The politicizing of energy types, demonizing fossil fuels and the defensive reaction of lionizing them, distracts from development and construction to meet needs. The provision of energy increases the pace of growing wealth and knowledge in each country, or conversely the lack of energy caps advance. Coal enables rapid growth but LNG could too with fewer hazards. The technical development and commercialization of fission design and construction can make it more affordable and make possible significant capacity increase with reduced habitat degradation and amelioration of GHG accumulation. Smart choices can significantly change our lives, the hazards we endure and the knowledge we gain.
I agree with your argument that there are “no global energy transitions, only local and national transitions.” I also agree with arguments about skeptics” who argue that the world has never undergone an energy transition” and the proponents who claim that “the world is in midst of one.”
I would like to make two points. First, proponents of the wind and solar transition invariably mistake power for energy. The claim that the solar is the cheapest form of new electric generation refers to power or the MW capacity. We pay for 24-7, 365, one in ten-year loss of load expectation delivered energy. Using the real energy metric solar is not the cheapest by far.
The second point is that historic local and national transitions occurred because the new alternative was better – cheaper, more convenient, and more effective. The currently fashionable transition to all-electric systems using wind and solar fails on all three counts. Only when value-laden externality considerations are considered can proponents claim that the net-zero transition is an improvement.
Reasonable people can disagree on the value judgements. More importantly, it is only a matter of time until reality slaps down the net-zero transition as a luxury belief that cannot be sustained.
The US built a thorium based molten salt reactor in the late 1950s. Here is a link to the ORNL video of the reactor: https://youtu.be/tyDbq5HRs0o
The Nixon administration killed the project so as not to compete with LWR designs by Westinghouse and GE. As several of the engineers who worked on the project later said, "If we had explored that avenue, the US might have been energy independent using a source that didn't generate CO2 by 1990". Molten salt reactors have the advantage of not needing a containment chamber, they can be made to burn up the existing nuclear waste from LWRs and they are walk away safe by physics instead of engineering.
Creating hydrogen from molten salt or other GEN IV nuclear power reactors will be the energy currency of the future. Of course there will be challenges but how long did it take to transition from horse and buggy to the Model T once fossil fuel became available?
Aren't most fossil fuels found below the surface of the earth, outside the biosphere? Except for the first phase, I can understand the rest when you say: "Abundant in the biosphere, energy dense, and easily transportable, they are deeply intertwined with virtually every aspect of modern life." While we might not understand its exact relationship to changing climates, there seems little dispute that humans are injecting CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels at an unnaturally fast rate and, provided we do responsibly, decarbonization is a good idea. No?
Yes. Decarbonization is good idea. There are important tradeoffs that we need to pay attention to but all else equal, less additional carbon in the atmosphere is good.
An excellent article but I have to dispute this point. It seems to be something of an article of faith among many (not necessarily you) in that it is stated as an obvious truth with zero attempt to look at the benefits of increased CO2. Those benefits are real. It is not at all clear to me that the downsides outweigh the upsides.
Have been meaning to critique some of BTIs ag writing, Ted, but very much enjoyed this. And appreciate the forthrightness about how there's no indication that fossil fuel use will decline anytime soon.
A few questions come to mind: In light of actual rather than wishful energy trends, why should anyone accept green energy infrastructure construction that adversely impacts some place they care about? And to what extent might growing energy demand from data processing—i.e, crypto and AI—divert renewable energy that would otherwise displace fossil fuels?
AI energy demand is not well suited to variable renewable energy generation. It will be coal, gas, nuclear, or geothermal. So the real issue is not that it will divert renewable energy but that lacking a firm, low carbon alternative, it will be powered. by additional fossil energy. The impact of green energy infrastructure on local communities and the tradeoffs depend a lot on the technology. Prioritizing clean firm generation (nuclear cough cough) is one way to minimize a lot of those tradeoffs.
The pace at which the energy transition occurs will depend almost entirely on the pace of technological change. You have pointed this out one way or another several times. I am hopeful (and somewhat confident) that technological advancements in energy production and use will produce large reductions in fossil fuel use by the end of the century, and agree with you that trying to force feed uneconomic energy sources on the public is economically unsound and counterproductive. Thanks for your excellent work, which always makes me think.
The pace at which the energy transition occurs will depend almost entirely on our political masters.
Right now we are ruled by a Malthusian Misanthropic gang of Oligarchs. A sick, demented bunch that still embrace their old, long debunked Club-of-Rome Doomer anti-growth philosophy. Hard to believe these morons still exist but unfortunately these still are the predominant power center on Earth.
With the Trump election and a few sane ballsy billionaires, like Elon Musk & Peter Thiel, getting politically involved, we just may be turning the tide against Malthusianism. The coming population collapse is also making their dogma looking ever more ridiculous. Now their big thing is touting climate change disasters.
Very well expressed, that neither those caught up in their visionary ideas about how we 'ought' to all be transitioning to renewables, without acknowledging that so far, these are too expensive and unreliable to do what we need, or those who deny any degree of transition will ever be possible, when in fact a great deal has already been achieved, have the right of it.
It's pretty much comes down to common sense. When man first started burning things to provide warmth and cooked foods, wood was the one available asset.
Coal came to be used, but was not as easily available as wood. As advanced societies developed mining and the transportation required to ship from mines to end users, coal began to displace wood, at least in advanced societies.
Then drilling for petroleum was developed, along with the technology to convert petroleum into useful products such as fuels, lubricants and plastics. Pipelines make delivering the fuel very economical. Ke3epo in mind that the reason petroleum is measured in barrels is because that was how it waws shipped. In barrels. NOT efficient.
Fracking has largely displaced coal with natural gas. Fracking has made natural gas less expensive than coal, with the added benefit that it is more environmentally friendly than coal.
But the world's population has doubled within my lifetime. Few people in developed economies are willing to spend the winter at anything much less that 70 degrees, or summer much warmer than 75 degrees. The efficiency per capita is not really the point. It is the absolute amount of energy use that impacts the environment. We've lost a lot of time screwing with solar and wind. They are two of the WORST ways to solve our environmental/energy problems.
Policy conclusion? What should who do when? According to the Nordhaus model, how has the tax on net emissions needed to reach net zero by 20xx changed?
Hi Ted, very well written and to the point -- to which I would offer two additional points:
1.) the total failure of Classic Physicists; both practitioners and instructors:
--- to acknowledge the 124 year old documented fact that a resonating tank circuit always operates as an over-unity electric power source as documented by the 124 history of all AM or FM radio's "station to station tuning circuit - which always "electrically reduces" the input power level "connected to it" to it's "...absolute minimum power level..." while simultaneously always developing it's internal power level to it's "...absolute maximum power level...".
1a.) this "internally developed maximum power level" to "connected minimum power level..." is always "more than '1' " - with "1" signifying "unity".
1b.) --- Classic Physics' originally stated position on power supply capability- that "...no power supply can produce more output power than input power..." was entirely appropriate and correct - based in the information at hand when the position was stated in the 1850s.
1c.) they had no way of knowing that between 1890 and 1894- Nikola Tesla first discovered / developed and US Patented all of the circuitry, including the "over-unity" operating condition known as "resonance".
1d.) they had no way of knowing that on Jan. 2nd. 1984:
--- Tesla would be granted US Patent 511,916 for his "Electric Generator" - which contained "receiving circuitry" that operated at "resonance".
1e.) they had no way of knowing that on Mar. 20th. 1900:
--- Tesla would be granted US Patent 645,576 for his "System of Transmission of Electric Energy" which contains a resonating tank circuit in it as the "receiver" - which is the "tuning circuit found in all of the millions and millions of radios that have been manufactured since 1900.
But those Academics that practice and / or teach Classic Physics:
--- have had 124+ years "to clean up their act", i.e., correct and differentiate between a physical power supply and an electric power supply.
2.) the total failure of Electrical Engineers, both practicing and teaching: to acknowledge the 127 year old documented fact that the discovery of the "electron":
--- that it has a natural negative magnetic field;
--- can be "controlled" using different polarity magnetic fields:
--- by British Physicist J. J. Thomson in 1897
2a.) totally invalidates the "ancient history based" "positive charge" moving "positive-to-negative" in an electric circuit, colloquially known as "...Conventional 'Current-Flow' Theory" as being baseless - as a positive charge - has been designated as "static electricity" by Classic Physics:
--- and "...does no work..." -- because:
2b.) the negative electron, more specifically the "valence electron- found only in the four known conductive elements as the single electron found in the outermost "valence ring":
--- when "influenced" by an attached "voltage", attached at two separate places to a piece of conductive element ( Gold, Silver, Copper, or Aluminum) - making up the "external portion of the completed circuit -- becomes "more negative" in strength:
--- moving uniformly and in unison from the "more negative / less positive "pole / connection point towards the "less negative / more positive" pole / connection point:
2c.) that movement is what causes "heat" to be produced in the "resistive" part of the circuit / "light", i.e., photons to be ejected from a "filament section" of the circuit / and a "magnetic field" to be developed- if the circuit is formed into a "coil".
That "negative-to-positive" physical movement of "single - voltage-influenced valence electrons- in that completed circuit - is called "amperage in electricity" - and it is what we are billed for.
"Conventional Theory" has no valid basis -- but is still being taught:
--- because Electrical Engineering Academia at the time of the electron's discovery - although tacitly agreeing that Conventional Theory was invalid:
--- decided to keep on teaching Conventional Theory anyway:
--- not cleaning their 127 year old invalid act up - by correcting what they teach:
--- which would entail changing / correcting all of the textbooks written p to that time, and:
--- telling tenured Professors that they had been teaching the subject "incorrect and backwards".
It has no bearing that the multi-phase AC power per system, discovered in 1882 / developed and US Patented by Tesla - "works" it is still being taught incorrectly and backwards as to what actually takes place in an electric circuit - because:
--- a "voltage -influenced valence electron -- can not move from "positive-to-negative" in an electric circuit - if the physical and electrical Laws of Magnetics mean anything:
--- because two negative fields will not move towards each other - they repel each other - and:
--- Conventional Theory dis not include resonance based / "over-unity" circuitry operation:
--- which does not increase a "maximum output power level:
--- it just changes the "ratio" of output to input power.
Also: --and most importantly - the "position" that a resonating tank circuit can never produce a continuous output - has been professional laboratory proven in 1984 - to be both invalid and without basis.
But it is still being "foisted" upon the public by both the Science of Classic Physics, and Electrical Engineering to this day -- making valid your position of no transition taking place "by academic restriction - not by demand -- because I would bet that if the Academia of both of these Sciences "did the right thing for the people of this rock that we all live on - which they won't do -- there would be a transition from what we are presently doing to both produce our electricity and power power our vehicles: because it is possible to install clean electricity:
--- "where needed" / "as much as is needed at each site, either "stationary" or "movable" / for as long as is needed".
"We, as a World body: just need to "listen" / read / act on the real / documented / available Science - not be "guided" by Academics "teaching what they want to teach - in order to keep their "position" in the World going.
Considering the fact that we are on track to reach ~3C global warming based on "Current Policies" according to the UNEP (and maybe significantly more if the recent acceleration of global temps continues), aren't the facts you describe an argument for degrowth or, at the very least, agrowth in the developed world to make room for developing countries?
I acknowledge it's highly unlikely to happen. But if we can't get there through technological substitution in the medium term and if, as the climate science consensus indicates, we need to make a lot of progress in the medium term, then won't we need to look to other actions as sources of progress? Maybe I misunderstand the BTI position or maybe we just need to spray sulfur into the atmosphere.
By most estimates, we are on track for well under 3C. There is no scientific consensus behind 1.5 or 2C, these are arbitrary, politically negotiated targets. My view is that we are going to end up somewhere between 2 and 2.5C and close although not at net zero emissions by 2100. Policy, activism, etc will determine which end of that range we will end up at. Human societies will be quite resilient to that range of warming. The larger impacts will be on the rest of the natural world, which could be large.
Thank you for the thorough response. I guess that narrative makes sense for 'no full energy transition in the medium term but not impossible over decades.' My concern: does this narrative rely on us estimating Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity correctly (e.g. this recent paper: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/12/nature-2023-part-ii/)? What if we get surprised by carbon feedbacks like Amazon dieback or the growing concentrations of methane in the atmosphere due to the high sensitivity of tropical wetland methane to warmth? I agree that human societies are likely to be a bit more resilient than some climate activists expect.
That's 1.5 to 2 degC above the temperature minimum that occurred during the last global cool period.
In fact that temperature will only approach the levels that previously occurred in other warm periods during the last 1000yrs.
The baseline of global temperature they are using is obviously cherry picked in order to politically exaggerate the current return to more normal temperatures, apart from the global mass devastation of the glaciation periods anomaly that has occurred during the past 2Myrs.
To be a little more pragmatic, the so-called energy transition posited by Mr. Nordhaus could be considered "nit-picking".
A different way of looking at the situation is this: we derive over 150,000 TWh of a total of 180,000+ TWh of worldwide energy -- over 80% -- from the simple process of "burning carbonaceous stuff" -- which in my mind, I simplify to "burning stuff". Some of our methods of burning stuff are more advanced than others, but the basis is still the same -- we just burn stuff for the heat and energy in it. Rather unsophisticated -- and in that sense, though we've changed what we burn, we are still just burning stuff.
The energy transition we need is yet to come -- non-intermittent, dependable, affordable, 24/7 with backup, as nearly unlimited electricity and as raw power/energy for industry.
We already have that in virtually unlimited quantities, and that is nuclear energy. That's why our corrupt governments are blockading nuclear energy. Energy scarcity = big & easy profits. Competition is bad. The Free Market is bad. Modern neo-feudal economics.
Yes, unless CCS drops in cost, especially if there is a process in which the reduction of CO2 to some inert form can be done intermittently with near zero MC power from solar and wind. The lower the cost of CCS, the more uses that do not need to be "decarbonized.".
In a quest to clean up its air without resorting to additional regs on vehicles, the state of Georgia has "encouraged" Georgia Power to switch over its old coal plants to natgas, especially in the northern half of the state closet to Atlanta. Georgia Power is down to two coal plants.
Except G&R are warning that the US has already past peak gas production and is now slipping down the backside of Hubbert's curve. If this is true the US is on a path to real pain, that will make the 70's crisis look like a bad rainy day.
The US has sacrificed everything on a gamble for unlimited gas. Replacing nuclear with gas, coal with gas, process heat & building heat all gas. Chemical industry/Fertilizer production heavily dependent on gas. And greenwashing the gas with expensive, impractical wind & solar, which are even more reliant on low cost gas backup. And gas providing the overwhelming bulk of peaking power generation. And huge LNG exports. At the very least the US will soon be faced with paying World prices for gas, typically >4X higher. That will devastate the economics of gas. Ramping up nuclear means getting rid of the 100% corrupt NRC. And that won't be easy.
"...The great drama of American shale production may now be nearing its final act. For years, we have anticipated that the relentless growth in shale output would crest by late 2024 or early 2025, catching many off-guard. In hindsight, even this expectation might have erred on the side of caution. Quietly and without much fanfare, both shale oil and shale gas appear to have passed their zenith several months ago. Recent data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) reveal that shale crude oil production reached its high-water mark in November 2023, only to slide 2%— roughly 200,000 barrels per day—since then. Likewise, shale dry gas production peaked that same month and has since slipped by 1% or 1 billion cubic feet per day. The trajectory from here, according to our models, looks steeper still..."
"...our thesis is built upon the enduring insights of the late Dr. M. King Hubbert, whose groundbreaking prediction of the peak in conventional U.S. crude production in 1970 remains a landmark in energy analysis. In this essay, we aim to show how we have adapted Hubbert’s foundational work, augmenting it with the latest advances in artificial intelligence, neural networks, and machine learning to address the complexities of shale production. The implications of our findings are profound. Our edge lies in an uncommon synthesis: the marriage of cutting-edge computational techniques with deep, domain-specific expertise in the energy sector.
Too often, we observe legacy oil and gas analysts tethered to antiquated models, while AI practitioners—adept at the math but unfamiliar with the nuances of resource extraction—arrive at flawed conclusions. Neither approach alone suffices anymore. Our unique combination of skills allows us to reach conclusions that defy conventional wisdom, and we are confident these conclusions will ultimately prove prescient...."
The politicizing of energy types, demonizing fossil fuels and the defensive reaction of lionizing them, distracts from development and construction to meet needs. The provision of energy increases the pace of growing wealth and knowledge in each country, or conversely the lack of energy caps advance. Coal enables rapid growth but LNG could too with fewer hazards. The technical development and commercialization of fission design and construction can make it more affordable and make possible significant capacity increase with reduced habitat degradation and amelioration of GHG accumulation. Smart choices can significantly change our lives, the hazards we endure and the knowledge we gain.
I agree with your argument that there are “no global energy transitions, only local and national transitions.” I also agree with arguments about skeptics” who argue that the world has never undergone an energy transition” and the proponents who claim that “the world is in midst of one.”
I would like to make two points. First, proponents of the wind and solar transition invariably mistake power for energy. The claim that the solar is the cheapest form of new electric generation refers to power or the MW capacity. We pay for 24-7, 365, one in ten-year loss of load expectation delivered energy. Using the real energy metric solar is not the cheapest by far.
The second point is that historic local and national transitions occurred because the new alternative was better – cheaper, more convenient, and more effective. The currently fashionable transition to all-electric systems using wind and solar fails on all three counts. Only when value-laden externality considerations are considered can proponents claim that the net-zero transition is an improvement.
Reasonable people can disagree on the value judgements. More importantly, it is only a matter of time until reality slaps down the net-zero transition as a luxury belief that cannot be sustained.
The US built a thorium based molten salt reactor in the late 1950s. Here is a link to the ORNL video of the reactor: https://youtu.be/tyDbq5HRs0o
The Nixon administration killed the project so as not to compete with LWR designs by Westinghouse and GE. As several of the engineers who worked on the project later said, "If we had explored that avenue, the US might have been energy independent using a source that didn't generate CO2 by 1990". Molten salt reactors have the advantage of not needing a containment chamber, they can be made to burn up the existing nuclear waste from LWRs and they are walk away safe by physics instead of engineering.
Creating hydrogen from molten salt or other GEN IV nuclear power reactors will be the energy currency of the future. Of course there will be challenges but how long did it take to transition from horse and buggy to the Model T once fossil fuel became available?
Also, wood burning depends on prices of alternatives.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/20/us-gas-bills-wood-banks-heat-source
Ted,
Aren't most fossil fuels found below the surface of the earth, outside the biosphere? Except for the first phase, I can understand the rest when you say: "Abundant in the biosphere, energy dense, and easily transportable, they are deeply intertwined with virtually every aspect of modern life." While we might not understand its exact relationship to changing climates, there seems little dispute that humans are injecting CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels at an unnaturally fast rate and, provided we do responsibly, decarbonization is a good idea. No?
Yes. Decarbonization is good idea. There are important tradeoffs that we need to pay attention to but all else equal, less additional carbon in the atmosphere is good.
An excellent article but I have to dispute this point. It seems to be something of an article of faith among many (not necessarily you) in that it is stated as an obvious truth with zero attempt to look at the benefits of increased CO2. Those benefits are real. It is not at all clear to me that the downsides outweigh the upsides.
So, taking account of the tradeoffs what policies produce the most good?
Have been meaning to critique some of BTIs ag writing, Ted, but very much enjoyed this. And appreciate the forthrightness about how there's no indication that fossil fuel use will decline anytime soon.
A few questions come to mind: In light of actual rather than wishful energy trends, why should anyone accept green energy infrastructure construction that adversely impacts some place they care about? And to what extent might growing energy demand from data processing—i.e, crypto and AI—divert renewable energy that would otherwise displace fossil fuels?
AI energy demand is not well suited to variable renewable energy generation. It will be coal, gas, nuclear, or geothermal. So the real issue is not that it will divert renewable energy but that lacking a firm, low carbon alternative, it will be powered. by additional fossil energy. The impact of green energy infrastructure on local communities and the tradeoffs depend a lot on the technology. Prioritizing clean firm generation (nuclear cough cough) is one way to minimize a lot of those tradeoffs.
The pace at which the energy transition occurs will depend almost entirely on the pace of technological change. You have pointed this out one way or another several times. I am hopeful (and somewhat confident) that technological advancements in energy production and use will produce large reductions in fossil fuel use by the end of the century, and agree with you that trying to force feed uneconomic energy sources on the public is economically unsound and counterproductive. Thanks for your excellent work, which always makes me think.
The pace at which the energy transition occurs will depend almost entirely on our political masters.
Right now we are ruled by a Malthusian Misanthropic gang of Oligarchs. A sick, demented bunch that still embrace their old, long debunked Club-of-Rome Doomer anti-growth philosophy. Hard to believe these morons still exist but unfortunately these still are the predominant power center on Earth.
With the Trump election and a few sane ballsy billionaires, like Elon Musk & Peter Thiel, getting politically involved, we just may be turning the tide against Malthusianism. The coming population collapse is also making their dogma looking ever more ridiculous. Now their big thing is touting climate change disasters.
Very well expressed, that neither those caught up in their visionary ideas about how we 'ought' to all be transitioning to renewables, without acknowledging that so far, these are too expensive and unreliable to do what we need, or those who deny any degree of transition will ever be possible, when in fact a great deal has already been achieved, have the right of it.
It's pretty much comes down to common sense. When man first started burning things to provide warmth and cooked foods, wood was the one available asset.
Coal came to be used, but was not as easily available as wood. As advanced societies developed mining and the transportation required to ship from mines to end users, coal began to displace wood, at least in advanced societies.
Then drilling for petroleum was developed, along with the technology to convert petroleum into useful products such as fuels, lubricants and plastics. Pipelines make delivering the fuel very economical. Ke3epo in mind that the reason petroleum is measured in barrels is because that was how it waws shipped. In barrels. NOT efficient.
Fracking has largely displaced coal with natural gas. Fracking has made natural gas less expensive than coal, with the added benefit that it is more environmentally friendly than coal.
But the world's population has doubled within my lifetime. Few people in developed economies are willing to spend the winter at anything much less that 70 degrees, or summer much warmer than 75 degrees. The efficiency per capita is not really the point. It is the absolute amount of energy use that impacts the environment. We've lost a lot of time screwing with solar and wind. They are two of the WORST ways to solve our environmental/energy problems.
Policy conclusion? What should who do when? According to the Nordhaus model, how has the tax on net emissions needed to reach net zero by 20xx changed?
Thank you for continuing to be sane and logical. It is really difficult given the Cult of Doom....
Hi Ted, very well written and to the point -- to which I would offer two additional points:
1.) the total failure of Classic Physicists; both practitioners and instructors:
--- to acknowledge the 124 year old documented fact that a resonating tank circuit always operates as an over-unity electric power source as documented by the 124 history of all AM or FM radio's "station to station tuning circuit - which always "electrically reduces" the input power level "connected to it" to it's "...absolute minimum power level..." while simultaneously always developing it's internal power level to it's "...absolute maximum power level...".
1a.) this "internally developed maximum power level" to "connected minimum power level..." is always "more than '1' " - with "1" signifying "unity".
1b.) --- Classic Physics' originally stated position on power supply capability- that "...no power supply can produce more output power than input power..." was entirely appropriate and correct - based in the information at hand when the position was stated in the 1850s.
1c.) they had no way of knowing that between 1890 and 1894- Nikola Tesla first discovered / developed and US Patented all of the circuitry, including the "over-unity" operating condition known as "resonance".
1d.) they had no way of knowing that on Jan. 2nd. 1984:
--- Tesla would be granted US Patent 511,916 for his "Electric Generator" - which contained "receiving circuitry" that operated at "resonance".
1e.) they had no way of knowing that on Mar. 20th. 1900:
--- Tesla would be granted US Patent 645,576 for his "System of Transmission of Electric Energy" which contains a resonating tank circuit in it as the "receiver" - which is the "tuning circuit found in all of the millions and millions of radios that have been manufactured since 1900.
But those Academics that practice and / or teach Classic Physics:
--- have had 124+ years "to clean up their act", i.e., correct and differentiate between a physical power supply and an electric power supply.
2.) the total failure of Electrical Engineers, both practicing and teaching: to acknowledge the 127 year old documented fact that the discovery of the "electron":
--- that it has a natural negative magnetic field;
--- can be "controlled" using different polarity magnetic fields:
--- by British Physicist J. J. Thomson in 1897
2a.) totally invalidates the "ancient history based" "positive charge" moving "positive-to-negative" in an electric circuit, colloquially known as "...Conventional 'Current-Flow' Theory" as being baseless - as a positive charge - has been designated as "static electricity" by Classic Physics:
--- and "...does no work..." -- because:
2b.) the negative electron, more specifically the "valence electron- found only in the four known conductive elements as the single electron found in the outermost "valence ring":
--- when "influenced" by an attached "voltage", attached at two separate places to a piece of conductive element ( Gold, Silver, Copper, or Aluminum) - making up the "external portion of the completed circuit -- becomes "more negative" in strength:
--- moving uniformly and in unison from the "more negative / less positive "pole / connection point towards the "less negative / more positive" pole / connection point:
2c.) that movement is what causes "heat" to be produced in the "resistive" part of the circuit / "light", i.e., photons to be ejected from a "filament section" of the circuit / and a "magnetic field" to be developed- if the circuit is formed into a "coil".
That "negative-to-positive" physical movement of "single - voltage-influenced valence electrons- in that completed circuit - is called "amperage in electricity" - and it is what we are billed for.
"Conventional Theory" has no valid basis -- but is still being taught:
--- because Electrical Engineering Academia at the time of the electron's discovery - although tacitly agreeing that Conventional Theory was invalid:
--- decided to keep on teaching Conventional Theory anyway:
--- not cleaning their 127 year old invalid act up - by correcting what they teach:
--- which would entail changing / correcting all of the textbooks written p to that time, and:
--- telling tenured Professors that they had been teaching the subject "incorrect and backwards".
It has no bearing that the multi-phase AC power per system, discovered in 1882 / developed and US Patented by Tesla - "works" it is still being taught incorrectly and backwards as to what actually takes place in an electric circuit - because:
--- a "voltage -influenced valence electron -- can not move from "positive-to-negative" in an electric circuit - if the physical and electrical Laws of Magnetics mean anything:
--- because two negative fields will not move towards each other - they repel each other - and:
--- Conventional Theory dis not include resonance based / "over-unity" circuitry operation:
--- which does not increase a "maximum output power level:
--- it just changes the "ratio" of output to input power.
Also: --and most importantly - the "position" that a resonating tank circuit can never produce a continuous output - has been professional laboratory proven in 1984 - to be both invalid and without basis.
But it is still being "foisted" upon the public by both the Science of Classic Physics, and Electrical Engineering to this day -- making valid your position of no transition taking place "by academic restriction - not by demand -- because I would bet that if the Academia of both of these Sciences "did the right thing for the people of this rock that we all live on - which they won't do -- there would be a transition from what we are presently doing to both produce our electricity and power power our vehicles: because it is possible to install clean electricity:
--- "where needed" / "as much as is needed at each site, either "stationary" or "movable" / for as long as is needed".
"We, as a World body: just need to "listen" / read / act on the real / documented / available Science - not be "guided" by Academics "teaching what they want to teach - in order to keep their "position" in the World going.
Considering the fact that we are on track to reach ~3C global warming based on "Current Policies" according to the UNEP (and maybe significantly more if the recent acceleration of global temps continues), aren't the facts you describe an argument for degrowth or, at the very least, agrowth in the developed world to make room for developing countries?
I acknowledge it's highly unlikely to happen. But if we can't get there through technological substitution in the medium term and if, as the climate science consensus indicates, we need to make a lot of progress in the medium term, then won't we need to look to other actions as sources of progress? Maybe I misunderstand the BTI position or maybe we just need to spray sulfur into the atmosphere.
By most estimates, we are on track for well under 3C. There is no scientific consensus behind 1.5 or 2C, these are arbitrary, politically negotiated targets. My view is that we are going to end up somewhere between 2 and 2.5C and close although not at net zero emissions by 2100. Policy, activism, etc will determine which end of that range we will end up at. Human societies will be quite resilient to that range of warming. The larger impacts will be on the rest of the natural world, which could be large.
Thank you for the thorough response. I guess that narrative makes sense for 'no full energy transition in the medium term but not impossible over decades.' My concern: does this narrative rely on us estimating Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity correctly (e.g. this recent paper: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/12/nature-2023-part-ii/)? What if we get surprised by carbon feedbacks like Amazon dieback or the growing concentrations of methane in the atmosphere due to the high sensitivity of tropical wetland methane to warmth? I agree that human societies are likely to be a bit more resilient than some climate activists expect.
That's 1.5 to 2 degC above the temperature minimum that occurred during the last global cool period.
In fact that temperature will only approach the levels that previously occurred in other warm periods during the last 1000yrs.
The baseline of global temperature they are using is obviously cherry picked in order to politically exaggerate the current return to more normal temperatures, apart from the global mass devastation of the glaciation periods anomaly that has occurred during the past 2Myrs.
The baseline does not affect optimum CO2 concentration trajectory.
It does provide hard evidence of what the "optimum" trajectory may be. And it ain't 1.5 deg above the last minimum in the 1800s.
Could we see the policies assumed by which model that produces your estimate as well as different NPVs of policy sets X% more and less strict?
To be a little more pragmatic, the so-called energy transition posited by Mr. Nordhaus could be considered "nit-picking".
A different way of looking at the situation is this: we derive over 150,000 TWh of a total of 180,000+ TWh of worldwide energy -- over 80% -- from the simple process of "burning carbonaceous stuff" -- which in my mind, I simplify to "burning stuff". Some of our methods of burning stuff are more advanced than others, but the basis is still the same -- we just burn stuff for the heat and energy in it. Rather unsophisticated -- and in that sense, though we've changed what we burn, we are still just burning stuff.
The energy transition we need is yet to come -- non-intermittent, dependable, affordable, 24/7 with backup, as nearly unlimited electricity and as raw power/energy for industry.
Anything less is a cruel joke.
We already have that in virtually unlimited quantities, and that is nuclear energy. That's why our corrupt governments are blockading nuclear energy. Energy scarcity = big & easy profits. Competition is bad. The Free Market is bad. Modern neo-feudal economics.
Yes, unless CCS drops in cost, especially if there is a process in which the reduction of CO2 to some inert form can be done intermittently with near zero MC power from solar and wind. The lower the cost of CCS, the more uses that do not need to be "decarbonized.".
In a quest to clean up its air without resorting to additional regs on vehicles, the state of Georgia has "encouraged" Georgia Power to switch over its old coal plants to natgas, especially in the northern half of the state closet to Atlanta. Georgia Power is down to two coal plants.
https://www.georgiapower.com/about/energy/plants.html
Of course, Southern Company/Ga. Power has brought on two additional nuclear reactors at Vogtle.
Coal to natgas is an easy retrofit and we should expect more of it, and cuts CO2 emissions in half.
Except G&R are warning that the US has already past peak gas production and is now slipping down the backside of Hubbert's curve. If this is true the US is on a path to real pain, that will make the 70's crisis look like a bad rainy day.
The US has sacrificed everything on a gamble for unlimited gas. Replacing nuclear with gas, coal with gas, process heat & building heat all gas. Chemical industry/Fertilizer production heavily dependent on gas. And greenwashing the gas with expensive, impractical wind & solar, which are even more reliant on low cost gas backup. And gas providing the overwhelming bulk of peaking power generation. And huge LNG exports. At the very least the US will soon be faced with paying World prices for gas, typically >4X higher. That will devastate the economics of gas. Ramping up nuclear means getting rid of the 100% corrupt NRC. And that won't be easy.
https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-depletion-paradox
"...The great drama of American shale production may now be nearing its final act. For years, we have anticipated that the relentless growth in shale output would crest by late 2024 or early 2025, catching many off-guard. In hindsight, even this expectation might have erred on the side of caution. Quietly and without much fanfare, both shale oil and shale gas appear to have passed their zenith several months ago. Recent data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) reveal that shale crude oil production reached its high-water mark in November 2023, only to slide 2%— roughly 200,000 barrels per day—since then. Likewise, shale dry gas production peaked that same month and has since slipped by 1% or 1 billion cubic feet per day. The trajectory from here, according to our models, looks steeper still..."
"...our thesis is built upon the enduring insights of the late Dr. M. King Hubbert, whose groundbreaking prediction of the peak in conventional U.S. crude production in 1970 remains a landmark in energy analysis. In this essay, we aim to show how we have adapted Hubbert’s foundational work, augmenting it with the latest advances in artificial intelligence, neural networks, and machine learning to address the complexities of shale production. The implications of our findings are profound. Our edge lies in an uncommon synthesis: the marriage of cutting-edge computational techniques with deep, domain-specific expertise in the energy sector.
Too often, we observe legacy oil and gas analysts tethered to antiquated models, while AI practitioners—adept at the math but unfamiliar with the nuances of resource extraction—arrive at flawed conclusions. Neither approach alone suffices anymore. Our unique combination of skills allows us to reach conclusions that defy conventional wisdom, and we are confident these conclusions will ultimately prove prescient...."