[Timo]

Yes, we should phase out FFs within a decade. Yes, we could phase out FFs within a decade if we put our collective minds to it. Yes, we would phase out FFs within a decade if we could be convinced that we would all be dead in 11 years we if we don't.

I plan on being happily retired in Patagonia in 11 years. I've not seen the most recent Accudoom forecast for the next decade, so in hindsight, we'll all look back and say, Shoulda. Coulda. Woulda.

In the very grand scheme of things, everything that is possible is rarely ever done.

DAMMIT!!! I could have had a V8!!!

It was possible, but i didn't.

[ROCKMAN]

Hawk - I get you and agree. In the end the greatest impact that effects our lives is the individual choices we make. As you point out it's the only real control one has over their future. I think many folks look for changes in the behavior of others that would improve their lives. For instance most want the world to change it's fossil fuel consumption path yet very few do much of anything to change their profile. And the ones who have chosen to change are effecting only their lives and have done nothing to change the system overall.

You're doing your job for you and yours. Will your lot end up substantially better? Who knows but at the very least you can say you made the effort. Most can't even do that.

[GHung]

There is no "we" other than "we" are screwed.

[ROCKMAN]

Easy to expect it to happen given that low fossil fuel prices won’t have a negative impact on alt expansion:

‘U.S. solar energy company SunEdison Inc filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Thursday, becoming one of the largest non-financial companies to do so in the past 10 years. Once the fastest-growing U.S. renewable energy developer, SunEdison embarked on an aggressive acquisition strategy that left it struggling with $12 billion in debt. In its bankruptcy filing, the company said it had assets of $20.7 billion and liabilities of $16.1 billion as of Sept. 30.

Although solar project developers such as SunEdison continue to benefit from robust demand, their shares have been hit by investor concerns that demand could fall in tandem with weak oil prices. SunEdison has struggled with its own list of problems, as well. Breakneck expansion during 2014 and 2015 left the company saddled with huge debt. In addition, the company has become embroiled in disputes with its yieldcos, or publicly-traded subsidiaries that own and operate renewable energy assets, some of which were acquired from SunEdison.

One yieldco, TerraForm Global Inc, is suing SunEdison for breach of contract, alleging it misappropriated $231 million of TerraForm's cash. TerraForm Global, which had warned that SunEdison was at "substantial risk" of bankruptcy, said last month that SunEdison, its controlling shareholder, might not transfer to it some solar energy projects in India and Uruguay, and also may not complete other deals. Billionaire David Tepper's Appaloosa Management is seeking to overhaul the Conflicts Committee of the other yieldco, TerraForm Power Inc, claiming the company's controlling shareholder, SunEdison, breached its fiduciary duties.

SunEdison itself faces about two dozen legal claims, mainly by shareholders who accuse the company of misleading them about its financial position. The company has delayed filing its annual report twice after identifying material weaknesses in its financial reporting controls. SunEdison is also being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over the failed Vivint Solar deal and other issues. Early in March, Vivint terminated the cash-and-stock deal, worth $2.2 billion when it was forged in July 2015, after SunEdison failed to close on the planned acquisition. SunEdison's financial troubles have imperiled dozens of projects underway globally. The company has sold or is trying to unload some of them, while others are scrambling to line up new financing.”

Shale hype, solar hype, LNG hype, etc. All about sucking $’s into potential black holes. Very old oil patch saying with respect to “booms”: You want to roll into town with the first wagon load of whores and roll out before the first wagon load of production equipment arrives. IOW it ain't our first rodeo. LOL.

[ROCKMAN]

And talking about NOT phasing out fossil fuels I wonder if Green Peace will dog the Norwigians about Arctic exploration like it did the Russians?

Reuters - While the oil industry continues to cut jobs, projects and costs amid low crude prices, one region is making a surprise comeback after years of declining activity, company executives and officials say: the Norwegian Arctic. The number of exploration wells in the Norwegian part of the Barents Sea is increasing to 10 in 2016 from seven last year. Adding to this, the government will hand out new drilling permits by the end of the second quarter, in an oil licensing round set to open unexplored acreage in the Barents Sea, near Norway's offshore border with Russia.

Oil major Statoil said it was seeking a rebound in exploration activity offshore Norway in the next few years with a focus on the Arctic. "We're looking to the 23rd round to trigger an uptick in activity for us," Statoil's head of exploration for Britain and Norway, Jez Averty, told Reuters on the sidelines of an industry conference, referring to the government's ongoing process. The head of Norway's Petroleum Directorate, Bente Nyland, said: "There have been both downturns and upturns in the Barents Sea, but now we are definitely on an upturn."

After years of delay, Italy's Eni has finally begun production at Goliat, the first oil-producing field in the region. And this week Statoil said it would be able to cut development costs further at its Johan Castberg oilfield, a key project. "I am very optimistic for the Barents Sea ... When Statoil announced their work on Castberg and said they have reduced the cost of the development to such low levels, it was a huge signal to the rest of the industry," the deputy leader of trade union Industri Energi, Frode Alvheim, told Reuters. Swedish oil firm Lundin Petroleum and Austria's OMV reported progress in the development of two significant oil discoveries, the Alta/Gotha and Wisting.

[hvacman]

RM - Norway is "good" oil. Statoil profits go to their national retirement fund - taking care of old people, widows and orphans.
BP, XOM, etc. are "bad" oil...largely owned by evil Wall Street investment companies like Vanguard, T Rowe Price, etc....who's major fund owners are individuals and institutions (like public and private pension funds) and who's money-grubbing motive is to save for....wait for it.....retirement.

Come on, RM, don't you know the difference?

[Timo]

RM - Norway is "good" oil. Statoil profits go to their national retirement fund - taking care of old people, widows and orphans.
BP, XOM, etc. are "bad" oil...largely owned by evil Wall Street investment companies like Vanguard, T Rowe Price, etc....who's major fund owners are individuals and institutions (like public and private pension funds) and who's money-grubbing motive is to save for....wait for it.....retirement.

Come on, RM, don't you know the difference?

Exactly!! I'll only put Norwegian oil my salad! None of that crappy Venezuelan or Saudi Arabian oil crap will ever enter my mouth!

Only Extra Virgin Norwegian for me!

[rdberg1957]

"It's possible--for a plain yellow pumpkin to become a golden carriage. It's possible--for a plain country bumpkin to join a prince in marriage."

The incentives would need to be right and perhaps we could reduce fossil fuel consumption by 60-80% if the price of renewables continues to drop. We will likely use coal, natural gas, and oil until it is no longer economical.

[kiwichick]

as an example of what is possible...........it is the stated aim of all the major political parties in New Zealand to totally eliminate tobacco smoking in New Zealand (by 2025 I think?) ..........and guess how the government is planning on achieving that goal

go to the top of the class if you put ........tax

every year the tax on tobacco increases by 10 %.....and smoking rates continue to fall

put a tax on ghg emissions and emissions will also fall

we are driven by what hurts our back pocket

[onlooker]

What is possible and what will actually happen are two different things. It seems we cannot leave Big Oil and Big Oil will not leave us. : http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... try-exodus
EU dropped climate policies after BP threat of oil industry 'exodus'

Oil giant warned industry would pull out of EU if laws to cut pollution and speed clean energy take up were passed, letter obtained by the Guardian reveals

[ralfy]

The catch is that most countries are not like Canada or France (the two examples given in the article). If any, most are still developing economies and may require FF in order to reach a stage of industrialization, in turn leading to post-industrialization. Several also have larger populations.

[ROCKMAN]

Timo - Looks like some are still painfully ignorant of who actually owns the US oil industry and how much retirement income is dependent upon those US public companies. And for that matter how the US govt is by far the single largest beneficiary of fossil fuel revenue in the US.

No: there is no "Mr. ExxonMobil" getting a big fat dividend check every quarter. LOL.

[dohboi]

ralfy, developing countries don't have to develop their energy infrastructure in exactly the same way that England did in the 1800's.

They are mostly not developing their communications infrastructure with a Bell telephone in every house and a phone booth on every corner. Everyone (who can) is getting cell phones.

The same can apply here for similar reasons. These countries don't have piles of cash around to build out an entire energy delivery system to every little community out in the boonies. Those communities can much more quickly, more reliably, and more cheaply construct their own solar and wind systems, backed up with batteries (though even without batteries, they are likely to have more consistent electricity than many in the cities of these countries, where electric service is often very intermittent anyway.)

In any case, the earth really can't support everyone on the planet living at the rate of high-consumption US consumers. Most of the benefits of development come as average incomes approach about $10,000 per year (especially if they are supplied universal healthcare, good education, and spared predatory lenders and banksters).
Mostly, people don't get a lot more happiness for their buck beyond that level.

So really, it is those in developed countries and the elites of developed countries who most urgently need to 'contract' down to close to that $10,000 level. (Being in semi-retirement, I am fast approaching that threashold! ).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracti ... onvergence

[ralfy]

From what I know, many earn only around $3 daily (usually, less than $10 a day). If so, it's possible that they can barely access telephones, let alone cell phones.

Also, if the points raised in this article are fairly accurate, then high levels of consumption are probably not even needed to overshoot:

https://theconversation.com/if-everyone ... uble-43905

[ROCKMAN]

dohboi - If the average income in your model is $10,000/yr I assume there will be little if any taxes collected by the govt. In that case who is going to pay for "universal healthcare, good education...". It certainly won't come from taxing those "predatory lenders and banksters" since they won't be making any income. LOL. Last time I looked all govt spending was paid for with monies taken from others. If there ain't no others where does the money come from?

[dohboi]

ralf, you can make wild ass guesses, or you can take a few seconds to check the facts:

"6 billion have access to mobile phones"

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/03/25/mor ... udy-shows/

ROCK, Cuba doesn't have banksters to tax as far as I know, but they do have an education system that produces literacy rates higher than that of the US, and a medical system that prevents more infant deaths than the US does. If they can do it, so can we.

[ralfy]

ralf, you can make wild ass guesses, or you can take a few seconds to check the facts:

"6 billion have access to mobile phones"

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/03/25/mor ... udy-shows/

ROCK, Cuba doesn't have banksters to tax as far as I know, but they do have an education system that produces literacy rates higher than that of the US, and a medical system that prevents more infant deaths than the US does. If they can do it, so can we.

I'm guessing that the middle class has more than one phone per capita, with businesses purchasing more. The figure should make sense given around 400 million in yearly sales.

That reminds me of the point concerning passenger vehicles, with around 250 million registered in the U.S. out of more than a billion worldwide. I think the rate is similar for oil, with the U.S. having less than 5 pct of the world's population and consuming up to a quarter of world oil production.

There's also the point of personal consumption. I think the same UN reported that the middle class (probably making up around a quarter of the world's population) is responsible for around 60-80 pct of such.

Incidentally, the same organization also reports on poverty rates:

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/docs/ ... apter2.pdf

That is, around 3 billion live on less than $2.50 daily.

From what I've experienced in developing countries, I think the poverty threshold should be higher. That is, a person will need around $10 daily to have access not only to a toilet but also to shelters that are safe, electricity, potable water, food that is safe, medicine and health care, etc.

The implication is that actual poverty rates worldwide are probably much higher, and that to solve them significant levels of energy and material resources will be needed. This might be seen in light of the last point I raised in my previous message.

[dohboi]

Note that the study specifically does not make any statement about how many cell phones there are, but specifically instead says that six billion have access to them. Note that that doesn't necessarily mean that each has their own private phone. You can deny the study if you like, but I'm the only one coming up with actual data on the matter so far.

And none of this is to claim that poverty isn't terrible and pervasive throughout the world. Only that the poor are often more resourceful than we give them credit for. And that villages can do great things collectively, especially with a little help from a government or from a Grameen-type micro lender. http://www.grameen-info.org/

The main point is that, yes, electricity can be expensive. But in many, perhaps most cases, especially in rural areas, its MORE expensive to build a huge centralized coal power plant and then build all the infrastructure to deliver the electricity out to far flung places, than it is to install smaller renewable stations closer to their users. You also lose less through the wires that way.

As to relative consumption rates, according to this study, the richest 20% in the world are responsible for over half of all consumption. http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2015/wp140_2015.pdf (table 4, bottom of page


So obviously that leaves less than 50% of consumption that the other 80% of people in the world are responsible for.


I don't know how 'middle class' is described, but the richest 20% are by definition not in the 'middle' of the income range globally.

[ralfy]

Note that the study specifically does not make any statement about how many cell phones there are, but specifically instead says that six billion have access to them. Note that that doesn't necessarily mean that each has their own private phone. You can deny the study if you like, but I'm the only one coming up with actual data on the matter so far.

And none of this is to claim that poverty isn't terrible and pervasive throughout the world. Only that the poor are often more resourceful than we give them credit for. And that villages can do great things collectively, especially with a little help from a government or from a Grameen-type micro lender. http://www.grameen-info.org/

The main point is that, yes, electricity can be expensive. But in many, perhaps most cases, especially in rural areas, its MORE expensive to build a huge centralized coal power plant and then build all the infrastructure to deliver the electricity out to far flung places, than it is to install smaller renewable stations closer to their users. You also lose less through the wires that way.

As to relative consumption rates, according to this study, the richest 20% in the world are responsible for over half of all consumption. http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2015/wp140_2015.pdf (table 4, bottom of page


So obviously that leaves less than 50% of consumption that the other 80% of people in the world are responsible for.


I don't know how 'middle class' is described, but the richest 20% are by definition not in the 'middle' of the income range globally.

I didn't "deny" the study. What I said is that the several may have more than one phone, with companies owning many as well.

Also, are you aware that phones made in China and elsewhere can be purchased for as low as $8?

About local resourcefulness, that is given. Besides the example you gave, there's also the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loan_shark

You can also find out what poor people do when they have no access to toilets, among other things. In relation to that, one can consider points such as urban migration, lack of infrastructure in rural areas and how that affects the poor, etc.

Localized sources of energy, even without using solar power, has been in place from the start, and often because communities have no choice. But the amount of resources needed to mine, manufacture, and deliver RE components still involves FF. So do toilets and cell phones.

I think Table 4 refers to Mexico.

According to WB data shared here:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/ ... -and-stats

as of 2008 the upper 20 pct of the world's population was responsible for 76.6 pct of personal consumption. Similar patterns of inequality can be seen elsewhere. For example, this article states that only around 500 million people are responsible for around 50 pct of CO2 emissions:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/consumptio ... reat/2140/

Thus, my point of uneven distribution of resource use and wealth is clear.

Finally, I raised two other points (one elsewhere):

The amount of resources needed to meet even basic needs may be higher than what the biosphere will allow:

https://theconversation.com/if-everyone ... uble-43905

and that likely includes even resources cheaper than toilets.

Meanwhile, more poor people worldwide want to move out of poverty:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

and that likely involves more than just cell phones.

With such, how much in FFs, not to mention other material resources, will be needed to support the first? And the second?