The Energy Transition and technologies

[Fuzz]

Burning stuff isn't the problem, emmisions are. Mitigate the emmisions and it isn't a problem. Easier said than done, I know, but it opens up opportunities.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

You wouldn't say that if you lived in Alberta.

And now that you don't, you can join me!

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

You wouldn't say that if you lived in Alberta.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Burning stuff isn't the problem, emmisions are. Mitigate the emmisions and it isn't a problem. Easier said than done, I know, but it opens up opportunities.

Getting emissions to zero (we have to get there, it's not debatable) is basically impossible if we keep burning fossil fuels.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

And now that you don't, you can join me!

They still burn coal here.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

All forms of fossil fuels will sooner or later be phased out completely, including natural gas. Might as well make it happen as quickly as it can be feasibly done.

We can't even phase out coal and burning wood...yet somehow we're going to magically replace oil and natural gas too? All within our lifetime? That's quite the optimistic world you're living in.

I know I've brought this chart up before, but it's an important one.


Everyone assumes new forms of energy lead to the death of the old, but that's not the case. It all just gets added to the growing pile. The % mix may change, but the old energy source tends to stick around. We use more coal today than we ever did. We still burn wood...err I mean "biomass"... like cavemen for effin sake. Why? Because as our global standard of living increases, so does the thirst for energy to maintain and increase that standard, and there's no single source of energy that can feed the ever-hungrier monster.

If you look at the global population demographics, that demand will only go up as people in Asia and the Global South look to better their life. As people move up the quality-of-life ladder, so does their demand for energy. They want stable energy grids, they want infrastructure, they want industry, they want better homes, they want air conditioners, they want phones and computers, they want cars, they want to travel, they want to eat food from other places, etc. They want all the energy-consuming comforts you have and take for granted, and will not be denied for your cause of emission reduction.

Unless you're hoping for a drastic reduction in standard of living in the developed world, or to deny all the people in the developing world from rising above poverty (which would be a real #### thing to hope for), global energy usage is going to trend up. And that demand is also why fossil fuels aren't going anywhere. The future won't be fossil fuels OR renewables. It's going to be fossil fuels AND renewables.

[Fuzz]

Yup, pretending we'll get rid of fossil fuels is shooting ourselves in the foot. We need to be creating emission reduction and sequestration technologies that can be applied globally as a part of the entire solution. Unfortunately we've gone so far as to need geo-engineering in the mix, too.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yup, pretending we'll get rid of fossil fuels is shooting ourselves in the foot. We need to be creating emission reduction and sequestration technologies that can be applied globally as a part of the entire solution. Unfortunately we've gone so far as to need geo-engineering in the mix, too.

I think geo-engineering is the ultimate* answer. Probably not a good one, but when there's a push-comes-to-shove infection point like massive methane releases and a sudden +5 degree increase it will be the only answer. The world, of course, will go back to business as usual while we learn about whatever downsides we have created. That should be seen as borrowed time but it won't be, of course.

Edit: * ultimate until a final end state solution is readily available e.g. fusion or finally building out nuclear on massive scale.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Unless you're hoping for a drastic reduction in standard of living in the developed world...

Hoping for, no. Can we sustain this standard of living forever, considering not just energy but all other resources? No.

Do we need to replace F-150s like for like with electric F-150s? Do we need to keep building large single-family homes? Do we need (hell do we even want) to replace our phones and other tech every few years?

Of course none of that would be popular - the carbon tax is a relative pinprick and look at the reaction - but we'd have a better long term outlook.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I think geo-engineering is the ultimate* answer. Probably not a good one, but when there's a push-comes-to-shove infection point like massive methane releases and a sudden +5 degree increase it will be the only answer. The world, of course, will go back to business as usual while we learn about whatever downsides we have created. That should be seen as borrowed time but it won't be, of course.

Edit: * ultimate until a final end state solution is readily available e.g. fusion or finally building out nuclear on massive scale.

It's funny, we've already being doing geoengineering, just not on purpose. The reduction in sulfur in ship fuel, done for environmental benefits, had the drawback of reducing atmospheric sulfur dioxide, that just happened to be keeping the global temperature artificially mow. Then we saw what happened this year. Whoops. Point is, we need to be more purposeful since we seem to have an end goal(under 1.5 temp change). Unfortunately purposeful geoengineering has a lot of land mines. Probably mostly political, but also, you know, we may not get a second chance if we #### up.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

It absolutely must happen within our lifetime. Supply isn't the issue; emissions is the issue.

The issues is the trade off between affordability and standard of living that choosing environmental sustainability requires. Because you can’t violate the laws of thermodynamics. Technology can help close that triad though.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

The issues is the trade off between affordability and standard of living that choosing environmental sustainability requires. Because you can’t violate the laws of thermodynamics. Technology can help close that triad though.

This bears repeating. Sustainability is pointless if only the rich can afford it.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Table 5

We can't even phase out coal and burning wood...yet somehow we're going to magically replace oil and natural gas too? All within our lifetime? That's quite the optimistic world you're living in.

I know I've brought this chart up before, but it's an important one.


Everyone assumes new forms of energy lead to the death of the old, but that's not the case. It all just gets added to the growing pile. The % mix may change, but the old energy source tends to stick around. We use more coal today than we ever did. We still burn wood...err I mean "biomass"... like cavemen for effin sake. Why? Because as our global standard of living increases, so does the thirst for energy to maintain and increase that standard, and there's no single source of energy that can feed the ever-hungrier monster.

If you look at the global population demographics, that demand will only go up as people in Asia and the Global South look to better their life. As people move up the quality-of-life ladder, so does their demand for energy. They want stable energy grids, they want infrastructure, they want industry, they want better homes, they want air conditioners, they want phones and computers, they want cars, they want to travel, they want to eat food from other places, etc. They want all the energy-consuming comforts you have and take for granted, and will not be denied for your cause of emission reduction.

Unless you're hoping for a drastic reduction in standard of living in the developed world, or to deny all the people in the developing world from rising above poverty (which would be a real #### thing to hope for), global energy usage is going to trend up. And that demand is also why fossil fuels aren't going anywhere. The future won't be fossil fuels OR renewables. It's going to be fossil fuels AND renewables.

Firstly, anyone who thinks phasing out combustion is either easy or inevitable aren't living in reality. Most scenarios from most models suggest a long tail rather than steep decline for oil and a modestly long decline. Almost all models suggest gas to increase for a bit then decline. The IEA and Bloomberg NEF are both seeing a peak in road fuel and coal demand by 2027/28 and oil by 2030 with petrochemicals/plastics pushing the peak back a couple years.

But I will challenge your assumptions about the developing world's energy use. The past isn't always the future. Developing countries don't have legacy grids, are situated in quite different climates than developed countries, and largely don't have the natural resources to use fossil fuels like the developed world. Energy demand per capita excluding industry is falling in the developed world due to efficiency, so there's no reason to think that quality of life standards require the same kind of energy they do today. It's fair to point out the "sun doesn't always shine and wind doesn't always blow" problem in Alberta, but that is much less of a problem in India and Africa. Micro grids will make a lot of sense in some places and the natural growth of these grids will not necessarily mirror the past with large generation feeding outside communities. There's no reason, for example that with electricity prices shaping demand in developing countries that a peak must be between 5-7pm when there's no historic data there for it. Especially when peak demand will likely be for air conditioning which will match solar production. And with almost certainty, EVs will become cheaper than gas powered vehicles especially in places that don't have their own oil supplies. There's no doubt though that developed countries will have to help fund the energy transition or it's dead in the water. This must improve.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Table 5

We can't even phase out coal and burning wood...yet somehow we're going to magically replace oil and natural gas too? All within our lifetime? That's quite the optimistic world you're living in.

We will find a way to do it or we will face suffering, death, and calamity on a scale unprecedented in the history of humanity.

Everyone assumes new forms of energy lead to the death of the old, but that's not the case. It all just gets added to the growing pile. The % mix may change, but the old energy source tends to stick around. We use more coal today than we ever did. We still burn wood...err I mean "biomass"... like cavemen for effin sake. Why? Because as our global standard of living increases, so does the thirst for energy to maintain and increase that standard, and there's no single source of energy that can feed the ever-hungrier monster.

Yup, it's quite a problem. Good thing we've spent the last 50 years listening to oil company propaganda instead of scientists. And judging by the pushback against carbon taxes even to this day, it appears we still aren't listening to scientists...

If you look at the global population demographics, that demand will only go up as people in Asia and the Global South look to better their life. As people move up the quality-of-life ladder, so does their demand for energy. They want stable energy grids, they want infrastructure, they want industry, they want better homes, they want air conditioners, they want phones and computers, they want cars, they want to travel, they want to eat food from other places, etc. They want all the energy-consuming comforts you have and take for granted, and will not be denied for your cause of emission reduction.

Unless you're hoping for a drastic reduction in standard of living in the developed world, or to deny all the people in the developing world from rising above poverty (which would be a real #### thing to hope for), global energy usage is going to trend up. And that demand is also why fossil fuels aren't going anywhere.

Oh, I see. The iceberg has already hit the Titanic, and while everyone on the ship is clamouring to sit in first class, I'm the dick for pointing out that there are perhaps more pressing concerns?

The future won't be fossil fuels OR renewables. It's going to be fossil fuels AND renewables.

Wrong. It'll be a future of renewables without fossil fuels, or there will be no future at all.

Originally Posted by DoubleK

This bears repeating. Sustainability is pointless if only the rich can afford it.

??? What does this even mean? Sustainability isn't some consumer product that's bought, it's an attribute of a sane socioeconomic system.

Your statement is kind of ironic too, in the sense that if we allow a worst case climate scenario to happen, it will likely be an ultra-wealthy tiny sliver of the world's population that will be able to avoid the worst effects and survive, while the rest of us perish.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

??? What does this even mean? Sustainability isn't some consumer product that's bought, it's an attribute of a sane socioeconomic system.

It means that affordability is paramount and in my opinion more important than combating climate change. I thought that was abundantly clear in the conversation that was occurring.

If you don't have access to affordable and reliable electricity in Canada, you die.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

The issues is the trade off between affordability and standard of living that choosing environmental sustainability requires. Because you can’t violate the laws of thermodynamics. Technology can help close that triad though.

IMO this is a really biased misconception based on our relatively unique lifestyle (North American suburbanism). Many components of our lifestyle are completely irrational and counterproductive to our own happiness (the amount of time/resources we spend transporting ourselves and maintaining our large homes). We are the minority among the prosperous people in the world - of the ~billion richest people in the world, maybe 20% live our detached household-car dependent lifestyle.

The fallacy is believing that people living in the developing world even want 'our' kind of middle class lifestyle, as opposed to something more like Europe/Japan. Of course they'd take increased prosperity in whatever form available, but simple realities like population density preclude our type of lifestyle in most of the world.

There isn't really a significant tradeoff for most people (not much moreso than the regular evolution of lifestyles), and we'd do well to embrace any tradeoff forced upon us as it will actually mean a better quality of life.

8+ billion people living like Albertans is impossible. 8+ billion people living like Hamburgers or Frankfurters is probably doable.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The IEA and Bloomberg NEF are both seeing a peak in road fuel and coal demand by 2027/28 and oil by 2030 with petrochemicals/plastics pushing the peak back a couple years.

I will eat my shoe if we reach peak demand on oil by 2030. Those models are based on fairy tales and pixy dust. These will be upward adjusted in the next 2 years, mark my words.

Developing countries don't have legacy grids, are situated in quite different climates than developed countries, and largely don't have the natural resources to use fossil fuels like the developed world.

As someone who has been to more African/ME countries than you can count for the sole purpose of meeting with those energy regulators and governments, I can tell you they are dead set on fossil fuel growth and development. They are all vastly under explored and they are screaming for capital to develop out their industries. Those that do not have reserves are laser focused on securing oil and natural gas barrels and are developing long-term pipeline and processing/generation infrastructure in country.

Lagos has 26 million people in it, and will likely surpass the population of Canada at some point. They are all hungry for a Western quality of life.

It's fair to point out the "sun doesn't always shine and wind doesn't always blow" problem in Alberta, but that is much less of a problem in India and Africa. Micro grids will make a lot of sense in some places and the natural growth of these grids will not necessarily mirror the past with large generation feeding outside communities. There's no reason, for example that with electricity prices shaping demand in developing countries that a peak must be between 5-7pm when there's no historic data there for it. Especially when peak demand will likely be for air conditioning which will match solar production

Again, what we are seeing on the ground in Colombia due to El Nino effects where 2/3's of their power is generated by Hydro is a borderline catastrophe. They are not getting enough water and their energy costs have more than doubled for a population that can barely afford increase in food costs as it is. President Petro with his green movement has basically destroyed his natural gas production capability (see Canacol's recent Press Release) and they will need to begin importing from other countries. It is an absolute disaster.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Leondros

I will eat my shoe if we reach peak demand on oil by 2030. Those models are based on fairy tales and pixy dust. These will be upward adjusted in the next 2 years, mark my words.

I assure you it's real forecasts by people with very extensive knowledge who's error bars have traditionally been waaaaaaaay more on the epansion of fossil fuel side. This is taking into account a lot of things that are rapidly changing, and past will not be a good predictor of future. For example, did you know that the electrification of two and three wheelers in places like India and other Asian countries (which aren't going to see vehicle onwership like Canada ever) already is displacing more than a million barrels of Oil? Or that in China (worlds largest vehicle market) the share of EVs went from 5.5% in 2020, 13.3% in 2021, 25% in 2022, to around 40% this yyear and it's still increasing fast? You can't simply take an OECD country's energy use/mix and say that's where a developing country will be.

As someone who has been to more African/ME countries than you can count for the sole purpose of meeting with those energy regulators and governments, I can tell you they are dead set on fossil fuel growth and development. They are all vastly under explored and they are screaming for capital to develop out their industries. Those that do not have reserves are laser focused on securing oil and natural gas barrels and are developing long-term pipeline and processing/generation infrastructure in country.

Lagos has 26 million people in it, and will likely surpass the population of Canada at some point. They are all hungry for a Western quality of life.

I'm glad you mentioned Lagos. You know what else happened in Nigeria? The government ended subsidizing Oil because it couldn't afford to anymore. And now Solar is taking off. The answer there isn't going to be Oil. It's just not. Their demand peaks and usage will not mirror ours and will be shaped by how they get their energy. Micro-grids and distributed solar will mean much more for energy security than paying a weeks salary and spending a whole day to pick up subsidized fuel to run a generator for 4 hours a day for a whole week.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...-checkout=true

Again, what we are seeing on the ground in Colombia due to El Nino effects where 2/3's of their power is generated by Hydro is a borderline catastrophe. They are not getting enough water and their energy costs have more than doubled for a population that can barely afford increase in food costs as it is. President Petro with his green movement has basically destroyed his natural gas production capability (see Canacol's recent Press Release) and they will need to begin importing from other countries. It is an absolute disaster.

Droughts are wreaking havoc in many countries that have traditionally relied on hydropower (including China). This is all the more reason to urgently get off combustion of fossil fuels

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm glad you mentioned Lagos. You know what else happened in Nigeria? The government ended subsidizing Oil because it couldn't afford to anymore. And now Solar is taking off. The answer there isn't going to be Oil. It's just not. Their demand peaks and usage will not mirror ours and will be shaped by how they get their energy. Micro-grids and distributed solar will mean much more for energy security than paying a weeks salary and spending a whole day to pick up subsidized fuel to run a generator for 4 hours a day for a whole week.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...-checkout=true

They stopped subsidizing fuel, not oil. It will be a very interesting test as only the rich can afford any semblance of a diesel generator, and solar generators are up there needing battery storage for their purpose.

Its funny you bring that up as we look at it very differently and have had conversations with high levels of government in Nigeria. They view the issue as needing to stop importing oil, reducing theft of oil which is a staggering 400,000 BOPD and grow domestic production AND refining capacity as the solution.

I cannot go into further details but part of the package was also adding a 50 MW solar facility so that future production was off grid for reliability and reduced emission scores. The economics of solar in Nigeria are challenging to say the least and domestically they do NOT possess the infrastructure of expertise to implement making it even more cost prohibitive.

All developing nations will face similar issues - cost associated with renewables and the required transmission/storage infrastructure are more costly right now than fossil fuels - coal, nat. gas, oil, etc. To suggest they are going to skip right over this step is something I entirely refute and disagree with. North America and Europe are having to throw a significant amount of subsidizing to make economics work on numerous green energy projects - something developing countries do not the capability nor willpower to do.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The fallacy is believing that people living in the developing world even want 'our' kind of middle class lifestyle, as opposed to something more like Europe/Japan. Of course they'd take increased prosperity in whatever form available, but simple realities like population density preclude our type of lifestyle in most of the world.

We don't have to guess, all we have to do is look at examples of countries that have pulled themselves out of poverty to see what happens with energy demand.

South Korea and North Korea are great case studies, as they naturally share many similarities and at one point had similarly poor standards of living (in fact, NK was probably better off till SK shifted economic strategies in the 80s). In 1985, they both had around the same energy use per capita (around 15,000 kWh). Today, their quality of life standards are vastly different, and North Korea is at 4,000 kwh while South Korea has ballooned to 68,000 kWh. That’s a 350% increase in energy use.

Here's an energy chart of those two countries, and Japan for context since you mentioned it:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/p...ry=KOR~PRK~JPN

You’ll see similar energy growth in countries that have seen their fortunes rise. Taiwan, Singapore, China, UAE, Turkey….energy use increases in the hundreds of %. And this is not just about people adopting western values and buying more phones and cars. This increase is necessarily for basic quality of life societal improvements...stable energy grids, economic prosperity, water management, infrastructure, health care, security…all this stuff is energy intensive. It’s important to understand that there is no such thing as an energy-poor wealthy country. You want people to have a decent quality of life, it takes a lot of juice.

Looking ahead at population demographics, all the forward growth is in Asia and Africa, areas with massive room for energy growth. India alone is going to blow everything out of the water. It's the worlds most populous country now at 1.4 billion people (bigger than all of Europe and North America…combined) and their currently energy use per capita right now is a measly 7,000kWh….which is HALF of what poor-ass Korea was in the 80s, and half of what Iraq is today. Forget Canada, just picture them matching successful countries around them. If they get to where China is today (31,000kwH), that’s at least a 4x increase in energy use. If you want them to match Japan as you suggested, it’s almost 6x. I don’t think they’ll get there…but with their population, even a double will be a massive amount of demand globally.

Keep in mind, I have said nothing here about energy types. My point is not that we'll be getting our energy from one source or another...my point is that the world will only get thirstier even with modest quality of life growth, and we're gonna need to feed the monster with everything we got. Every atom of energy you forego in the west, the rest of the world will gobble it up.

But also, let’s not forget... energy growth is also a good thing. Abundant energy is what massively improved our lives in the west, and it's what's going to improve lives in the rest of the world too. Yes, there are going to be tradeoffs (there always are!), but it means less people are suffering, and more are living better lives. The economic growth in China, despite all its issues and environmental harm, has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the last few decades.... that’s a lot of collective human suffering that has been alleviated.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Table 5

But also, let’s not forget... energy growth is also a good thing. Abundant energy is what massively improved our lives in the west, and it's what's going to improve lives in the rest of the world too. Yes, there are going to be tradeoffs (there always are!), but it means less people are suffering, and more are living better lives. The economic growth in China, despite all its issues and environmental harm, has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the last few decades.... that’s a lot of collective human suffering that has been alleviated.

"Better lives"... sure, temporarily, by rampantly running up the ecocide credit card.

But the bill will come due soon, and when it does, the collectors will be ruthless...