree Cloggie.
makati1 on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 1:38 am
Climate change will eventually end the human experiment. Likely before 2100,it seems. Everything is happening ahead of the projected schedule. Temps, CO2, ice melting, etc. All increasing. At some point we will hit the tipping point and then it is game over.
GregT on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 1:47 am
“Tesla’s report card: An ‘F’ from the Better Business Bureau”
Tesla is a modern day industrialist, and a charlatan.
Industrialism is not going to save mankind from the consequences of industrialism.
makati1 on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 1:56 am
So many fools want to believe that tech is going to keep BAU going but in a different/renewable format. Not going to happen. They listen to these snake oil salesmen rather than prep and face the future. When the snake of reality bites them, they are going to be in great pain. They could step down the dependency ladder now while it is easier, rather than wait for it to be pulled out from under them.
Cloggie on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 2:43 am
“They listen to these snake oil salesmen rather than prep and face the future.”
Building a wind turbine or mounting a solar panel on your roof is high grade prepping and facing the future.
“At some point we will hit the tipping point and then it is game over.”
There is still a chance we can prevent arriving at the tipping point. And if not, it was nice to have known you all and perhaps we’ll meet again in some parallel universe in a trillion years from now.
makati1 on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 2:56 am
Cloggie, but not if your neighbor doesn’t have one. You better share that electric with them or you and/or the roof toys will be history. Those toys are going to fail and not be reparable. They will ALWAYS rely on FFs to exist. ALL renewables, outside of muscle and plant supplied energy, require FFs.
We have actually passed that “prevention” time as the changes now are from FFs burned about 40 years ago. The next few years will see more of them flipping over, I think. We shall see.
MASTERMIND on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 3:05 am
Clog and Greg
Yes the world will collapse from an oil shortage you. you both are uneducated fools. You can’t increase global GDP without enough oil energy. See (Meadows 1972) (Korwitz 2012) and German Peak oil study.
https://imgur.com/a/pYxKa
And about your stupid coal reserves. Coal cannot work without crude, crude cannot work without coal, natural gas cannot work without both oil and coal, Shale oil cannot work without any of those, and so on.
Cloggie on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 3:14 am
“Those toys are going to fail and not be reparable. They will ALWAYS rely on FFs to exist.”
I agree I need oil to smear my door hinges, but that is about it.
A kWh is a kWh.
With electricity you can do almost everything, including turning it into H2 or NH3 for storage purposes and combust it in a retrofitted fossil fuel power station.
Even the competent specialist and trained scientist Antius admitted a few days ago that a renewable energy base is possible in principle, but he is still pessimistic about the cost aspect.
I trust that one of the best renewable energy research institutes in the world, the Fraunhofer Institute, did its home work when they calculated that a renewable energy base will come at about the same per kWh cost as a fossil fuel based system. Extra cost for storage and renewable energy infrastructure is offset by absence of fuel cost.
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/09/16/blueprint-100-renewable-energy-base-for-germany/
MASTERMIND on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 3:14 am
Greg and Clogg
Energy shortages are no longer a problem? Here are 32 mainstream sources and over a dozen scholarly peer reviewed science papers that says you are wrong.
https://imgur.com/a/pYxKa
Peak oil cancels climate change out. see (mohr 2015)..you dumb shits.
Cloggie on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 3:20 am
“Energy shortages are no longer a problem? Here are 32 mainstream sources and over a dozen scholarly peer reviewed science papers that says you are wrong.”
You are notorious for posting links that if you study them they turn out to have a different message than you are claiming they have.
But you don’t give a f* about climate change or peak oil, for you these topics are just an opportunity to additionally insert your antifa anti-white messages, aiming at an anti-white revolution in North-America.
Cloggie on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 3:24 am
“Coal cannot work without crude, crude cannot work without coal, natural gas cannot work without both oil and coal, Shale oil cannot work without any of those, and so on.”
The British Empire of former fame was entirely built on coal. No crude whatsoever.
Je lult uit je nek
(Dutch slang for: You are “dicking” out of your neck)
MASTERMIND on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 3:28 am
Clog
Projection of world fossil fuels by country (Mohr, 2015)
Over 900 different regions and subfuel situations were modeled using three URR scenarios of Low, High, and Best Guess. All three scenarios indicate that the consistent strong growth in world fossil fuel production is likely to cease after 2025. The Low and Best Guess scenarios are projected to peak before 2025 and decline thereafter. The High scenario is anticipated to have a strong growth to 2025 before stagnating in production for 50 years and thereafter declining.
https://www.scribd.com/document/375110317/Projection-of-World-Fossil-Fuels-by-Country-Mohr-2015
See all three coal, oil and gas are peaking soon. And why would I be anti white you paranoid loon. I was born in a rural town in Indiana that was 100 percent white.
MASTERMIND on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 3:31 am
Clog
Your coal reserves don’t exist. I just showed you a peer reviewed paper that proves that. And sorry the daily mail isn’t a reliable source. You fucking. I am done arguing with you people. Enjoy the collapse ..
Cloggie on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 3:34 am
“I just showed you a peer reviewed paper that proves that.”
Give me one link that proves that these coal reserves don’t exist.
“You fucking. I am done arguing with you people. Enjoy the collapse ..”
Translation: I ran out of arguments, lost the debate so I leave the building.
Toodeledookie!
MASTERMIND on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 3:38 am
Clogg
I just fucking did in the comment above. Fucking christ you don’t even read what I write because you are a fucking a denier. Read the fucking paper you idiot. They model all “FOSSIL FUELS” meaning coal, oil and gas.
Cloggie on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 3:40 am
I am not going to wade through 32 links. Give me one link that proves that there are no trillions of tons of coal beneath the North Sea, as you claim.
MASTERMIND on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 3:40 am
Clogg
Projection of world fossil fuels by country (Mohr, 2015)
Over 900 different regions and subfuel situations were modeled using three URR scenarios of Low, High, and Best Guess. All three scenarios indicate that the consistent strong growth in world fossil fuel production is likely to cease after 2025. The Low and Best Guess scenarios are projected to peak before 2025 and decline thereafter. The High scenario is anticipated to have a strong growth to 2025 before stagnating in production for 50 years and thereafter declining.
https://www.scribd.com/document/375110317/Projection-of-World-Fossil-Fuels-by-Country-Mohr-2015
See the words (World fossil fuels) that means coal, oil and gas. Those are called fossil fuels..See the charts included in the paper.
Cloggie on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 3:45 am
“They model all “FOSSIL FUELS” meaning coal, oil and gas.”
In 2012 I wasted my time by reading Heinberg’s “Blackout” (2009). He came to the conclusion “peak coal 2025-2050”.
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/blackout/#more-2400
Again Heiny was unable to think beyond conventional coal, like he was unable to think beyond conventional oil, the new age gamma male dreamer that he is.
The DailyMail article is from 2014.
Duh.
Cloggie on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 3:46 am
This Mohr fella probably overlooked the latest data from the North Sea.
makati1 on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 3:46 am
Cloggie, without FFs there will be no ‘renewables’. They do NOT have enough “NET” energy to reproduce themselves, keep the roads in repair, keep the machines used to install/repair them, provide the replacement parts for al for the machines in the system running, etc.
Not going to happen. You have closed your mind to reality. You may live long enough to see the end of all FF and renewable energy. I may also. A collapse of the financial system may even speed up the decline. We shall see.
Cloggie on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 3:54 am
“Cloggie, without FFs there will be no ‘renewables’. They do NOT have enough “NET” energy to reproduce themselves, keep the roads in repair, keep the machines used to install/repair them, provide the replacement parts for al for the machines in the system running, etc.”
Sorry makati, but the entire scientific establishment in Europe, far better qualified than you, is convinced it can be done and is working systematically towards the goal of 90-100% renewable energy. Motivation: climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03NMa4X0dyQ
It’s going to happen.
makati1 on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 4:29 am
Bullshit, Cloggie. Scientific establishment? what “establishment”? They are ALL out for their paycheck. Facts get in the way of their high salaries. Money talks, Cloggie. Facts be damned. They are selling something and it isn’t reality. Smells more like horseshit to dreamers like you who want to believe. Because something is theoretically possible doesn’t make it so. you refuse to seethe long chain that makes even a simple solar panel possible. Energy expended at every one of hundreds of steps. Are you really educated?
Davy on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 4:31 am
“A kWh is a kWh.”
There is scale and proportionality of the physics. Economically there is affordability. Behaviorally there is intermittency and seasonality issues. Storage is a huge issue. A kWh is not the same because humans use power for diverse reasons.
“Even the competent specialist and trained scientist Antius admitted a few days ago that a renewable energy base is possible in principle, but he is still pessimistic about the cost aspect.”
A renewable energy base is possible but likely not at a global scale with the current economy. We may be able to create a Byzantine enclave where it is possible along with authoritative demand management and a much lower standard of living because renewables are not near potent enough to drive the type of civilization we have today. Many people will have to perish to get to that point because renewables will not run a global industrial agriculture base like we have today. Renewables are vital and have an important place in the energy paradigm shift ahead but this place is not a transition energy paradigm but as an extender of the current paradigm of multiple energy vectors.
“Fraunhofer Institute, did its home work when they calculated that a renewable energy base will come”
A flawed empty goal seeking study. Germany is failing at its energy goals. We have discussed this before.
Davy on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 4:37 am
“Energy shortages are no longer a problem”
Peak oil dynamics are alive and well but the time frame has changed is all that has happened. The energy shortages we though were ahead were delayed and extended. Peak oil was a hype but not invalid. Renewables are now the hype. Renewables will likely not save us for multiple reasons. The economy is likely not expansive enough to power us into an energy transition and the most difficult part is the demand management required of human behavior.
Davy on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 4:44 am
“The British Empire of former fame was entirely built on coal. No crude whatsoever.”
How stupid an example in comparing our current civilization and its challenges. The challenge is pressing forward not reverse engineering. We can’t stop anything or we collapse. Entropy won’t allow it. If a collapse occurs it is likely we will never be able to attain the current levels of knowledge and technology again. Too much has gone into this and too much used up in the process. This will make modernism null and void and any further advancement of modernism based on multiple energy vectors null and void. Billions of people will perish in the process because we are in overshoot of carrying capacity without modernism.
Cloggie on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 4:46 am
“A flawed empty goal seeking study. Germany is failing at its energy goals. We have discussed this before.”
Davy bluffing his way into renewable energy consultancy, reviewing a study he has never read.
And how is Germany “failing at its energy goals”?
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/20/germany-predicted-set-renewable-energy-record-2017/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/25/business/energy-environment/germany-electricity-negative-prices.html?_r=0
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-cover-about-100-german-power-use-first-time-ever
One majestic success after the other.
Currently North Sea offshore wind project tenders no longer require government money.
Conclusion: renewable energy has won in NW-Europe and every year more old fossil fuel junk is going to be replaced by clean energy, to the tune that by 2050, 90% or more 1990 level CO2 emissions will have been eliminated.
Davy on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 4:51 am
“Sorry makati, but the entire scientific establishment in Europe, far better qualified than you, is convinced it can be done and is working systematically towards the goal of 90-100% renewable energy. Motivation: climate change.”
Oh, now we are back tracking a bit “90-100%”. I thought it was always going to be a full transition. You know a kWh is a kWh thingy. If it is only 90% then it is not a transition. This means an eventual decay because the other 10% will deteriorate and drive the system down further. If you can’t do a complete energy transition that is sustainable with renewables producing renewables then it is not perpetual. The European establishment is hyping and goal seeking for public opinion. There are plenty of people in Europe looking to cash in on this effort including the politicians. Europe is notoriously corrupt with it business practices and its politicians more so.
Cloggie on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 4:53 am
“How stupid an example in comparing our current civilization and its challenges. The challenge is pressing forward not reverse engineering. We can’t stop anything or we collapse. Entropy won’t allow it. If a collapse occurs it is likely we will never be able to attain the current levels of knowledge and technology again. Too much has gone into this and too much used up in the process. This will make modernism null and void and any further advancement of modernism based on multiple energy vectors null and void. Billions of people will perish in the process because we are in overshoot of carrying capacity without modernism.”
Abstract voodoo text. What you want to arrive at is that “billions are going to perish” (not Americans of course).
Renewable energy is simply the next step in human development, with Europe spearheading the energy revolution.
Which btw is what Davy doesn’t like too much, as he is too convinced that America, not “Old Europe”, is the best thing around on this planet.
Perhaps it is not.lol
https://documents1940.wordpress.com/2017/09/26/origin-scientific-accomplishments/
https://documents1940.wordpress.com/2017/09/27/wernher-von-braun/
Davy on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 4:55 am
I posted this December 2017:
“Germany to miss climate targets ‘disastrously’: leaked government paper”
https://tinyurl.com/yc53wdqk
“Environment ministry documents reveal 2020 target for cutting emissions to be missed by a large
margin dealing a “significant blow to Germany’s climate policy”’
https://tinyurl.com/ya9hz2ye
If you click this graph and you will see Germany is stuck in the 900 range since 2009. IOW Germany has been range bound GHG for years. The policy you laud is a failed policy. It is a worthy policy to peruse but it is a fake green one in reality. It is an exaggeration. If German can’t achieve this policy then the world can’t do it and it is appearing Germany isn’t achieving the policy. German would likely have to economically degrowth significantly to achieve a much lower target. Dutchy, your renewable efforts you proselytize are only maintaining the status quo. There is so far no transformation and a transition seems like a fantasy forecast. The German economy must stay strong and competitive and to do this it must grow and to grow means reductions in GHG are going to be difficult.
Davy on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 5:00 am
“Conclusion: renewable energy has won in NW-Europe and every year more old fossil fuel junk is going to be replaced by clean energy, to the tune that by 2050, 90% or more 1990 level CO2 emissions will have been eliminated.”
Reality: The sweet spots are being exploited. There is little being done on storage at the scale needed to drive this process over the level where renewables problem with seasonality and intermittency are a crippling issue. Affordability is still an issue because of the full need of renewables to drive primary energy. Scale is an issue to replicate the current modernism. The amount of equipment needed to drive this process is mind boggling. Let’s remember Europe is only at roughly 7% wind and solar now with primary energy.
Cloggie on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 5:09 am
“Let’s remember Europe is only at roughly 7% wind and solar now with primary energy.”
Yeah with backward Eastern Europe muddying the waters. You know very well that several countries in western Europe are far better than 7% solar and wind:
Denmark 44%
Germany 36%
Note, now is 2018, not yet 2050.
And yes this is electricity, not primary energy. But we do not need to replace all space heating calories. The envisioned application of heat pumps with COP values 2-4 plus strict isolation, will eliminate most of fossil fuel required for space heating. The autonomous car with rigorous car sharing will slash another big chunk of the current energy budget.
But you don’t want the renewable energy revolution to succeed, as it could interfere with “billions of people perishing”.
Davy on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 5:11 am
“Renewable energy is simply the next step in human development, with Europe spearheading the energy revolution. l”
Who knows what the next step in human development is and this may not be development it may be collapse. We are right near an inflection of some sort and it does not look great. In fact a century down the road it looks abysmal. Definitely an extremist with an agenda like you does not know what the next step is. Europe is spearheading an energy revolution but not by much just in targeted areas. It is not much further ahead than the US and behind China in many ways. Its socialist ways have just allowed notoriously corrupt and uneducated politicians to push a policy.
“Which btw is what Davy doesn’t like too much, as he is too convinced that America, not “Old Europe”,
More nederlying, if I attack Europe it is “your” Europe not the real Europe which I have a lot of respect for. If you are going to praise “your” Europe and attack my country and people then expect to be challenged. Extremist agendas such as yours must be neutered because they are biased for personal, emotional and subjective reasons. You could give a shit about the truth. For you it is all about returning to Europe’s former glory. It is all about wiping out the horrible and disgusting past of killing and destruction that represents the worst failure of mankind.
Cloggie on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 5:12 am
“Germany to miss climate targets ‘disastrously’: leaked government paper”
Luxury problem, simply the result of a booming economy.
Quite a “disaster”, many governments around the world would love to have too.lol
Cloggie on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 5:16 am
“It is all about wiping out the horrible and disgusting past of killing and destruction that represents the worst failure of mankind.”
I trust you are referring to the US bombing of German cities and raping of German women together with your Soviet palls, while colonizing Europe, the whole purpose of the WW2 enterprise since 1933. And next invent a holohoax to divert attention away from your own unspeakable crimes.
You are indeed the worst failure of mankind. Fortunately your country is going down the drain, so we in Europe can take over again from you and finally recover from the 1945 Anglo-Soviet disaster, this time with the Russians and those Americans who still feel European, while you can “Brasilianize” for all I care.
https://www.rt.com/news/387313-us-losing-leadership-eu-mogherini/
Davy on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 5:20 am
“Denmark 44% Germany 36%”
Nederlying again. Germany is around 21% electricity wind and solar and even lower with primary energy. Remember you have to remove biomass and hydro because we are talking wind and solar as the driver of this energy revolution. IMA, where is the storage nederliar?
Denmark is a country of 6MIL, please quit hyping the city size place.
Davy on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 5:22 am
“I trust you are referring to the US bombing of German cities and raping of German women together with your Soviet palls, while colonizing Europe”
What about all the cities and civilians killed by the Nazi’s dumbass? IMA who started that mess.
Cloggie on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 5:42 am
“What about all the cities and civilians killed by the Nazi’s dumbass? IMA who started that mess.”
The Germans just wanted their stupid 97% German Danzig back, to which the Poles responded by ethnically cleansing Versailles Poland from Germans, after the Americans encouraged them to do so, forcing Germany into war.
America, or rather its kosher owners, set Europe up for war:
https://documents1940.wordpress.com/2017/09/25/chamberlain-and-the-forrestal-diaries/
Germans never invaded America, Americans and their Soviet palls invaded Europe in order to colonize it.
You were never able to refute this explanation. America set out to establish a world empire and Germany was its first victim.
Soviets are now thrown out of Europe. Now we are going to ram you out of Eurasia, together with Russians and Chinese and Muslims. Your time is up. We outnumber you 5:1 or more. And then there is the rising American Right.
The defeat in Iraq and Syria are only small signs of things to come, namely the complete Soviet-style dissolution of the US empire and the US itself.
You are the enemy Davy. The enemy of mankind, with your “exceptionalism” and drive to conquer the entire world. The whole world knows by now what the intentions of Washington are and we are going to do something about it. WW3 is next. We are going to kick your fat asses.
Davy on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 5:52 am
“The Germans just wanted their stupid 97% German Danzig back, to which the Poles responded by ethnically cleansing Versailles Poland from Germans, after the Americans encouraged them to do so, forcing Germany into war.”
WTF does that have to do with all the cities the Nazi’ bombed and the civilians killed. Deflection of the a nederliar is all that is.
“America, or rather its kosher owners, set Europe up for war:”
More neder lying
“https://documents1940.wordpress.com/2017/09/25/chamberlain-and-the-forrestal-diaries/”
Screw your personal word press BS nederliar
“Germans never invaded America, Americans and their Soviet palls invaded Europe in order to colonize it.”
STFU nederliar, stay on topic and explain about all the people the Nazi killed and invaded.
“You were never able to refute this explanation. America set out to establish a world empire and Germany was its first victim.”
Lying nonsense of a resentful dumb and dutch old man that can’t stand the fact his stupid little Holland is not glorious like the 17th century
“The defeat in Iraq and Syria are only small signs of things to come, namely the complete Soviet-style dissolution of the US empire and the US itself.”
There is no defeat because the situation is not the 20th century with winners and losers. Americans are still in Iraq and Syria is a quagmire for all involved including your Eurotards.
“You are the enemy Davy. The enemy of mankind, with your “exceptionalism” and drive to conquer the entire world. The whole world knows by now what the intentions of Washington are and we are going to do something about it. WW3 is next. We are going to kick your fat asses.”
Translation: I am pissed because my extremist Eurotard and fake science message has been neutered yet again. I am made to look the failure yet again.
Antius on Sun, 22nd Apr 2018 7:54 am
“I agree I need oil to smear my door hinges, but that is about it.
A kWh is a kWh.
With electricity you can do almost everything, including turning it into H2 or NH3 for storage purposes and combust it in a retrofitted fossil fuel power station.
Even the competent specialist and trained scientist Antius admitted a few days ago that a renewable energy base is possible in principle, but he is still pessimistic about the cost aspect.
I trust that one of the best renewable energy research institutes in the world, the Fraunhofer Institute, did its home work when they calculated that a renewable energy base will come at about the same per kWh cost as a fossil fuel based system. Extra cost for storage and renewable energy infrastructure is offset by absence of fuel cost.”
Thank you for the compliment, but I doubt very much that I am any better trained than a lot of other people here. There is too much to say here for one post, but I will start with the Fraunhofer report. It would take a small book to go through this topic adequately.
It has been several months since I read the study produced by the Fraunhofer institute. Whilst I cannot dissect their analysis in much detail, one thing I did notice was that they anticipated that total energy consumption will be substantially lower in 2050, thanks to rapid improvements in energy efficiency and conversion of end uses to a mostly electric power supply. Assuming that the German economy continues to grow at say 1.5% per year, then by 2050, its economy will be 60% larger than it is now. Yet to meet these requirements, the Fraunhofer institute assumes that it will need substantially less energy than today. What they were evaluating was not the cost of energy per kWh; it was the cost of energy services. If energy can be used more efficiently, then even more expensive energy can prove the same energy service at the same cost.
To a limited extent, this can be done. We have witnessed some successes in limited areas in recent years, such as more efficient lightbulbs for example. Living in collective accommodation, i.e. shared houses or blocks of flats will tend to reduce the energy needed to live at a tolerable standard. Increasing economy of scale has tended to improve energy efficiency historically, but there are clear limits to how far this can be taken without creating other problems. Many of the big improvements in energy efficiency have tended to come from switching to more efficient fuels, i.e. from coal to oil, from oil to natural gas and electricity. Another problem is that much of the reduction in energy intensity that western economies have witnessed in recent years, has come from outsourcing energy intensive industry to less developed countries – i.e. China, India, Vietnam, Korea, Philippines, etc. Because a large part of the wealth is repatriated, but the energy intensive manufacturing takes place elsewhere, this gives the impression of lower energy intensity in the developed nation. In reality, it is just shifting the problem elsewhere. We have also witnessed a gradual increase in inequality in western nations. This tends to reduce energy intensity of GDP, as a greater percentage of income of wealthy people tends to be reinvested in new infrastructure, rather than consumption. Growing inequality may actually reflect the fact that as time goes on, a progressively greater proportion of new wealth must be reinvested to keep the system going, rather than paid out as wages which are generally used for consumption. Redistributive taxes could in fact be worsening some problems in this way.
In countries where there is much less outsourcing and where people are generally poor, there is a much closer fit between GDP and total energy consumption:
http://euanmearns.com/egypt-energy-population-and-economy/
For the world as a whole, GDP is quite a good linear function of energy consumption:
https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/world-gdp-compared-to-energy-consumption.png
This would seem to suggest that in a society in which globalisation is reversing and where inequality is hitting limits, improvements in energy efficiency will be much slower and more incremental than recent reductions in energy intensity have led us to believe. To live well on ambient energy will require changes to the way we live.
Shifting to a new source of energy both enables and in many cases demands large changes in the way that we live. Shifting from biomass to coal in the 19th century, allowed a much greater abundance of energy per capita and greater wealth in material goods. But it required more centralised and industrialised way of living, both to extract and exploit the energy. Oil allowed for much more distributed ways of living, because it brought cheap, fast and personalised transport to the masses. Natural gas brought cheap grid electricity and cheap heat, whilst at the same time oil allowed personalised mass transit.
We are now trying to adapt to other (ambient) energy sources that will produce mostly intermittent grid electricity at a cost that is higher than oil, coal and natural gas during the heyday. We need to do this efficiently with the lowest cost per unit-GDP, which means the way that we use the energy must adapt to its characteristics. It would be unrealistic to expect that we can seamlessly adapt to these new energy sources with the same living arrangements and same levels of affluence that we had during the era of abundant fossil fuels. More later.