Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on January 1, 2018

Bookmark and Share

Venezuela Unveils Mining, Trading, and Launch Details of National Cryptocurrency

Venezuela Unveils Mining, Trading, and Launch Details of National Cryptocurrency thumbnail

The Venezuelan government has published a decree outlining the operation of Venezuela’s national cryptocurrency, the Petro. It details the government’s plans for the new currency, including its issuance, mining, and trading. In addition, the Petro will be backed by 5 billion barrels of crude oil.

5 Billion Barrels of Oil and Mining Plan

Venezuela Unveils Mining, Trading, and Launch Details of National Cryptocurrency
Nicolás Maduro.

Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro has assigned 5.3 billion barrels of crude oil worth $267 billion to back the nation’s cryptocurrency. He first announced the creation of the Petro in early December, as news.Bitcoin.com reported.

During a weekly national radio and TV broadcast, he showed a “document formalizing the provision of the certified Ayacucho oil field, No.1 in the Orinoco Petroleum Belt, for the support of El Petro cryptocurrency,” according to RT. Citing that “every single Petro will be backed by a barrel of oil,” Maduro confirmed:

We will set up a special team of cryptocurrency specialists so they will be engaged in mining in all states and municipalities of our country.

In addition, the president “promised to allocate Arco Minero gold deposits from the Orinoco Belt along with the country’s diamond deposits” to the Petro, the publication noted.

The Cryptocurrency Superintendency and the National Blockchain Observatory will oversee the Petro’s creation and operation, as news.Bitcoin.com previously reported.

Issuance and Trading Plans

The Maduro government has published a Gazette which outlines a decree consisting of 13 parts, referred to as Articles; nearly half of them concern the operational details of the Petro.

Venezuela Unveils Mining, Trading, and Launch Details of National CryptocurrencyArticle 4 of the decree describes the assets backing the new currency, stating that the Petro “is about Venezuelan oil quoted in the OPEC basket, as well as other commodities, including gold, diamond, coltan, and gas.” Moreover, each Petro “will have, as physical support, a purchase-sale contract for one (01) barrel of oil from the Venezuelan crude oil basket or any commodities that the nation decides.”

Article 5 reveals the nature of the wallets holding the Petro, as well as the cryptocurrency’s convertibility, stating:

The holder of the Petro may change the market value of the crypto-asset for the equivalent in another cryptocurrency or in Bolivares at the market exchange rate published by the national crypto-asset exchange house…The holder of each Petro will own a virtual wallet, which will be his [own] responsibility.

Venezuela Unveils Mining, Trading, and Launch Details of National CryptocurrencyThe Gazette also provides some issuance details of the Petro and hints at an initial coin offering (ICO). “The initial placement will be made through auction or direct assignment, made by the Superintendence of the crypto-assets and related Venezuelan activities,” according to Article 8.

Furthermore, the government explained in Article 9, “The custody will be decentralized once the Superintendence of the crypto-assets and related Venezuelan activities has carried out the initial auction and assigned the crypto-assets to investors.”

As for the launch timeframe, Minister of Communication and Information Jorge Rodríguez was recently quoted by local publications saying, “the first issue of the Petro cryptocurrency will be announced within days.” Then, during his year-end speech in a national radio and TV broadcast on Sunday, December 31, Maduro revealed:

In the month of January, I will be presenting all the conditions for the Petro to start operating.

What do you think of the details provided on the Petro so far? Let us know in the comments section below.

BitCoin.com



34 Comments on "Venezuela Unveils Mining, Trading, and Launch Details of National Cryptocurrency"

  1. Sissyfuss on Mon, 1st Jan 2018 8:53 am 

    You can use use the petro to buy some bread to go along with the cat fricassee you’re having for dinner.

  2. Cloggie on Mon, 1st Jan 2018 10:54 am 

    Nicolás Maduro.

    In Holland we have Madurodam, a very tiny city, named after the (((owners))), who set it up:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofGXKSCbtpU

    Even Trump did refer to it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELD2AwFN9Nc
    [2:18]

  3. Duncan Idaho on Mon, 1st Jan 2018 1:39 pm 

    Interesting, for a government that was going to collapse 2 years ago—-

  4. DMyers on Mon, 1st Jan 2018 11:01 pm 

    5.3 billion barrels of oil. That shit’s in the ground, mahn. If you want to claim your barrel of oil with a Petro, you’ll have the pump it yourself. And then, it will be too heavy to sell, until you find some light oil/condensate/shaleshit to mix with it.

    By the way, does the dipstick register that much oil, or is it a wild guess?

    Then, we have to wonder, will Maduro be a responsible overseer of this project? Will we learn that he secretly dumped a billion barrels of the collateral, just to get the whole thing up and running? I don’t see how a hollowed out country like Venezuela can suddenly claim some heightened worth and credibility just by setting up the outline for its own crypto.

    The Petro will be backed by a potential fortune in assets, which will never be realized, because there is still no functioning economy to produce them. You’re probably well advised to avoid the Petro and stick with bitcoin. You’re probably best advised to shun crypto and buy gold.

  5. MASTERMIND on Mon, 1st Jan 2018 11:21 pm 

    CLogg

    Renewable energy ‘simply won’t work’: Top Google PhD Engineers

    Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

    Solar and Wind produced less than one percent of total world energy in 2016 – IEA WEO 2017
    https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf

  6. Cloggie on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 12:31 am 

    Renewable energy ‘simply won’t work’: Top Google PhD Engineers

    You are cherry picking.

    Google is one of if not THE largest corporate buyer of renewable energy:

    https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/6/16734228/google-renewable-energy-wind-solar-2017

    “Energy hog Google just bought enough renewables to power its operations for the year”

    https://environment.google/projects/ppa/

    “Greening the grid: how Google buys renewable energy”

    But millimind will never post these Google links, because they don’t fit in his grandiose scheme of global decay and collapse, in which they see themselves as the new Nostradamus, standing high above the ignorant dumb masses that need to be informed by smarties like millimind.

    It is always the same pattern: folks trying to sex up their boring lives with tall tales they will tell their buddies in dark cafes.

  7. MASTERMIND on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 6:58 am 

    Clogg

    Solar and Wind produced less than one percent of total world energy in 2016 – IEA WEO 2017
    https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf

    Do you think the IEA is cherry picking as well? Lets not just cherry pick half of my prior post!

  8. Antius on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 10:40 am 

    “Renewable energy ‘simply won’t work’: Top Google PhD Engineers
    You are cherry picking.
    Google is one of if not THE largest corporate buyer of renewable energy:
    https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/6/16734228/google-renewable-energy-wind-solar-2017
    “Energy hog Google just bought enough renewables to power its operations for the year”
    https://environment.google/projects/ppa/
    “Greening the grid: how Google buys renewable energy”
    But millimind will never post these Google links, because they don’t fit in his grandiose scheme of global decay and collapse, in which they see themselves as the new Nostradamus, standing high above the ignorant dumb masses that need to be informed by smarties like millimind.”

    Cloggie, you never approach questions on the efficacy of renewable energy with a shred of honesty. Rather than attempt to analyse problems with an open mind and find technical solutions; you act like a politician and try to sell your pet ideas and preordained conclusions to a gullible public, whilst brushing problems under the carpet with handwavium and sophistry. Everything ends up being all front with not enough substance behind it.

    Most folk here have had decades of that sort of treatment from the various treacherous political ideologues that arrogantly attempt to control their lives. You behave just like them, which is why people here treat you like a troll and fail to show you respect. It is also pointless – the world doesn’t care very much what anyone here thinks and unless you discover something new, which you will only do with some serious quality analysis and lateral thinking, your ideas will not move the world in a new direction.

    If you want to sell your ideas be prepared to approach problems with an honest and open mind and carry out better technical analysis, with a heavy dose of arithmetic. You’re an engineer, so you should be able to do that. You need to be prepared to question things that you may be quite fond of and have them shot to pieces. You may find that some things don’t work very well, others work better than you had assumed.

    The only reason not to do this is that you are afraid of what you might find. In which case, you shouldn’t really be advocating it should you?

  9. MASTERMIND on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 11:12 am 

    Google is investing in renewable s for virtue signalling reasons. They know its a joke.

  10. Simon on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 11:31 am 

    Antius : Why should anyone care about EROEI the only thing that matters it ROI

  11. Davy on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 11:33 am 

    well said above, antius, as is normal for your comments.

  12. MASTERMIND on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 11:41 am 

    Antius

    Solar and Wind produced less than one percent of total world energy in 2016 – IEA WEO 2017
    https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf

    Do you think one percent is great work? EAT MY ASS! You too Davy for sucking his ass.

  13. Antius on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 11:46 am 

    Mastermind, in the present energy market, a hybrid electricity system in which a mixture of wind and solar power operate in conjunction with a gas turbine, will generate power only marginally more expensive than FF alone (20-30%) and will cut CO2 emissions by up to 50%. You have the extra generating cost of the renewable energy, but you save money on the fuel being burned in the powerplant. This is the way renewable energy is actually being used in electricity networks at present, although fossil fuel backup is not sufficiently compensated in many places for the loss of market share. That has to happen, as the FF plant is an essential component in the hybrid energy system.

    The catch is that such a system locks us in to future fossil fuel dependency, albeit at a reduced level of consumption. If all energy demand switches to the natural gas renewable hybrid economy (I.e using heat pumps, electric vehicles, etc) we might cut CO2 emissions somewhere between 50-70%. That’s before any fresh energy demand due to economic growth is factored in. It is difficult to reduce fossil dependency much further, because energy storage hugely increases the cost of renewable energy. This puts it in the position of being a fossil fuel extender.

    Cloggie never convincingly answers problems like this. It’s all about selling the idea to him, regardless of whether it actually works.

  14. MASTERMIND on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 11:46 am 

    The Great Depression 1929-1940 Economic Growth GDP (1%)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

    The Great Recession 2006-2017 Economic Growth GDP (1.5%)
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/

    The Great Recession 2006-2017 Economic Growth GDP Per Capita (0.4%)
    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=US

    OCED Economic Growth GDP Per Capita 1970-2015 (0.5%)
    https://imgur.com/a/HXBkr#Bv4I4AF

    US Government Non Partisan CBO Office Forecast Less Than 2% GDP Growth Through 2027
    https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52801

    *Note: 20% GDP Includes (FIRE) finance, insurance and real estate

    The Second Great Depression has no ending in sight! And is headed towards an economic collapse!

  15. Cloggie on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 11:50 am 

    Cloggie, you never approach questions on the efficacy of renewable energy with a shred of honesty. Rather than attempt to analyse problems with an open mind and find technical solutions;

    Actually I did. Here you have in great detail what I back as the renewable energy solution of the future, to begin with in Europe:

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/09/16/blueprint-100-renewable-energy-base-for-germany/

    Update:

    https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/What-will-the-energy-transformation-cost.pdf

    Dutch situation:

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/12/31/dutch-energy-figures/

    It has been calculated in that study that the operational cost is roughly the same as with fossil, apart from an substantial additional effort to reduce the heat consumption for space heating. It is all doable, just like it was doable to interconnect the entire planet since 1995, to put every European in a car since 1960, to build autobahnen in Germany between 1933-1939 or to put a man on the moon.

    Continental Europe (and perhaps still Britain post-Brexit) are committed to this goal, we are going to do it and as a consequence we will have profitable industries that can service the rest of the world.

    Already now many (most?) wind parks in the US are build by Europeans.

    Asia might have conquered the PV-market, Europe will do wind and storage.

    Americans will say it can’t be done.
    Fine, one competitor less.

  16. MASTERMIND on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 11:50 am 

    Ant

    Clogg will be gone for good soon I predict..he wont’ like me hitting him over the head about the facts of solar and wind. look how i ran that Rockman off. he thought he was king dick around here until I showed up. Now Rockman has got lost somewhere over the horizon never to be seen or heard from again!

  17. Davy on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 11:51 am 

    “Antius : Why should anyone care about EROEI the only thing that matters it ROI”

    Simon, I think it is more like a comparison of philosophy and mythology. Philosophy has a basis in historical and scientific observations. Mythology is metaphysical and does not necessarily reflect history and or science but it does reflect meaning for man. Both are concerned with meaning but from alternative spectrums of human knowledge and understanding.

    We should use EROI for the bigger picture of the longer term. Does civilization have what it takes to survive in a macro sense? If we see many of civilization’s most important energy resources with low EROI we should take seriously the possible decline of civilization and vice versa.

    ROI, is more a function of business operations. There are multiple issues that can make an investment have or not have a return. The reasons are not all related to the quality and quantity of the resource. These issues are also systematic with both rational and irrational variables. This means we can have good ROI on a resource in question even though the EROI is poor. We see this most recently with shale and the repression of rates and the liquidity available the energy sector from quantitative easing over the past decade.

    I am sure you know this with you deep background with energy in Europe now. I presume you are making your point because business doesn’t care about EROI in its decision making process and nor should it really.

  18. MASTERMIND on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 11:53 am 

    Clogg

    You have to make up your own sources with your shitty blog?? You brainwash yourself with your own fake news! LOL

    OCED Economic Growth GDP Per Capita 1970-2015 (0.5%)
    https://imgur.com/a/HXBkr#Bv4I4AF

    Look at Europe’s economy Clogg! End of Growth is here…Heingberg vindicated!

  19. MASTERMIND on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 11:57 am 

    CLogg

    UC Davis Study: It Will Take 131 Years to Replace Oil with Alternatives (Malyshkina, 2010)
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es100730q

    University of Chicago Study: predicts world economy unlikely to stop relying on fossil fuels (Covert, 2016)
    https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.30.1.117

    Solar and Wind produced less than one percent of total world energy in 2016 – IEA WEO 2017
    https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf

  20. Davy on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 12:01 pm 

    Antius, another well constructed comment above (Antius on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 11:46 am). I rarely compliment anyone but you have made good points today.

  21. Simon on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 12:14 pm 

    Antius :- I am not aware of any hybrid plants and in the modern energy market you need to bid on a plant by plant basis, so on a macro level what you said makes sense, however for an operator, not so much

    @Dave, yeah basically, you are right about the larger picture, but that is not really important, however people are quite impressed with Mr Musks 100Mw battery …..

  22. Davy on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 12:18 pm 

    “The U.S. Just Burned the Most Natural Gas Ever”
    https://tinyurl.com/yarzd5n7

    “The U.S. burned the most natural gas ever on Monday, breaking a record set during the so-called polar vortex that blanketed the nation’s eastern half with arctic air in 2014. America consumed 143 billion cubic feet of gas as temperatures dipped to all-time lows on New Year’s Day, topping the previous high of 142 billion from four years ago, data from PointLogic Energy show. Prices for the heating fuel rose to the highest in a month.”

  23. Antius on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 1:12 pm 

    “Here are seven peer reviewed scientific studies authored by top experts that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that global civilization will collapse within the next decade.”

    Mastermind, I have no doubt that we are heading for another great depression – like 1929, but longer and deeper. There will be millions of casualties, most of them in the third world and most of them unnoticed as the middle and upper classes bury their heads in the sand and pretend that the crisis is due to ‘economic mismanagement’.

    I am not interested in ‘sending Cloggie packing’. I respect his enthusiasm, many of his posts are interesting and I hope he will continue to contribute. But I will continue to poke holes in ideas that are poorly substantiated and hopefully he will start doing it himself. It is the only way this board can actually serve a useful purpose.

  24. MASTERMIND on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 1:24 pm 

    Ant

    We have already been in another Great Depression for the last 11 years…With no ending in sight. You are just ignorant of history.

    The Great Depression 1929-1940 Economic Growth GDP (1%)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

    The Great Recession 2006-2017 Economic Growth GDP (1.5%)
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/

    The Great Recession 2006-2017 Economic Growth GDP Per Capita (0.4%)
    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=US

    Global Economic Growth GDP Per Capita (1.3%)
    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG

    OCED Economic Growth GDP Per Capita 1970-2015 (0.5%)
    https://imgur.com/a/HXBkr#Bv4I4AF

    US Non Partisan CBO Office Forecast Less Than 2% Economic Growth GDP Through 2027
    https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52801

    *Note: 20% GDP Includes (FIRE) finance, insurance and real estate

  25. MASTERMIND on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 1:28 pm 

    Ant

    We are already in a depression and we are headed for a massive world oil shortage that will cause a global economic collapse. The Soviet Union collapsed due to an oil shortage as well. And it only took them two years. And the IEA and Saudi’s think an oil shortage will be here by 2020. So most likely you will be dead within the next five years. I just said ten years to be extra safe..And deep down Mastermind is an optimist! LOL

  26. Antius on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 4:39 pm 

    “Antius : Why should anyone care about EROEI the only thing that matters it ROI”

    I often think that ‘rate of return on energy invested’ correlates better with economic performance than simple EROI. When I invest in a power plant, a rapid return on energy invested correlates with better economic performance, because I can sell the energy quickly, avoid interest payments and achieve a better rate of return.

    This is how the economics of nuclear power have been ruined. The seemingly excellent EROI of 75, takes 40 years to recoup and build time is now at least a decade, during which you get nothing but mounting interest payments. The actual EROI over a 20 year investment window is a mediocre value of 18.75, and rate of return EROI is about 0.94 per year in the first 20 years. The longer it takes to build and commission, the worse it gets. This is a good example of how an over-controlling bureaucracy can ruin the economics of an otherwise excellent concept. If the build time decreases to two years say, for a modular reactor, the Rate of Return EROI almost doubles. The key to economic viability for any powerplant is to get build time as short as possible.

    Interestingly, Rate of Return EROI is also quite favourable for renewable energy FF hybrid systems. Since most of the energy invested in a CCGT plant is involved in procuring the fuel supply for the powerplant, a 50% reduction in lifetime fuel consumption goes a long way towards offsetting the energy invested in the renewable energy converters. If we ever get to the point where renewable electricity costs less than the natural gas needed to create the equivalent amount of power in a CCGT, then a it would make economic sense to build renewable energy power plants even without subsidies.

    Renewable energy with storage would have much poorer Rate of Return EROI. That’s because we must invest all the energy needed to build the renewable energy powerplants, the energy storage system (which is essentially a powerplant with a big energy store attached to it) and then even more renewable energy plants to cover storage inefficiencies. An initial EROI of 20 and rate of return EROI of 1.0 per year, could easily drop by a factor of three.

    When one adjusts EROI to account for the effective rate of energy payback and total payback in a realistic investment window (20 years, say) it correlates must better with what we observe of real economic performance of energy sources.

  27. Davy on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 5:19 pm 

    “Solar’s Bright Future Is Further Away Than It Seems”
    https://tinyurl.com/y9oar52q

    “There is now a doctrine of what I call “solar triumphalism”: the price of panels has been falling exponentially, the technology makes good practical sense, and only a few further nudges are needed for solar to become a major energy source. Unfortunately, this view seems to be wrong. Solar energy could be a boon to mankind and the environment, but it’s going to need a lot more support and entrepreneurial and policy dynamism. Varun Sivaram, in his forthcoming “Taming the Sun: Innovations to Harness Solar Energy and Power the Planet” lays out this case in what may be the first important policy book of 2018. To be clear, Sivaram, who holds a doctorate in physics, is a solar expert and an energy adviser — he’s no enemy of alternative energy sources. He thinks government should increase its support for energy research and development, aiming at diverse pathways, applied at various stages of technology development, and targeting game-changing breakthroughs. In other words, we need to recognize the limitations of today’s solar power if we are going to make it really work.”

    “In sum, just improving silicon panel solar technologies may not be enough. Sivaram calls for “systemic innovation,” based on “refashioning entire energy systems — including physical infrastructure, economic markets, and public policies — to enable a high penetration of solar energy.” I would add that we should reconsider the abandonment of nuclear energy, a topic that Sivaram touches upon but does not emphasize. One lesson is that marginal improvements aren’t always enough, and economic dynamism is more important than we have been realizing. A whole series of integrated breakthroughs may be required to move significantly closer to a green energy future. I do think the U.S. will eventually get there, but after reading “Taming the Sun,” I have to wonder if we are up to the challenge now.”

  28. Antius on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 5:32 pm 

    “We are already in a depression and we are headed for a massive world oil shortage that will cause a global economic collapse. The Soviet Union collapsed due to an oil shortage as well. And it only took them two years. And the IEA and Saudi’s think an oil shortage will be here by 2020. So most likely you will be dead within the next five years. I just said ten years to be extra safe..And deep down Mastermind is an optimist! LOL”

    Well Mastermind, I would like to be able to say that you are being excessively gloomy, especially since I have three children. Trouble is, I don’t think you are. Western governments have largely shielded their populations from the effects of zero gdp growth over the past 10 years, with low interest rates and massive increases in debt. Unfortunately, this has destroyed their ability to manoeuvre when the real oil shortages kick in. The millions of private and public sector workers alike that find themselves without work when the economic dislocation hits, will not be able to rely on the dole, or foodstamps. A genuine oil shortage is the sort of crisis that could dramatically cut human numbers across the planet.

    It kind of puts the dangers of nuclear accidents into perspective. Whilst idiots worry about the possibility of radioactive pollution that could reduce life expectancy for 10,000 or so people, a large portion of mankind may soon lose all of their life expectancy and those remaining would see theirs diminished by poverty. It suggests to me that it is time to throw caution to wind and build a factory that can knock out modular fast reactors on an assembly line on a timescale of weeks rather than years. If those nukes are cheap and abundant enough, we could make liquid fuels using electrolytic hydrogen through fossil fuel upgrading. When people are desperate, it is often amazing how efficient they really can be.

  29. Antius on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 5:46 pm 

    “Solar’s Bright Future Is Further Away Than It Seems”
    https://tinyurl.com/y9oar52q

    Thanks for the link, Davy. I will buy a copy when it becomes available (around March time).

  30. Makati1 on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 6:15 pm 

    The argument boils down to $$$$. No profit = no energy in a capitalist world. Tech is only important if it makes profits possible and it has been failing miserably these last decades.

    The collapse of the Western financial system will change the world for the better in many ways. The new Eastern system will set prices and values and dictate profits in the future. I suspect that trade will be more about necessities than huge profits.

  31. MASTERMIND on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 6:21 pm 

    Solar and Wind are scams and don’t get me started on Tesla anything.

    UC Davis Study: It Will Take 131 Years to Replace Oil with Alternatives (Malyshkina, 2010)
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es100730q

    University of Chicago Study: predicts world economy unlikely to stop relying on fossil fuels (Covert, 2016)
    https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.30.1.117

    Solar and Wind produced less than one percent of total world energy in 2016 – IEA WEO 2017
    https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf

  32. Davy on Tue, 2nd Jan 2018 7:41 pm 

    “Thanks for the link, Davy. I will buy a copy when it becomes available (around March time).”

    Yea, if we are to have some or any hope this (systemic innovation,” based on “refashioning entire energy systems) is going to have to come on strong. I thought you would like this part too:

    “I would add that we should reconsider the abandonment of nuclear energy, a topic that Sivaram touches upon but does not emphasize.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *