Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on June 20, 2019

Bookmark and Share

Propaganda for Renewables: a Critique of a Report by Oil Change International

Propaganda for Renewables: a Critique of a Report by Oil Change International thumbnail

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong”. H. L. Menken

If you ask most of those people who acknowledge climate change as a serious problem my bet is that they would say that solving the climate crisis is all about transforming the energy system away from fossil fuels and replacing fossil fuel based energy with renewable technologies like wind turbines and solar panels. They probably also believe that the main problem in making this transition is the influence of the carbon lobby among politicians and policy makers. If only the misleading power of climate deniers could be broken policy could be changed, wind, solar and marine energy could take the place of coal, oil and gas, and all would be well!

Sadly it’s not as simple as that – though when one reads the latest report of “Oil Change International”, a report endorsed by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Food and Water Watch and – then you would think it is that simple.

The report that I am referring to is all about criticising the idea that the development of “natural” gas is “a bridge to a low carbon future”. This is a thoroughly worthy aim – not only for reasons of climate mitigation but also to take the pressure off all those communities where gas fields are being developed using fracking which threatens to pollute the water, the soils, the atmosphere and their health. The problem that I have with this report is not the opposition to, and the arguments against, natural gas – it is that this report does not have a single word to say about energy conservation and it is thus effectively a puff piece for the renewables industry – or as it is disingenuously called, “clean” energy.

No mention of Energy Saving

That’s important because the need for energy saving is a far greater priority for dealing with climate change than the development of renewables. What’s more there is a strong argument that renewables will never be able to 100% power the economy unless developed economies are scaled down considerably, or degrow. However, you would never learn that from this report, which is what makes it so misleading.

This brings me to the absolutely crucial question of how to contextualise todays problems and Menken’s quote: “for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong”. If you treat climate change as a stand alone problem brought about by using the wrong energy sources, then it seems obvious that you change the sources of energy and Basta, you can then continue as before. When there is resistance to that by vested interests then that is the chief problem.

Climate change – a stand alone problem or part of wider crisis of the limits to growth?

But there is another way of seeing the issues in which climate change is one of a number of problems in a much bigger complex of issues called either “the limits to economic growth”, or “economic overshoot of the carrying capacity of the planet” or “going beyond tipping points in the earth system.”

The first theorists of the bigger problems were concerned not just with climate change but more broadly a problem of wastes and pollution from economic activity AND a problem of depletion of renewable and non-renewable resources. (You can deplete renewable resources too if you harvest more than a sustainable yield – which is happening, for example, with fish stocks )….. In their report for the Club of Rome, published in 1972 a group of system scientists predicted that the global economy would hit the limits to growth in the first two decades of the 21st century. In their model climate change is a pollution crisis, possibly the main one, but not the only one. At the same time the depletion of fossil fuels and minerals is part of the depletion crisis.

Now the point here is that if you do not take into account the wider issues, including the depletion crisis, you get a completely false picture of what is possible. And this is what is the main problem with the Oil Change International report as I shall show in the rest of this article…

The main arguments of Oil Change International

But before I go further let me however summarise the Oil Change International Report with an extended quote where they summarise the main points of their report. The report cites five compelling reasons why gas is not a bridge to a safe climate:

Open Quote 1.

Gas Breaks the Carbon Budget: The economically recoverable oil, gas, and coal in the world’s currently producing and under-construction extraction projects would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Further development of untapped gas reserves, including new shale wells, is inconsistent with the climate goals in the Paris Agreement. Even if global coal use were phased out overnight, already-developed reserves of oil and gas would push the world above 1.5°C of warming. There’s simply no room for more gas.

2. Coal-to-Gas Switching Doesn’t Cut It: Climate goals require the energy sector to be decarbonized by mid-century. This means that both coal and gas must be phased out. Replacing coal plants with new gas plants will not cut emissions by nearly enough, even if methane leakage is kept to a minimum. Current plans for gas production growth drastically overshoot climate safe models and are a bridge to climate disaster.

3. Low-Cost Renewables Can Displace Coal and Gas: The dramatic and ongoing cost declines for wind and solar disrupt the business model for gas in the power sector.  The dramatic and ongoing cost declines mean wind and solar are already cheaper to build and operate than coal and gas in most markets. Cost is clearly not a prohibitive factor to adding renewable generation capacity, whether to replace fossil fuel capacity or to meet rising demand.

4. Gas Is Not Essential for Grid Reliability: Wind and solar require balancing, but gas is not the only, nor the best, resource available for doing so. Battery storage is fast becoming competitive with gas plants designed for this purpose (known as “peakers”). Wind and solar plants that are coupled with battery storage are also becoming a competitive “dispatchable” source of energy. Managing high levels of wind and solar on the grid requires optimizing a wide range of technologies and solutions, including battery storage, demand response, and transmission. There is no reason to favor gas as the primary solution.

5. New Gas Infrastructure Locks In Emissions: Multibillion-dollar gas infrastructure built today is designed to operate for decades to come. Given the barriers to closing down infrastructure ahead of its expected economic lifespan, it is critical to stop building new infrastructure, the full lifetime emissions of which will not fit within Paris-aligned carbon budgets.”

End of Quote

Intermittancy and Grid Reliability

In the rest of this article I shall concentrate on the arguments deployed to justify point (4). Please note before going further that I do agree that gas is probably not essential for grid reliability for “developed economies” if they degrow sufficiently– but this is not what the Oil Change International report is saying. There is nothing in their claims for what renewables could do that suggests the need for any form of shrinking economy. On the contrary this piece conveys a strong impression that “business as usual”, but with an energy system powered differently, is all that we need. Green technology – or so called “clean” technology – can save us apparently on its own.

Not only that – the report is full of “good news” about falling costs for wind and solar which are projected into a future where they outcompete fossil fuels. What is needed then are “portfolios” of renewable energy, a change in energy market arrangements and policy to prevent the investment in gas powered electricity generation which would lock in fossil fuel use – and lock out renewables.

Part of the necessary package that is mentioned for intermittent renewables includes longer transmission lines to access power generated from afar, as well as adjusting power demand to when there is power supply – but the main technology highlighted are grid scale batteries.

The future for batteries in a minerals scarce economic future

It is batteries that get all the attention. Batteries with four hour capacity are mentioned. Wow! Four hours. It is claimed that these are becoming cheaper with time – and an impressive graph is shown that falls from $170 per mega watt hour to just over $ 60 per mwh between 2019 and 2040.

You will note that this is all in the future so it is based on the assumptions that are not spelled out – assumptions which maybe the authors are not even aware that they have making.

One of these assumptions is that the minerals necessary for a massive expansion of production of batteries will be there – probably by ripping up large parts of Africa and South America in a new mining boom to sustain the next round of “green consumerism”.

All this is presumably going to happen at the same time as there is a huge ramp up in electric cars. That’s because the OCI report sees the future as being electrical and calls for “balanced, reliable, and low-cost combinations of renewables, energy storage, flexible load, and other complementary resources, while also electrifying buildings and transportation.” So there will have to be a lot of batteries.

The current EU target is to ramp up production of Electric Vehicles 200 times by 2030. But, here’s the thing – this would lead to an increased demand for production inputs of cobalt, lithium and nickel and copper to build the electrical vehicles. However at 100 times the demand world cobalt resources would be exhausted in 8 months, lithium in 5 years, nickel in 4 months and copper in 5 months.

Simon Michaeux, a geologist based in Finland has commented that “Most of the proposals to roll out a new electrical technology on a ubiquitous scale before 2030 [are] unlikely to go as planned”. That’s because the mineral resources needed are not there in sufficient quantities. What’s more, if this is the strategy, then, as Michaux puts it “the question of what mineral deposits are available is likely to be eclipsed by the question of “who gets access to those deposits.”

Another way of putting that is that there will be more wars in places like the Congo and elsewhere – and perhaps we should remember that it is now impossible to control the spread of Ebola in Northern Kivu in the Congo because of the turmoil. A great result that – which more competition for the minerals necessary for “green” technology will make even worse. It might help to control demand though – if someone with Ebola gets on a plane to a developed world city and is not noticed until they have infected a lot of people who are in contact with a lot of other people….

Intermittency problems on a daily basis are different from intermittency on a seasonal basis

That’s not all. The assumption that 4 hour batteries would be sufficient to balance intermittency is laughable. There are different durations of the intermittency problem of renewable electricity – this is the gap between supply and demand caused by changing wind and solar power while demand for power fluctuates too. There is a need to buffer the gap between supply and demand minute by minute, hour by hour and day by day – but there is a different kind of duration of intermittency which is the gap between supply and demand on a seasonal basis. A German study, using real data for Germany for 2014, found that if you switched around demand you could smooth intermittency and the need for energy storage within a month by only 11%. Put in another way, 89% of the need for energy storage in Germany in 2014 was for longer periods – mostly storage between seasons. And there is no cheap solution for that. So-called pumped hydro and compressed air are more economic options but the places available to build them are limited.

As I wrote on the Feasta blog, “energy storage is mostly needed between seasons and the amount of storage required would be astronomically expensive to achieve without pumped hydro, the cheapest option. Switching the washing machine on when the wind is blowing is one thing – you cannot wait till summer to switch a heater on in winter when there is no wind and it’s the middle of a cold night.” The trouble is that there are not enough locations where pumped hydro infrastructure can be created.

The astronomic cost of batteries if trying to bridge seasonal intermittency

What do I mean when I claim that battery storage is astronomically expensive? Using 2013 data the cost of storing just 24 hours of US electricity is $40.77 trillion dollars (with sodium sulfur batteries); $11.9 trillion (with Lithium ion batteries); $8.3 trillion (with lead acid batteries). For reference purposes US GDP is $18 trillion a year. Of course on a seasonal basis a lot more than one day’s electricity would need to be stored. (Two or three weeks? A Month?) These are figures based on today’s availability of the minerals concerned but, as argued above – there are reasons to doubt that the minerals will be available. See also this article about another option – zinc air batteries.

Developing wind and solar power requires fossil fuel supplies and they are depleting

I have concentrated here on wind and solar as if the chief obstacle to their development will be a shortage of mineral resources. Yet this is part of a much bigger problem – that creating wind and solar equipment requires lots of fossil fuels and fossil fuels are also heading into a period of severe depletion. Consider this passage which gives a flavour of the issues:

“Electricity simply doesn’t substitute for all the uses of fossil fuels, so windmills will never be able to reproduce themselves from the energy they generate — they are simply not sustainable. Consider the life cycle of a wind turbine – giant diesel powered mining trucks and machines dig deep into the earth for iron ore, fossil-fueled ships take the ore to a facility that will use fossil fuels to crush it and permeate it with toxic petro-chemicals to extract the metal from the ore. Then the metal will be taken in a diesel truck or locomotive to a smelter which runs exclusively on fossil fuels 24 x 7 x 365 for up to 22 years (any stoppage causes the lining to shatter so intermittent electricity won’t do). There are over 8,000 parts to a wind turbine which are delivered over global supply chains via petroleum-fueled ships, rail, air, and trucks to the assembly factory. Finally diesel cement trucks arrive at the wind turbine site to pour many tons of concrete and other diesel trucks carry segments of the wind turbine to the site and workers who drove gas or diesel vehicles to the site assemble it.” Source: See also

Note that it is not just that wind turbines (and solar panels) depend on a fossil fuel economy, it is also that fossil fuels are in depletion. This is invisible to orthodox theorists who use figures about gross energy supply in their considerations. But part of the supply of oil/gas/coal must be used to generate energy to be used in extracting more oil, gas and coal. Building a rig takes energy, as does drilling with it, as does fracking, as does refining and transferring gross fuel from the extraction site to its place of refinement to its point of sale and use. What the depletion process involves is the necessity of using inferior sources of fossil fuels in more inaccessible places that are more costly to extract. That increasing cost of extraction is not only in money, it is in energy.

What matters is the net energy that the fossil fuel industry transfers to the rest of the economy. And the point is that with depletion the energy cost of energy is rising and delivering a smaller proportion of gross energy to the rest of the economy because a bigger fraction of gross energy must be used in the extraction and refinement and deliery process to supply energy in the first place. It is not gross energy that matters, it is net energy and net energy has been falling since 2000. Tim Morgan, who keeps track of this with a “Surplus Energy Economics Data System” (SEEDS) calculates that the energy cost of energy is as follows – 1980 – 1.7%; 1990 – 2.6%; 2000 – 4.1%; 2010 – 6.7%; 2020E – 10.5% and 2030E – 13.5%. (E stands for estimates –

Now the advocates of renewable energy tell us that renewables are becoming competitive with fossil fuels and this is true. The energy cost of renewable energy has been falling and will be likely below that of fossil fuels by the 2020s, according to Tim Morgan. However these renewables still supply only a tiny fraction of global energy compared to fossil fuels – 3.6% compared to 85%. As already explained they depend on fossil fuels that are becoming more expensive to deliver and, the Energy Cost of Energy for renewals by 2030 would be unlikely to be better than 10.2%. As Morgan explains – “it is unlikely that the Energy Cost of energy of renewables can fall far enough to restore the efficiencies enjoyed in the early stages of fossil fuel abundance. The overall ECoE of renewables is projected by SEEDS to fall to 10.2% by 2030, but this remains drastically higher than the ECoE of fossil fuels as recently as 2000 (4.1%), let alone back in 1980 (1.7%).”

Shrinking the economy to the scale that renewables can power – degrowth

To summarise, the Oil Change International report is one of those “good news if only…” narratives that assumes the chief problem is that, because of the malign influence of the oil and gas industry, the wrong policy decisions are being taken and that, if governments support “green” energy rather than gas, all will be well. The renewable energy lobby is at work here with help from a clutch of Green NGOs saying what we chiefly need is a policy support for a technology fix.

This is partly true – but only partly. Without coming off natural gas quickly we will indeed fail to reduce carbon emissions fast enough to avert the worst kind of climate crisis (assuming the oil and gas sector can produce the gas in the future which is itself questionable ). It is true we need to further develop renewables – but….and it is a big but, the major priority will remain that we will need to shrink the size of the economy and of consumption and the OCI report does not mention this at all.

There is a need for degrowth and an energy sufficiency agenda to complement the development of renewables. Renewables can power our economies but only if our economies are smaller – but are “Green NGOs” like Oil Change International going to challenge the faith that underpins our society – the faith in “economic growth” ? The faith that technology can see us through and that we can have more more more… or are they going to write PR for the renewable energy companies and ignore the bigger picture, which are the limits to growth issues?

To challenge that prevailing faith which politicians like to promote involves a more complicated story. It is more difficult to tell. It sounds less like good news. Yet although it is a more difficult story it just so happens to be the real story rather than a fairy tale. How much energy do we really need?

So “how much energy do we need”?

There is an article on this in Low Technology Magazine by Kris de Dekker. It is about what he terms “An energy sufficiency agenda”. Writing about Germany, he quotes research stating:

“In principle, public service delivery could bring economies of scale and thus reduce the energy involved in providing many household services: public transport, public bathing houses, community kitchens, laundrettes, libraries, internet cafés, public telephone boxes, and home delivery services are just some examples.

Combining sufficiency with efficiency measures, German researchers calculated that the typical electricity use of a two-person household could be lowered by 75%, without reverting to drastic lifestyle changes such as washing clothes by hand or generating power with exercise machines. Although this only concerns a part of total energy demand, reducing electricity use in the household also leads to reductions in energy use for manufacturing and transportation.

If we assume that similar reductions are possible in other domains, then the German households considered here could do with roughly 800 kgoe per capita per year,  four times below the average energy use per head in Europe. This suggests that a modern life is compatible with much lower energy demand, at least when we assume that a reduction of 75% in energy use would be enough to stay within the carrying capacity of the planet.”

Adapting to living with intermittency – demand when there is a supply

That’s not all. Instead of telling us fairy stories about battery power buffering intermittent renewable power supplies it would be far more practical to aim to transition to a society that accepts intermittent power sources. Kris de Dekker again:

“Before the Industrial Revolution, people adjusted their energy demand to a variable energy supply. Our global trade and transport system — which relied on sail boats — operated only when the wind blew, as did the mills that supplied our food and powered many manufacturing processes. The same approach could be very useful today, especially when improved by modern technology. In particular, factories and cargo transportation — such as ships and even trains — could be operated only when renewable energy is available. Adjusting energy demand to supply would make switching to renewable energy much more realistic than it is today.”

Conclusion – the renewable sector is a vested interest too and has a PR narrative

In conclusion, Oil Change International and the organisations that are endorsing its message are misleading us. Perhaps this is not intentional but they have been co-opted by a vested interest – the renewables lobby. They fail to contextualise the climate crisis in the bigger picture that the global economy must degrow, above all in the rich countries.

In this regard it helps, I think, to remember that companies supplying renewable energy systems are also a vested interest. They want state support and have their own story to tell based on responding to climate change – but are also partly dependent on playing down certain disadvantages and problems inherent to renewable power that are frequently not noticed or not mentioned. That’s because if you feel you are involved in a PR battle with the fossil fuel industry it might seem that it is not a good idea to look too closely into the problems. Indeed it feels like handing arguments to the enemy to mention these issues. Of course that is also true of my arguments here. It will not help you make friends among politicians if you make an argument about the inevitability of degrowth because politicians and senior civil servants and journalists are almost without exception true believers in the faith of growth. Unfortunately the necessity for, indeed the inevitability of, degrowth is one of those “inconvenient truths” and you either mention the inconvenient truths or you play down real issues.


66 Comments on "Propaganda for Renewables: a Critique of a Report by Oil Change International"

  1. Coffeeguyzz on Thu, 20th Jun 2019 8:23 pm 

    The fact that Bangladesh is quickly installing its 2nd FSRU – Pakistan its 3rd – in just a few years is testament to how utterly bullshit the above article is.

    The massive – 1,500 Megawatt – Sergipe power plant in Brazil (biggest gas plant in South America) is coming online shortly with FSRU supplied gas.
    2 more LNG import terminals are slated for Brazil in Belem and Santa Catarina using FSRUs.

    With the ever growing evidence that the Grand Solar Minimum is upon us, the Climate Alarmists will come to be recognized as the most deluded cohort in the history of mankind.
    Dr. Valentina Zharkova’s work is being both rapidly validated and applauded by researchers around the globe.

    The adroit MSM ‘spin’ regarding the startling growth reversal of the Jakobshavn glacier is not succeeding so well now that Iceland’s 4 biggest glaciers are also growing.

    You alarmist folks can keep taking in misinformation that will prolong the delusion in your ever shrinking ideological circles, but the veils are lifting over a growing population that sees for itself that the Globull Warming scam has run its course.

  2. Anonymouse on Thu, 20th Jun 2019 8:45 pm 

    You dont say CoffeeNONY. Good thing ‘we’ have you here to keep everyone up to speed on the latest in cornucopian denialist nonsense.


  3. Antius on Fri, 21st Jun 2019 6:30 am 

    In other words, a transition to renewable energy becomes achievable if society can adapt (at least partially) to intermittent supply; rather than insist on infinite power on demand for any consumer at any time. The second requires either unaffordable investments in energy storage, or maintenance of a residual fossil fuel power system, with wind and solar knocking a few bucks off the fuel bill. Not the sort of transition that most renewable energy idealists have in mind.

    A new energy paradigm implies changes in end use and ultimately, changes to all human living arrangements. The sort of JIT arrangements that we grew accustomed to using fossil fuels no longer makes sense when mother nature dishes out energy at will in ways that you have no control over.

  4. Davy on Fri, 21st Jun 2019 7:40 am 

    “The sort of JIT arrangements that we grew accustomed to using fossil fuels no longer makes sense when mother nature dishes out energy at will in ways that you have no control over.”

    JIT arrangements make sense just at different levels of scale. We can stay complexed but this complexity needs to be layered with ascending levels of priority. This means eliminating malinvestment and bad behavior. That is a tall order in a late stage capitalistic culture of corrupted liberal democracy. If we are going to stay complexed with vital areas of production and control we will have to allocate scarce resources better. We will have to have segments of the world population less complex. Some areas should embrace intermittency and seasonality. Rural areas engaged in resource gathering could easily be made less complex and at the same time more resilient and sustainable. Areas vital to control and production could be enhanced to ensure stability of the whole system. Of course populations must decline and just as importantly be educated. Not the education of today but a new paradigm based on collapsing status quo modernity instead of growth.

    This is all likely too much for the current global civilization but a crisis may collapse the global to regional arrangements and these resulting entities might coalesce into a new arrangement that is more adapted to a world that is declining but that has ample tech to draw on to negotiate this decline. My conclusion is globalism is dead man walking but a new regionalism has possibilities. New behavior may spring from this bifurcation or we could see cascading collapse. Tech is not the problem other than its bad side effects, pollution and bad investments. Behavior and economics is the real problem. It is unclear an economic system can evolve from the coming devolution of globalism. This is why I am cautiously optimistic for the China/US trade war. This might be the best way to break up globalism and allow a degree of decentralization. It is not clear how all this will undo itself because this is a process that is partially beyond scientific study. We are talking self-organizing human behavior.

  5. Davy on Fri, 21st Jun 2019 8:54 am 

    I think I might have hit the bargaining stage, even though I haven’t quite got over the anger and denial parts yet.

    What do y’all think?

  6. Robert Inget on Fri, 21st Jun 2019 9:27 am 

    Airlines take on electrics ‘just in time’.

  7. Robert Inget on Fri, 21st Jun 2019 9:39 am 

    I’m busy adding 3K solar isolated from my 8K grid tie array.
    If for a whole lot of reasons the grid goes down, my family is covered for lights, heat, fridge, recharging Nissan Leaf.

    Our only battery systems cover the ‘frozen island of security’ (a freezer)

  8. Sissyfuss on Fri, 21st Jun 2019 10:39 am 

    A growing population in a degrowth economic environment and an immiserated natural environment is a computation for disaster and not only for we biped hominids. All roads lead to bottleneck. And Covfefeguy is a bot troll with limited neutron capacity. All reliable research reveals continued and accelerating melting at both poles. But you can’t motivate the consumers with incipient stirrings of the 6th Mass Extinction so you try to dazzle them with Trumpian verisimilitudes that work very well on the unwashed deplorables. It’s unbelievable that in a supposedly freedom based democracy that we end up with an incompetent narcissist but desperation makes for strange bedfellows, ergo Stormy and President Plump.

  9. Robert Inget on Fri, 21st Jun 2019 11:19 am 

    With one or two exceptions, it’s still way early for most alternative methods of generating electricity
    to be showing profits.

    Automobiles are a perfect example.
    How long have major auto makers been selling hybrids? Ten years? Only in 2018 did Toyota come out with ‘plug-in’ Prius Hybrid.
    It’s a learning process we should call ‘training wheels’.

    In my state, Oregon, we have a so called ‘Electric Highway’. “Build it and they will come” is not working out as expected. From one end of I/5 to the other there are three high speed charging stations. (over 40KW) The remainder are class two at best. Translated: hours of wait time.

    A trip from CA border to Washington State can take almost twice as long in pure electric.
    This, on the most traveled interstate on the Left Coast.

    IMO, here’s why more progress hasn’t been made.
    In a nutshell, “Tesla”.
    Tesla has its own high speed charging stations NOT usable for other brands.

    Tesla is coming out in 2020 with a 600 mile range
    $35,000 sedan. Other brands are struggling to
    meet the 250 mile range REQUIREMENT.
    VW is most likely first to see a 400 mile range by 2021.

    Battery technology is moving so quickly, fast charging investors are loath to put big money
    into expensive fast charging units. Even auto makers realize, by the time VW or GM open new fast charging, e cars may not need them, (as much)

    I’m planning to upgrade my Leaf battery pack in a few years. The ‘old’ pack goes home acting as storage for nighttime use.

    If Trump hadn’t called back Iran bombers. gasoline would have gone haywire this morning.
    Pure electrics OTOH would have gained in price.

  10. Dredd on Fri, 21st Jun 2019 11:24 am 

    “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong”. H. L. Menken

    That is why we have measurements (WOD Update – 2).

  11. Robert Inget on Fri, 21st Jun 2019 11:27 am 

    Exxon’s Math Calls For Overall Global Oil Decline Rate of ~7%, A Very Bullish Argument For Post 2020 Oil Prices

    Exxon’s Math Calls For Overall Global Oil Decline Rate of ~7%, A Very Bullish Argument For Post 2020 Oil Prices

    We believe Exxon presented a very bullish argument for oil prices beyond 2020 and that it has been overlooked because most readers only flip thru a slide deck and don’t listen to or read transcripts of management’s spoken words. Exxon’s spoken words highlighted one of the forgotten (and perhaps most important) oil supply/demand concerns for post 2020 – the mid term challenge to replace increasing rate of overall global oil declines. And what is eye opening is Exxon’s estimated overall global oil decline rate, which is way higher than any we can ever remember seeing. Its impossible to tell from the small oil supply/demand graph in the slide deck, but Exxon’s spoken words says long term oil demand is 0.7% per year and then “When you factor in depletion rates, the need for new oil grows at close to 8% per year and new gas at close to 6% per year.”[….]

  12. Davy on Fri, 21st Jun 2019 12:12 pm 

    “Davy on Fri, 21st Jun 2019 8:54 am I think I might have hit the bargaining stage, even though I haven’t quite got over the anger and denial parts yet. What do y’all think?”

    Juanpee, I think you are a stalker and a prick.

  13. Cloggie on Fri, 21st Jun 2019 3:25 pm 

    We gotta a new long distance champ, the Airbus A321:

    “Airbus unveils design for world’s ‘longest range’ narrow-body plane”

    15% more range than predecessor
    20% less fuel per seat
    50% less noise in- and outside

    The is the world’s best selling single aisle aircraft family with 6500 orders since 2010.

  14. energy investor on Fri, 21st Jun 2019 9:23 pm 

    The Great Global warming Fraud will soon be bust as NASA at last acknowledges the arrival of the Grand Solar Minimum. Those posting here who have not read about the change of sides this week by NASA are just behind the times.

    I should have no trouble in explaining the proof that exists that atmospheric CO2 has no measurable impact on climate change, but the global warming alarmists are committed to their agenda and cannot accept scientific fact.

    No one wants to know the truth because the globalists control the news media. The faux climate crisis exists solely to justify the UN takeover of global governance.

  15. Anonymouse on Fri, 21st Jun 2019 10:13 pm 

    energy investor (ya right) = Nony sharing all his tired old boilerplate and the same old shit he’s been flogging forever, aka ‘Coffeeguyz’, and Anonymous*, these days.

    > *Not me of course.

  16. Cloggie on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 3:11 am 

    The stand-up tourist

    After the stand-up comedian we now have the stand-up tourist:

    I mean, why contemplate introducing a CO2-tax against the scourge of tourarism, if you have these “seats” around?

    No professional medieval torture expert could have come up with something like this:—aviointeriors3.jpg

    And while you’re at it, why not connect these “seats” to the local sewage system and tie the tourarist to his “seat” once and for all, like in a Soviet-style mental ward?

  17. Davy on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 6:49 am 

    “Integrating rooftop solar just got easier for utilities” renewable energy world

    “The new software can run a detailed, second-by-second simulation, known as quasi-static time series analysis, that shows utility companies how rooftop solar panels at a specific house or business would interact with a local electrical grid throughout the year. Utility companies need the analysis because they must deliver electricity at the standard voltage used to run everything from refrigerators to phone chargers. Large amounts of solar generation in one section of a city can lead to extreme voltage fluctuations, which can damage household electronics. This type of grid analysis hasn’t been practical outside of research settings, until now, because previous models took days to run a single scenario. The new simulations are more detailed than those used by utility companies, and Sandia researchers hope they will result in more solar panel installations.”

    “Evaluating smart grid controls and new tech While the focus of the project has been on supporting rooftop solar, Reno said the new software also can evaluate new technology and smart grid controls. “As we look to the future with new smart grid applications and controls, utility companies are going to have continued need to use time-series analysis to see how new electric car charging will impact neighborhoods, investigate the best energy storage controls and applications or determine how smart home controls, like thermostats and lights, can benefit their grids,” Reno said. “In order to understand the new benefits and controllability of the smart grid, these companies will have to be able to simulate it first.”

  18. Darrell Cloud on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 7:02 am 

    If these people think the Chinese are going to shut down their coal fired plants and sit in the cold and dark while the Davos crowd sips martinis in their bunkers they are crazy.

  19. Cloggie on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 7:53 am 

    So who are going to be the Exxon-Mobile, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Total of the 21st century. The verdict is in:

    1. Vestas (Danmark)
    2. Siemens-Gamesa (Deutschland-Espagna)
    3. GE (America)
    4. Goldwind (Cathay)
    5. Envision (Cathay)

    1-5 have 68% of the market in 2020.
    1-2 (Europe) has 60% of the world’s offshore market.

  20. Coffeeguyzz on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 8:08 am 

    Energy investor

    That is exactly correct.
    The paper just released by NASA’S Ames Research Center completely validates the work of Dr. Valentina Zharkova concerning the multiple asynchronous dynamos within the sun.

    This research is led by one Irina Kitiashvili.

    Supporting evidence such as noctilucent clouds, extended winter seasons, dramatically fewer sunspots all herald a rapid demolishing of the Greatest Scam in human history … aka Globull Warming.

    The phrase Grand Solar Minimum is rapidly becoming the recognized reality for a growing swath of the Awakening population.

  21. Cloggie on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 8:20 am 

    Unstoppable African invasion of Europe, next Friday:


  22. Davy on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 8:21 am 

    Coffee guy, your comment still does not change the equation that climate is showing signs of entering a period of instability that will likely be dire for the global economy and industrial agriculture. Your not winning anything other than bragging rights BTW if you are correct. CO2 and methane from human activity is afffecting a planetary system that is having destructive effects beyond warming or not warming Try explaining that away

  23. Adrynian on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 9:43 am 

    “Jakobshavn is getting a temporary break from this climate pattern. But in the long run, the oceans are warming. And seeing the oceans have such a huge impact on the glaciers is bad news for Greenland’s ice sheet.”

    The Good, Bad And Ugly Of Greenland’s Jakobshavn Glacier Slowing And Gaining Mass

  24. Anonymouse on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 10:10 am 

    Ask Nony if he can teach you how to sock puppet like a real pro davytard. See how he ‘Energy Investor’ (Nony), replies to ‘Coffeeguz (also Nony).

    Since no one replies to NonyInvestor, or CoffeeNony, expcet for you Davytard, once in a while he will have the two of them ‘reply’ to another to create the illusion his opinions and views are more widely shared than they actually are. Its a rather standard tool in the socks toolkit, but, to you, it would seem pretty advanced no doubt.

    But trollish behavior and support of said behaviors, is a feature you also share with Nonysock, exceptionalturd, and that never seems to bother you. You regularly whine and accuse others over ‘socking’, even if no proof exists, when you dislike the person allegedly doing it. Yet you are openly supportive and even endorse socking amoung your fellow retards, IF you, approve of them that is. Pretty messed up huh?

    Even funnier still when you consider most of the time, you create the bulk of all sock posts under other legitimate posters names, then turn around and whine about them as ‘Davytard’.

    Like all your patently fake ‘JuanP’ posts you puke up on a daily basis.


  25. Duncan Idaho on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 11:04 am 

    Ah, the fallacy of humans.
    It is probably a good thing we will be extinct.

  26. Anonymouse on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 11:37 am 

    Annoymouse, you are as insane as juanpee but at least not as big a coward. You avoid the hiding and lurking shit juanpee engages in. Your issues is chronic stalking and stupidity. You basically engage in irrelevant and unintellectual noise making. The both of you need to be banned and you both need psychiatric help.

  27. More Triggered Davy Identity Theft and Projections on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 11:43 am 

    Anonymouse on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 11:37 am

  28. Davy on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 12:09 pm 

    Oops, sorry everyone for getting all triggered again.

    I can’t help myself.

  29. Cloggie on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 4:12 pm 

    Electric flying taking off:

  30. makati1 on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 5:39 pm 

    Dream on Cloggie! Dream on! But if that is what floats your boat…. LOL

  31. makati1 on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 5:45 pm 

    “…US As Force For Bad…”

    I’m sure the numbers would be even higher if all 7+ billion of us were asked. What are the numbers for Libya? Syria? Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan? Afraid to ask? LOL

    The US needs to be put down and soon!


  32. DerHundistLos on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 9:27 pm 


    What happens when the Trump administration replaces scientists with industrial polluters?


    Trump administration supports view “regular exposure to radiation is not only benign, but will enhance a person’s overall health.”

  33. I AM THE MOB on Sat, 22nd Jun 2019 9:48 pm 

    L.A. to Vegas and Back by Electric Car: 8 Hours Driving; 5 More Plugged In

    keep swallowing that cable news clickbait are Zucker’s useful idiot..oh the

  34. Kim on Sun, 23rd Jun 2019 12:23 am 

    The quickest and easiest path to de-growth is via strict limits on reproduction, and removal of tax deductions for dependents.

  35. I AM THE MOB on Sun, 23rd Jun 2019 4:01 am 

    Merkel: rightwing extremism must be fought ‘without taboo’

  36. Cloggie on Sun, 23rd Jun 2019 4:10 am 

    Merkel, Europe’s last libtard and on the way out. She should become professor at Harvard, that’s where her real buddies are:

    I mean this Harvard:

  37. Cloggie on Sun, 23rd Jun 2019 4:29 am 

    Good news for DerHund!

    “America’s future” (spoiler: none)

    California is now a One Party State.

    For ever.

    Thanks to illegal immigration, DerHunds’s godly Democrats will now rule for ever. Republicans don’t even bother to campaign there any more. This is extremely good news for the environment, because Mexicans may be good at baking taco’s, at running a polluting economy, not so much.

    Adios America!

    Now we must ensure that Missouri becomes majority Mexican/Latin American as well, anything else would be raysist and we are glad we are not like that.

    Europe, Russia and China are all in favor that Missouri becomes majority Mexican.


    Seriously, Jews won, WASPs lost. The good news is that Eurasia won as well, because, you see, the Jews can no longer exploit white competence to attempt to set up a world empire for them, like they did between 1933-2016.

    In soccer terms, the Jews majestically scored an own

  38. Davy on Sun, 23rd Jun 2019 6:03 am 

    “Now we must ensure that Missouri becomes majority Mexican/Latin American as well, anything else would be raysist and we are glad we are not like that.”

    Cloggo, if you check out this data Missouri is just as White as your beloved Nederland

    Missouri Demographics
    According to the most recent ACS, the racial composition of Missouri was:
    White: 82.38% Black or African American: 11.57% Two or more races: 2.49% Asian: 1.86% Other race: 1.17% Native American: 0.43% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 0.10%
    About 232,000 Hispanics reside in Missouri, 0.4% of all Hispanics in the United States. Missouri’s population is 4% Hispanic, the 41st largest Hispanic statewide population share nationally. There are 107,000 Hispanic eligible voters in Missouri—the 27th largest Hispanic statewide eligible voter population nationally.

    Ethnic groups Dutch 77.4%, EU 6.2%, Turkish 2.3%, Moroccan 2.3%, Indonesian 2.1%, Surinamese 2%, other 7.7% (2017 est.)

  39. Cloggie on Sun, 23rd Jun 2019 6:24 am 

    Haha, the DailyMail, that is mildly pro-soft Brexit, has started moderating the comment section. Usually such a hot topic would attract hundreds if not thousands of comments, yet so far only 3 have passed the test:

    The DM will NEVER allow comments about jews that are anything less than stellar. Should give you a clear idea whose agenda they are following. The idea that the West is a jewish run empire, is a forbidden thought. Lefist jews like these two BoJo-saboteurs and George Soros still want to keep their grip onto continental Europe and hence fight Brexit.

    “Right-wing” jews like Dom Raab, who favor a hard-Brexit, judge (correctly) that continental Europe is a lost cause, a lost cause for the NWO that is and they are prepared to take their losses and at least keep England into their bulwark “Oceania” (=Anglosphere).

    For the 100th time: this is the default geopolitics “after the break”:

    Orange: Paris-Berlin-Moscow = Christian State / white race
    Pink: Oceania = Judaic State / mongrelized
    Green: East Asia = Confucian State / Han Chinese
    Yellow: Disputed Territories = Islamic State / Muslim

    Only if the Americans can motivate themselves to insurrect, we can have the optimal amended identitarian Samuel Huntington solution:

    Take your pick, white America!

  40. Davy on Sun, 23rd Jun 2019 11:06 am 

    Oops, sorry Cloggie Sir. I didn’t understand what the word “ becomes” means til I looked it up. Just ignore my above comment cause it was stupid.

  41. JuanP on Sun, 23rd Jun 2019 11:56 am 

    Cloggie, I am just a stalking prick but I am a closet Natzi which I know you approve of that.

  42. More Davy Identity Theft on Sun, 23rd Jun 2019 12:03 pm 

    JuanP on Sun, 23rd Jun 2019 11:56 am

  43. I AM THE MOB on Sun, 23rd Jun 2019 4:44 pm 


    How much do they pay you to troll this site night and day? I bet you weigh over 500lbs..

    Enough with the scare mongering Grandpa..Nobody on this site believes anything you say..You are just a nutter who argues with himself..And your WW2 theories don’t hold up to scrutiny..

  44. I AM THE MOB on Sun, 23rd Jun 2019 7:02 pm 

    Trump says ‘I don’t care about the Europeans’ after questions on Iran crisis

  45. Duncan Idaho on Sun, 23rd Jun 2019 7:56 pm 

    Trump says ‘I don’t care about the Europeans’ after questions on Iran crisis

    The Fat Boy and is psychopathic friends are not exactly being friendly.

    Was it the 6 bankruptcies, or just being a minor thug from Queens?

  46. I AM THE MOB on Sun, 23rd Jun 2019 8:22 pm 

    German army and police being ‘lost’ to far‑right parties

  47. Cloggie on Mon, 24th Jun 2019 1:39 am 

    German army and police being ‘lost’ to far‑right parties

    Yeah, Germans and other continental Europeans have no talent for darkies. Dolfie gave it an honest try when he waved to Jesse, but that is about all you can expect. Anglos in contrast go insane if they haven’t seen at least a few before breakfast.

    How much do they pay you to troll this site night and day?

    The guy, who sits on a bench in the park, with a newspaper with two holes in it, pays me 100 euro every Friday. Sometimes I think he has a Russian accent, but it is probably my feverish imagination.

    And your WW2 theories don’t hold up to scrutiny.

    Already sought help from the Reddit forum, in order to get these theories refuted, like I have advised you many times over?


    Why not?

  48. Cloggie on Mon, 24th Jun 2019 1:41 am 

    Wow, this forum is fast like lightning all of a sudden.

    Chapeau, admin-meister!

  49. Anonymouse on Mon, 24th Jun 2019 2:06 am 

    And snail-slow when it comes to perma-banning your worthless ass cloggtard.

  50. makati1 on Mon, 24th Jun 2019 2:08 am 

    Maybe the site owners saw that the slowness was killing the site and got some smarts? I was about to abandon it if it didn’t improve.

    Too many ads slowing it down? I see five on this page alone. Or, too much “security”?

Leave a Reply

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