View Single Post
Old 06-02-2016, 10:05 PM   #1508
Mr.Coffee
damn onions
 
Mr.Coffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi View Post
Laugh I was just digging that one up.

Mr Coffee, you misrepresent the intention and purpose of the EIA's reference case which states that fossil fuel use will grow. Your post is a bunch of bupkis.

In other news, look at this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...zons-1.3601400



Again, I stand by what I said and was lambasted for that we'll see the peak in global oil demand by 2030.
Tinordi the article you just posted addresses electricity and power which is only a portion of the energy mix. The article even addresses these points and more specifically actually speaks to what my post was actually about towards the bottom of the article- did you read the whole thing? I won't even touch the fact that it is possible for predictions to be wrong, but you already know that because you know everything.

You can't build roads, make plastic, make fertilizers or the myriad of products that are made from petrochemicals with wind, solar, hydro or nuclear energy sources. When I refer to an energy mix I refer to all of these things. Electricity and transportation are the two big facets of the energy mix that yes, will move to the renewable side of the equation faster but that doesn't mean oil and gas as an energy resource is merely dropped or that by 2040 we won't need it anymore which is how you come across- and why my position that the answer will lie somewhere in the middle is actually true. You can refer to things as a logical fallacy because you're used to seeing people on the internet make simplistic applications in thought process but what if I'm actually right- the answer truly is in the middle? Your arrogance and condescending nature leads you to assume that when you see simplistic statements it'd be fun to go grab an Internet meme and run around using what you think are fancy terms like "logical fallacies" but instead you turn people away from actually listening to your point of view because you come across as a jackass. Do you actually speak like this to people in real life? No because nobody would like you and you'd get punched in the face for being so presumptuous, smug and condescending in your brazen path to thinking you know everything. Your style on this site is similar to psycnet but the difference is he is occasionally funny.

I don't disagree with you or anyone that states that renewable energy sources will be a significant growth profile within the energy mix and I don't disagree that that growth in the energy mix will eclipse oil and gas as a portion of the mix. I think renewables will grow faster, but that oil and gas will also grow because overall energy demand will grow. We've got rising populations world-wide and we've got modernization of many 3rd world nations. While the article states that places like Africa will just skip the oil and gas energy mix as part of their modernization efforts, for some reason I'm skeptical that many of these modernizing places will simply bypass gasoline cars and go straight to Teslas. This is what I mean when I say the truth is in the middle so in summary I actually agree with you but we disagree on the timelines that this will occur within. Another example would be like how Mexico just phased out coal power plants for natural gas powered ones (Alberta has similar plans).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi View Post
Two points here. 1) The EIA's reference case is basically taking current 20 year trends in energy use and projecting them out like a flywheel. They don't incorporate recent trends well enough. The reference case is also not a prediction of what they think will happen, but a projection based on those trends. To wit:
The Reference case, which incorporates only existing laws and policies, is not intended to be a most likely prediction of the future. EIA's approach to addressing the inherent uncertainty surrounding the country's energy future is to develop multiple cases that reflect different sets of internally consistent assumptions about key sources of uncertainty such as future world oil prices, macroeconomic growth, energy resources, technology costs, and policies.
http://www.oilvoice.com/n/EIAs-Annua...661e8e3e4.aspx
2) I don't think you've smartly appraised the data. If the reference case only two years ago had 80% fossil fuel share and that share dropped 10 percentage points, I wouldn't take that as good news or that everything was going to be alright. To me that shows there's considerable fluidity and change taking place in the system and working against fossil fuel consumption.





Very dubious to claim this so strongly. A number of fossil fuel majors are openly talking about peaking demand. The Financial Times even, probably the most conservative, investor focused paper had this editorial published last week.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/701c3...#axzz4APIBCnFM

Fossil fuel producers face a future of slow and steady decline

Rather than investing in potentially stranded oil and gas projects, or gambling on new technologies that they do not fully understand, the oil companies would do better to continue returning money to shareholders through dividends and share buybacks.

The commitments made by Chevron, BP and most other groups to maintaining their dividends during the downturn, even if they have to borrow to do so, is an encouraging acknowledgment of that reality, even if the companies do not put it in those terms.

Instead of railing against climate policies, or paying them lip-service while quietly defying them with investment decisions, the oil companies will serve their investors and society better if they accept the limits they face, and embrace a future of long-term decline.



It's 2016. This denialist talking point is so wrong, dated, and unconvincing. Do you think that the thousands of peer reviewed articles and their reviewers just happened to collectively ignore the role of these natural processes? Seriously. Do you have any idea how climate science works? Evidently no, and therefore you point shall be treated with the same level of scrutiny.



Fallacy of the false middle.
When you talk about smartly appraising the data I do agree with you, that is a big shift and that is something I recognize as a dramatic move that speaks to a world clearly moving fairly quickly off of oil and gas. But are we not currently still looking at over 70% being oil and gas? Do you think that's a big or small number? Do you think in 2 years that drops another 10 points?

Do you think it just goes away by 2040? I don't, and so I think the answer is a future energy mix where the energy mix is somewhere in the middle between renewables growing as a portion of the mix but oil and gas still having a very prominent role as well. Just like the EIA thing says and just like I said, the answer will be somewhere in the middle. This isn't Star Wars and these things don't happen overnight.

Last edited by Mr.Coffee; 06-02-2016 at 10:12 PM.
Mr.Coffee is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post: