This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Shell Predicts That Natural Gas Or Solar Will Become The No. 1 Energy Source

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Submitted by Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com,

Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE: RDS.A) has just released new forecasts for its ‘New Lens Scenarios’ program, which aims to predict how current business decision and policies may unfold over time and affect the markets in the future.

Peter Voser, the CEO of Shell, explained that the scenarios “highlight the need for business and government to find ways to collaborate, fostering policies that promote the development and use of cleaner energy and improve energy efficiency.”

The scenarios take two different approaches: one considers the world with a high level of government involvement, and the other looks at the markets when they are given more freedom to develop naturally.

With high government involvement in dictating energy and policies, Shell believes that natural gas will flourish to become the number one energy source in the world over the next couple of decades, overtaking coal and helping to reduce carbon emissions.

It also predicts that hydrogen and electric power cars would become the common methods of transportation and as a result oil prices will drop. This in turn will mean that high-cost unconventional fossil fuels would remain in the ground as it would be economically unfeasible to extract them.

The other scenario exists when the government has taken little interest in the markets and has instead allowed the economy to progress naturally. Fossil fuel demand, especially for coal, would grow around the world. High oil demand would lead to higher prices, which sustain drilling for unconventional reserves in harsh, expensive environments. High energy prices in general will lead to more investment in research of alternative sources of energy, which will eventually cause solar power to become the dominant source of energy on the planet in about 50 years time.

In neither scenario do we manage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to limit temperature rise to two degrees Celsius.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:10 | Link to Comment PUD
PUD's picture

YEAH...AND DRILLING MILES UNDER THE SEA IS SAFE AND FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY

I KNOW THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE I SAW A BP AD TELLING ME SO

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:16 | Link to Comment mjcOH1
mjcOH1's picture

Sort of like saying 'natural gas or cold fusion'.   Tough call there.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:42 | Link to Comment ACP
ACP's picture

Being that:

1) Solar cells produce so much pollution during production,

2) "Green" energy companies - fraudulent or not - are immune to government prosecution from said pollution mentioned above or other fraudulent activity,

3) The cost/benefit ratio of solar regarding the environment will never exceed the cost/benefit to owning a GM vehicle or any other government-sponsored corporation (sad coincidence), (Edit: As long as the government is involved)

4) The various private propaganda ministries throughout the US and the world actively suppressing information exposing all 3 points mentioned above,

...the artificial stimulation of demand for solar will fail miserably, which will ultimately hurt the environment because of the stigma that will be attached to it.

 

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:57 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Pulling crap from right-wing thinktanks funded by the Koch's is marginally better than simply making shit up on the fly....

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:11 | Link to Comment ACP
ACP's picture

If you're referring to my statement or the article, it may be in your best interests to ask for sourcing before making assumptions.

Treehugger.com, not exactly the bastion of evil Koch conservatism, was noting the side effects of current manufacturing methods as far back as 2009:

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/the-dark-side-of-sola...

 

Shall we continue to wallow in ignorance and bigotry, or continue with a fact-based solution to environmental problems?

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:51 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Love what you've done with the astroturf. Very green.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 02:22 | Link to Comment Fukushima Sam
Fukushima Sam's picture

Solar, gas, either way we're fucked.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 03:52 | Link to Comment Cap Matifou
Cap Matifou's picture

Shell can suck a sack of balls. They could start to explain this, and how exactly humanity was helped by shelve the high mpg car.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/souped-down-1959-opel-t-1-gets-37659-mpg....

Could you believe that the car above made the 1975 Guiness World Record book? Its claim to fame is getting an amazing 376.59 miles per gallon of gasoline, and that in a 1973 contest sponsored by Shell Oil (now Royal Dutch Shell).

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:33 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

I'm sure that will appeal to the morons who insist on driving the bulkiest, most inefficient, poorly handling vehicles they can finance with a downpayment out of their HELOC.

 

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:40 | Link to Comment Badabing
Badabing's picture

I don't listen to anything that Shell has to say so now I listen to BP.
Three mile island, fucashima, Chiernoble ?SP?
After these disasters do you think any investing co. will let poor design and inferior materials cause another meltdown? Sark/off the human species is the only animal that shits in the same place all the time. We need to diversify geo thermal, solar, hydro, wind, PVPs, gas, coal, wood, oil all of the above. Sarc/on the oil company's that funds green peace is all for that.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 06:51 | Link to Comment Acet
Acet's picture

The most efficient technologies to make electricity from solar don't involve solar cells.

Rather they involve things like large scale solar farms which are just a lot of mirrors pointing to a tower where salt is molten (see: http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/05/SolarSalt1.jpg). This molten salt is then used to boil water to power the turbines that generate electricity. Amongst other things this has the huge advantage that the molten salt can be held in that state and used to produce electricity at night (which with solar cells would require huge banks of batteries).

Even in the solar cell space, for large deployment there are solutions which are organic (i.e. not sillicon based) and which are far cheaper and clean to fabricate (they literally can be printed onto a surface). On the other hand they're maybe half as efficient in converting light into electricity than conventional solar cells.

So the whole solar cells are poluting and more energy expensive to make than the energy they produce is at least ignorant, and quite likelly specious and trying to deceive to push a point.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:08 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Bingo.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:21 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

As a former advocate of CSP, it does come as a surprise that polysilicon based panels are kicking CSPs ass on the cost front...

Yes, I was surprised as well...

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:42 | Link to Comment tango
tango's picture

If anyone has seriously followed the industry they would know that technology is rapidly advancing on almost all fronts.  Manufacturing costs and waste are being reduced even as efficiency rises.  The CHP technology is a tremendous boon - power your home with a little natural gas, battery and augment with solar.  At current rates, solar wil be half the cost and twice as efficient in three years.   Instead folks want to bitch about BP and Shell as they ride to the mall to buy junk.  Fossil fuels have given us a free ride enabling humanity to come up with the next step.  My grandkids will grow in a solar, sustainable world.  

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:45 | Link to Comment auric1234
auric1234's picture

Even in the solar cell space, for large deployment there are solutions which are organic (i.e. not sillicon based) and which are far cheaper and clean to fabricate

You mean, like, trees?

 

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:55 | Link to Comment NaN
NaN's picture

A blog posting about an article in the LA Times about unquantified solid waste from manufacturing photovoltaics and the PVC used in mounting them, is hardly something to worry about compared to competing technologies that put waste products into the air.

By not making an energy produced vs. waste product comparison the point is a cheap shot designed to either create doubt or satisfy confirmation bias.

If the glue used to seal the edges of solar panels became the biggest air pollution problem in the world, I think it would be possible to find an alternate technique.

 

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 01:04 | Link to Comment ACP
ACP's picture

Then do it.

Make me a car that has a net positive impact on the enviroment, that doesn't run on government spoils (because we all know those will run out), that won't cost the equivalent of $10/gallon over the long term..........and I will buy it. I'll buy stock in your company.

I'm a consumer and I don't give a rat's ass about what might happen if we have more government, I want what is.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:11 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

It only has to have a less drastic effect on the environment, cost less than gas refined from oil (which will eventually be > $10/gal, unless the Chinese stop fucking), and someday you clowns will realize that energy is real and money is a concept.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:46 | Link to Comment auric1234
auric1234's picture

This has existed for centuries. It's called a horse.

 

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:56 | Link to Comment sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Pulling crap from your ass is even worse. Name one country, state, city or even community that is run on green energy and no fossil fuels. The technology is not there yet and you retarded left-wing chimps can't accept that fact.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 01:25 | Link to Comment NaN
NaN's picture

If you think solar energy has a political brand, then you bought into the propaganda from oil companies. That prevents clear thinking.

Burning up oil and coal 10^6 times faster than it was produced is pretty impressive, but solar energy is used to produce all the oxygen, all the food, all the lumber, all the rain water, etc. on the planet. So the planet is mainly powered by the sun, that fusion power source 93 million miles away, vacuum contained, gravitationally compressed... 

 

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 11:05 | Link to Comment tango
tango's picture

Stop trying to be rational on this board!!!   LOL  Using finite resources is inferiror to using an infinite one is so logical as to defy dissent.    I grew up in the oil and gas industry and we provided THE vital service of the last 70 years.  Nothing in nature can replicate the power of the gas molecule.   Fossil fuels built the modern world BUT t's time to move on to the next platform.   It was Shell Oil peak US production and correctly forecast peak Mideat productionn (2005).  Oil companies are increasingly turning to renewables as they should.  Those bashing solar, wind or other renewables are the same ones who raved at steam, coal, cars, etc   It's all part of our innate need to hold on to the familiar.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:13 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Who said it has to only use renewable? It costs a great deal of money to get oil out of the ground (especially if you count the armed services required to maintain access) and you retarded right-wing chimps can't accept that fact.

 

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:48 | Link to Comment tango
tango's picture

You're right.  Solar is not 100% efficient and is not widely used.  Therefore it will never improve, technology will never advance and things will never change.  You gotta love that line of "thinking" - if we can't do it perfectly right this minute then it's a big fat failure.   Glad that wasn't said about cars, PCs, TVs, recorders, cameras,etc.  Perhaps we should place our trust in epleting natural resources.  

As for a place, Dubai has built a sustainable city (yes, with old-fashioned techniques and not 3-d building printers) that approahes 100% sustainable.  Caveats include giving up larage private cars (a fleet of smaller is available), recylcing everything and improving efficiency in all systems to the nth degree (expensive). 

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:11 | Link to Comment entropy93
entropy93's picture

Push coal and oil talking points all you want. But facts win in the end. Solar panels are dirt cheap, economies of scale will pull the price down further. Especially for large multi hundred mega watt farms.

The short term shift will likely be to plugin hybrids rather than pure electric. But even a 40 mile plugin hybrid can knock out 80+% of gasoline usage.

Its over for fossil fuels. It took the Titanic a good long while to sink, but its fate was sealed long before it sank. That is the case with fossil fuels. Install solar panels that will work for 30+ years, or frack a well that is good for a year or two. 

Sure you'll trot out more tired old anti-solar bullshit from the 1970s, but who gives a crap when you can buy panels at 50 cents a watt in bulk. You can't even build a coal plant for that, let alone pay for the coal to run it!

 

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:36 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

"Solar panels are dirt cheap"

They may be dirt cheap at Fry's, and through government siubsidies. What is the EROI? How much does it cost to mine the materials need to create PV cells?

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:14 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

What's the EROI of tar sands? How much does it cost to pipe that shit to and fro? When was the last time you heard about a solar cell spill?

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:52 | Link to Comment ACP
ACP's picture

Please identify the point where I was pushing coal or oil.

I was actually debating whether or not to buy an electric vehicle, and after a cost/benefit analysis, I didn't. I simply couldn't get the data required to determine whether or not an electric vehicle would save money over the long term, not to mention the environmental impact. Does anyone know the impact on the environment when a lithium battery is created, or recycled? Does anyone even care? The only cost factor I was able to nail down was the fact that the cost to fuel a 100% electric vehicle was 20% the cost to fuel a 100% gas vehicle, on a daily basis, assuming zero maintenance. Yes, responsible environmentalism.

The thing is, the masses will not get "on board" with this idea until it is cost effective, either because electric becomes very afforable or oil becomes too expensive. If the "Jackasses That Be" were really set on going electric, why does the charge of "oil manipulation" occur every time the price of oil correctly rises due to socioeconomic factors? Don't tell me they're playing both sides of the coin? Say it ain't so!

 

To sum it up, I have nothing against "clean" fuels, in fact I'm all for them. I'm all for using free energy provided by the hydrogen bomb at the center of the Solar System, otherwise known as the Sun, for fuel. The problem is, every time the government gets involved, the "good" somehow turns into bad.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:20 | Link to Comment Race Car Driver
Race Car Driver's picture

> ... free energy provided by the hydrogen bomb at the center of the Solar System ...

 

Er, it's electric! Free energy, all the same.

Tesla knew all about it. Pity what TPTB did to him. He was put here by God himself to give humanity great gifts.

But, like all good things, he was sullied and his gifts were stolen by the pigs ... because things good for humanity is pig-death to pigs.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 01:00 | Link to Comment sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Solar cells are dirt cheap because you say so? Too bad the facts don't back up your bullshit fantasies. Fossil fuels will go away when something more economical comes along. If hybrids, wind energy, and solar cells are cheaper now, people would be flocking to them. Nobody WANTS to pay more for energy. You act as if people have money to throw away. Nobody WANTS to pay their eletric bills each moneth if it was free. Nobody WANTS to spend $500/mo on gas if they could spend $100. What is it with you morons who keep thinking people WANT to waste money?

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:21 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Pretending fossil fuels will be here as long as you need them is an even bigger "bullshit fantasy" as is the idea that centralized generation at a plant owned and controlled by corporations is superior to local generation in the hands of people.

I guess that's the problem in a nutshell...greens are focused on the energy and cons are focused on the little green pieces of paper.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 04:36 | Link to Comment californiagirl
californiagirl's picture

Wow! You are showing you ignorance! An example of short-sighted tunnel vision if I ever saw one. Ever heard of rare earth radioactive waste? Mercury poisoning? Are you one of those morons that thinks exporting the manufacturing of green energy to 3rd world countries (who give a rats ass about pollution) so that you can call yourself and America "green," is saving the planet? Meanwhile radioactive waste, mercury and other highly toxic substances are spreading around the planet via oceans and wind like never before. And how many mercury-laden fluorescent light bulbs are ending up in the landfill as toxins make their way down to the water tables? The manufacturing of what you call "green" makes oil extraction look clean. And calling oil "fossil" fuel is ridiculous. Educate yourself and stop drinking the coolaid put out by the propaganda machines.

I am all for green and sustainable energy. However, I am still waiting for something that is actually "green", not because some oil billionaire, ex vice president hypocrite (who practices the opposite of what he preaches), politician, or investment banker tells me it is "green", but because it is fairly clean to manufacture, including raw material extraction, and actually produces more energy than is utilized in it's manufacture and operation.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:25 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Wow! You are showing you ignorance! Did you know that coal-fired plants put more mercury into the air than any other single source?

So while you're waiting around for "perfect green energy", you're endorsing your own poisoning. In fact, that Hg may explain some of the decline of your reasoning abilities!


Tue, 03/05/2013 - 11:23 | Link to Comment californiagirl
californiagirl's picture

Was I discussing coal? Did I mention coal once? Please quote what I said about coal because I don't recall having said one word.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:40 | Link to Comment daxtonbrown
daxtonbrown's picture

I'm a mechanical engineer. My seventh grade science project was solar, that's almost 50 years ago. I run the numbers all the time, and i live in Vegas, but I still can't pull the trigger on buyig a solar system from an economic standpoint.

Might still buy to get off the grid for political reasons, but not because I think hydrocarbon is going away for economic reasons. The physics just doesn't add up regarding energy density and support structure needed.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 11:17 | Link to Comment tango
tango's picture

Then something is not right.    If solar or renewables has no future then companies and governments are wasting tens of billions annually.  I, too, was an engineer and look at the problem differently.  When electricity became available folks still used fireplaces, cooked with wood, rode horses and manufactured by hand. Looking at ALL aspects of energy solutions - smart networks, highly efficient lighting and engines, minituarization, the ever-increasing efficiency of solar, nano, etc - I am more hopeful than ever.  The affordabiliy of the product is like all new technologies - initiallly expensive and inefficient then cheap and affordable to the masses,   I used a combination of solar and CHP and though I am still on the grid it is rarely used.  

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 12:35 | Link to Comment orez65
orez65's picture

I'm also an engineer, and I can assure you that solar power is a total and absolute scam.

First, it can not be used for transportation, therefore it can not replace oil.

Second, there is no current technology that can store large amounts of electricity. A non scheduable INVENTION needs to happen.

Third, cloud cover will decrease solar power output by a factor of 10, which makes it totally unreliable. I know, I've got them on the roof of my hangar.

Fourth, they don't work at night and power is low early in the morning and late at night.

Incidentally, last winter Germany's 1.5 million solar installations did not produce any electricity because of overcast conditions.

Fifth, the maximum amount of solar power that you can collect in a square meter is about the energy that you get from a 100 watt light bulb. So you would need to use most of the land area in the US to get significant power.

It's not that I sympathize with oil, nuclear, whatever. It's the physics of Earth based solar power systems.

For solar power to work you need to place the solar collectors in Earth orbit and beam the power to Earth.

But that technology is a long way away and would be very expensive.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 13:59 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Pretty closed minded engineer, I would say... Factually challenged as well re: Germany...

But what would I know.... :)

Read the peer reviewed article I posted to see how it works...

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 02:21 | Link to Comment The Second Rule
The Second Rule's picture

It's not just the cost/benefit ratio of solar. Don't forget it takes a pantry full of rare earth minerals to make a solar panel, e.g., gallium. These rare earths are peaking just like oil. Wind has the same problem. Everything on a wind turbine is made from petroluem products: epoxy, fiberglass, resins, paints.

People need to think through these childish fantasies that we can maintain western civilization through technological innovation. The earth is finite. When you exhaust one resource and turn to another you'll end up exhausting that too. There is no free lunch.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:27 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
Tue, 03/05/2013 - 08:09 | Link to Comment RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

My dream is to build a solar-powered ethanol plant using live dolphins as feedstock. I figure that idea has to be worth a .gov 500 million dollar grant.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:33 | Link to Comment icanhasbailout
icanhasbailout's picture

I can confidently state that neither gas nor solar will be the dominant energy source of the future.

 

Natgas will have some transitional role - it's cheap, but there just isn't enough of it to run whole civilizations on.

 

Earth-bound solar is a joke. There's no way to produce enough solar panels to have solar be a significant contributor to energy use. In the event that enough of these things could actually be manufactured and deployed, you'd have environmental effects worse than any fossil fuel - these solar panels en masse change the albedo of the planet and will disrupt weather.

 

Without a tech breakthrough in nuclear fusion, solar satellite, or geothermal borehole technology, the only long-term sustainable energy source we have is nuclear fission.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:55 | Link to Comment Squid-puppets a...
Squid-puppets a-go-go's picture

Cue comment from poster masturbating about thorium potential

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:47 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Got Kleenex handy?

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:28 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

They must still be looking for somewhere to stash the actinides.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 16:42 | Link to Comment orez65
orez65's picture

The real reason that shit heads like you are proposing renewables and joking about nuclear is that you just don't fucking understand the ramifications.

The current Earth population of 7 Billion people can not be sustained with renewables. They just can not provide enough energy.

You have to TERMINATE about 6.8 Billion people to do it.

And that is just what the, so called, "environmentalists" have in mind.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 17:07 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Do you know anything about the Thorium fuel cycle (or any fuel cycle for that matter) or do you just parrot shit that hear?

Demonstrate or provide a reputable link that shows renewables cannot carry the load or at least the vast majority of it....

Oh yeah, please explain how Nuclear address the food issue vis a vis oil depletion and what you think the "ramiifications" of AGW are for the world carrying capacity...

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:02 | Link to Comment formadesika3
formadesika3's picture

-- the only long-term sustainable energy source we have is nuclear fission.

Maybe but certainly there would be a rise in genetic mutations, a necessary price to pay for the benefits?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dYK8docRdhg

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:00 | Link to Comment prains
prains's picture

ahhhhh incorrect

 

the only sustainable energy source is banker oligarchian greed, hubris and ineptitude it's run the world for 2000 years and will for another

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:37 | Link to Comment HowardBeale
HowardBeale's picture

"...the only long-term sustainable energy source we have is nuclear fission."

 

As a physicist, that seems obvious to me, but, apparently, Wall Street hasn't figured out how to monopolize nuclear, othewise we would be in full nuclear buildout. Nuclear is the ONLY thing that will allow an orderly transition to a lower-energy future.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:02 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Here, 90$ of the US grid on renewables by 2030 for $0.10 per kWh

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/12/the-grid-of-2030-all-renewable-90-percent-of-the-time/

Follow the links to the original published analysis...

 

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 01:05 | Link to Comment sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Horrible and idiotic article. It's NOT always windy or summy somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. During the winter, the sun simply isn't out long enough and it isn't windy in enough places to provide electriciy for the entire country. Then they say to use stored energy when there's a shortfall. Where will all this energy be stored? In giant batteries? 

I'm all for green energy as soon as it is viable. 

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 02:24 | Link to Comment NaN
NaN's picture

At first, solar will augment peak power which occurs during the day. It makes sense to fill this niche first.

The cheapest (full lifecycle) energy storage is pumped hydro-electric which has been used for decades to smooth out peak power loads.

Ultracapacitors have a somewhat lower power density than lithium batteries, but they have a longer lifetime and are fine for non-transportation power needs. It would be nice to have a no moving parts system for sunny, low density locations.

Cities and high latitudes are more challenging, but there is no reason to think that everything everywhere must get energy the same way. (Considering the accidental wind tunnels in many cities, wind power there should be harnessed just to slow it down. That might cut down (heh) the pigeon population too.)

 

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:28 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Flywheels.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 02:30 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Did you read how the study was actually done? Or do you simply pull your opinion out of your ass?

Like I said, follow the links to the original article...

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 03:06 | Link to Comment ClassicalLib17
ClassicalLib17's picture

Wind and solar are viable for individual use not as a supplement or replacement for base load power.  That is a fact, idiot.   

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 08:04 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Dats a fact...individual use.

Here's a great example of "green central planning" for beginners, my friends in Kalifornia have my deepest sympathy...

"Oddly, California’s 33 percent renewable energy mandate results in too much capacity from redundant conventional gas-fired power plants needed to backup unpredictable green power. But it also leads to a reduction in system flexibility.

Green power results in low voltage

The wind and sun are highly fluctuating sources of energy. Thus the power grid becomes more precarious because of a lack of voltage needed to push electrons through power lines. Voltage is like water pressure between two points in a pipeline. Either there has to be gravity for water to flow or a pump to lift the water to a higher point.

In a similar fashion, there has to be enough voltage in the power grid for the electrons to flow. The typical voltage required to transmit electricity from power-generating stations is 110 kilovolts to 1,200 kilovolts.

Green power typically is produced in surges, or can result in sudden drops in voltage. The lack of wind stops wind-power generation; and the arrival of nightfall ends solar energy generation.

Just as loss of water pressure in a pipeline results in no water flow, a sudden drop or spike in voltage can lead to a power blackout.

What flexibility means is the need for more power plants with the capability to ramp power up or down quickly to respond to vacillations in green power when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. Coal power plants cannot typically respond fast enough to provide backup power. So this means that greater reliance on natural gas-fired power plants.

The future problem for California is that it does not have the right mix of types of power plants and new environmental regulations are forcing either closure or expensive upgrades to its coastal power plants that rely on ocean water for cooling steam generators."

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2013/03/02/california-on-edge-of-green-power-blackouts/

But, the sandal wearing, green knaves intentions were absolutely pure, their scaling & intelligence was just a little off ;-)

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:38 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Sounds like a good argument for local generation.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 19:05 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Don't have a problem with it, I just don't want to subsidize the person or the company doiing it.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:19 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Back up your assertion with a reputable study...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759?np=y

Pay very close attention to how they use real data to simulate the wind potential....

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:34 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Who wants a lower energy future? That isn't a goal in and of itself.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 01:08 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

To be clear, energy permits us to to things, so, don't we want to do more? I do.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:30 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Why I'm gonna run three computers and only use one, just because I can.

Nimrod.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:54 | Link to Comment spine001
spine001's picture

Correct from a design point of view. I support whst us said above

 

Until next time, 

 

Engineer

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:56 | Link to Comment Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture

 

 

All this sounds great but you can’t forget EROEI. The math just doesn’t add up especially when you’re talking about a continuous growth scenario. A good link about it. 

Hydrogen – you’re kidding right. The EROEI is a joke. 

EROEI for dummies.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 13:09 | Link to Comment InTheLandOfTheBlind
InTheLandOfTheBlind's picture

Fox news on the navy finding validity in the pons fleichmann experiments  

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510589,00.html

 

the bastards have only had 20+ yrs to patent this technology while claiming it was not real

 

they did the same thing to tesla and his longitudanal wave (think displacement current in a capacitor)

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 12:02 | Link to Comment IamtheREALmario
IamtheREALmario's picture

They won't have top drill. There are supposedly huge fields of frozen methane on the bottom of the ocean at the poles and as the Northern pole icecap melts the methane will be unfreezing, coming to the surface and getting in our face, literally.

... or maybe it is just a rumor spread by stupid consipracy theorists.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:11 | Link to Comment CharliePrince
CharliePrince's picture

shell would never  mislead us..

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:59 | Link to Comment tickhound
tickhound's picture

Exactly because they can't mislead us when we let them freaking GUIDE US.

And it'll continue to go down exactly the way SHELL prefers, as long as this GLOBAL TRUMAN SHOW continues.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:08 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Shell is guilty of not thinking outside the box. Reasons to transport products and to travel are going to steadily decline - 3D printing, nanotech, virtual reality, and surrogate streaming will drive that.

Research indicates that people assume the perspective of another person when their own sensory environment is suppressed and they are fed the sensory inputs of the other person. Their reality essentially becomes yours, but of course, you have to supply your own emotions. I think this type of thing was called feelies by science fiction writers.

You could potentially tap into billions of surrogate feeds from all over the earth and in space. Popular ones would be big money-makers and the amount of entertainment would be incredible. Feeds from a Mars colony could pay for the expedition.

You could walk a mile in another man's shoes.

Millions of miles away.

 

 

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 01:41 | Link to Comment NaN
NaN's picture

There defiinitely can be a lot less travel. Oil will go up in price and people will adjust. I already work remotely most of the time. The tires on my car need to be replaced due to age, not wear.

 

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:13 | Link to Comment NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

Risk that highly dubious 2* temp rise and fire up the drilling platforms.  Preferrably done here.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:17 | Link to Comment tom a taxpayer
tom a taxpayer's picture

I thought USDA-prime government bullshit will be the No. 1 energy source.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:25 | Link to Comment Freedumb
Freedumb's picture

They're just about ready to unveil an engine that stimulates the economy by burning fiat currency

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:37 | Link to Comment Teamtc321
Teamtc321's picture

Is it called the Krug-o-Nater?

Does the Krugman fiat burner proto-type blow hot air? I bet you have to put Horse Shit in the in the catalytic converter to keep it running ..................

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:53 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Not the green I had in mind.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:46 | Link to Comment Lmo Mutton
Lmo Mutton's picture

Is that hot enough to ru a steam turbine?

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:25 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Only for a little while when the bullshit hits the turbofan.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:57 | Link to Comment spine001
spine001's picture

I thought that the FOMC was going to start printing energy... :)

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 01:02 | Link to Comment Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Hell yeah, even Einstein was impressed with that, when he was asked what he thought was the greatest invention of the 20th century, and he said:  "Compound Interest". 

What Einstein was implying (with his dry wit) was:  "More out than in?  Why didn't I think of that?".  Of course, he knew that it actually implied a transfer of wealth (fiat-debt for labor and real asset).

Why, with the magic of compounding and his formula E=mc^2, you can convert all that fiat (mass) into Energy.    Else, we'll have figured out dark matter and dark energy by then, and be fantastically rich & powerful.  Spice trade, anyone?  Q.E.D. /sarc

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:44 | Link to Comment The Grip
The Grip's picture

+1 James T. 

So dry it was a quick glance at the vermouth bottle, not even a hand on it. 

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:17 | Link to Comment Theos
Theos's picture

This will be true.

 

What they dont state is how many cars will be on the roads.

 

LOL.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:36 | Link to Comment francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

The solar panels are to power the automatic hay dispensers for your horses [as well as the deli slicers, when they've outlived their usefulness]...

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 01:27 | Link to Comment bigyimmy007
bigyimmy007's picture

Or rather, how few.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:17 | Link to Comment sampo
sampo's picture

 High energy prices in general will lead to more investment in research of alternative sources of energy, which will eventually cause solar power to become the dominant source of energy on the planet

 

Which will eventually put Silver in it's place of the ultimate store of value. Which, by the way, pays dividend.

 

http://www.silverdoctors.com/warren-buffet-to-re-enter-silver-market-build-worlds-largest-solar-project/

 

 

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:20 | Link to Comment Keegan11
Keegan11's picture

Whateves

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:22 | Link to Comment Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

The chart predicts the percent of various fuels for different catagories such as transportation, etc..

Question:  How many total miles driven?  What GDP inferred?

If you guessed that I believe in peak oil then you are a good guesser.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:40 | Link to Comment haskelslocal
haskelslocal's picture

Splunder thorp spananagans.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:47 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Splunder thorp spananagan citizenism.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:24 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

I will entertain these projections if we can survive the next 10 years or so.

pods

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:04 | Link to Comment Matt
Matt's picture

The graph is a percent of total energy by source chart, it doesn't say anything about total quantity of energy. Sure, 60% solar, at 20 percent of today's total energy consumption.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:37 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

That would suck, right?

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:29 | Link to Comment H E D G E H O G
H E D G E H O G's picture

what the fuck, when the .gov figures out how to capture all that flatulance from the burrito eating, fried chicken loving, Mickey Dee addicted 47% er's out there, then that's when the great USSA will be independent of all raghead oil. and as a side note; i hope i don't offend anyone that might fart, ummm, fit into that catagory.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:46 | Link to Comment WillyGroper
WillyGroper's picture

You could very possibly have a market in China @ 80 cents per breath.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:30 | Link to Comment CunnyFunt
CunnyFunt's picture

KW/$.
(.=period)

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:33 | Link to Comment UGrev
UGrev's picture

Graphene for the win?

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:40 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Saw that...but somebody has to get on the bike and ride (Queen pun intentional) to charge it ;-)

Still, this shows a lot of promise.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:44 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

+1 for your Queen Pun, sir.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:33 | Link to Comment Raymond_K_Hessel
Raymond_K_Hessel's picture

Anyone who believes the 100 years of natural gas/energy independent US story should read this: http://shalebubble.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SWS-report-FINAL.pdf

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:45 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Anyone who believes the 100 years of natural gas/energy independent US story probably has, at best, rather rudimentary reading skills.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:36 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Running through here with scissors in my hand, my hair alight via a government subsidized solar panel only stopping long enough to kiss the ring of the Bishop of East Anglia & the royal seal of NOAA on his cuff as I exit trailing the dust of a thousand unicorns.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:41 | Link to Comment otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

just get gas to $6 a gallon and get this fucking farce over with already-then we'll see some fucking wars-not these little pussy police actions for the last 40 years. The Road Warrior is a documentary.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:45 | Link to Comment Decolat
Decolat's picture

I've always seen Lord Humongous as the perfect metaphor of American leadership and policy. 

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:47 | Link to Comment tickhound
tickhound's picture

WhatEV... Reminds me of those EXXON "Educating America's Youth" or some shit commercials running non-stop throughout the day.  Touting breakthroughs in science and math.

In the religious world of PONZIecon, energy must enable growth and sustain profit.  It has a peculiar way of guiding research and limiting choices. 

SHELL "Predicts" should be more like SCIENCE "Has Shown"

 

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:49 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"In the religious world of PONZIEcon, energy must enable growth while sustaining profit."

So sayeth Ali Al-Gorzeera as he pocketed his profits from oil rich sheiks...lol...gawd what a bunch of suckers.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 02:34 | Link to Comment NaN
NaN's picture

Actually, Royal Dutch Shell is quite serious about future scenarios and sets a good example in this regard. Note that their practice (see also gbn.com) is not to predict, but to describe driving factors and possible futures. The quoted parts in this zh posting do not do it justice.

If only the financial world would catch on to the practice of scenarios cross-referenced to the driving variables...

 

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:45 | Link to Comment A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Current energy consumption illustrates the necessity of a massive die off of the consumers. Hedge accordingly........

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:47 | Link to Comment LeisureSmith
LeisureSmith's picture

Cheap and abundent energy is harmful and must be outlawed. Competition is a sin. 

Some Guy.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:10 | Link to Comment steve from virginia
steve from virginia's picture

 

 

It is 2060, in the report to the government on the entire Eastern Coast of Hymerica there are ten electric powered trac-tors 'from the old days', three gasoline powered 'hybrid trac-tors' made up of parts and one natural gas powered 'Farmall' that uses propane tanks and compressed 'manure gas' to pull the plow. The worry of course is tyres, nobody can make them so the old tyres are carefully tended. When the tyres go there are no more trac-tors.

 

Good draft horses are hard to find and very expensive. Good tack is even more difficult because there are very few who how to make it.

 

There would be a great horse-shortage except for the great 'people shortage' has reduced the need for horses. There is also the great 'water shortage' and the onrunning food shortages as well as shortages of silly things like cooking pots. Nobody seems to know how to make them, either.

 

Older people know about computers but there are no computers, nobody wants to listen to heartrending tales about the wonderful past so these old folks know better and say nothing if they know what's good for them.

 

The country's ability to fight off marauders from both the north and south relies on the ability of a gifted few ... to wrest tenuous crops out of angry weather and exhausted soil. When the crops fail there is great desperation and greater hunger and fear of marauders who are more desperate than we are. The people are forced to eat rats and insects, the bark off the trees, grasses and leaves, even the horses which is against the law and punishable by death. Of course, during crop failures rats and insects are hard to find, the grasses are whithered and the trees are dying.

 

It seems sometimes the world itself hates us and has turned enemy against us.

 

The massive desert that used to be the American midwest and mountain west is littered with human bones and tens of millions of rusty, bullet-riddled hulks, what was once America's great auto fleet. The few hardy travelers brave- or foolhardy enough to make the trip from the sprawling ruin of Philadelphia to the mythical 'Fran' ... on foot because there is no other way to travel ... gaze upon these things with wonder. "How foolish were these men?" they ask as they pass into the desert. "They had everything and they threw it all away for nothing."

 

There were autos in Hymerica but these were hammered into plowshares and weapons when their tyres rotted to nothing. No tyres, no batteries, then no fuel, the great refineries were built in low areas, they were submerged then no one could afford the raw oil, there was no more good money.

 

Philadelphia is the westernmost city in Hymerica a fragment of itself. With attention, one can pass over the Delaware Bay and see the parts of the city that are now underwater, a Hymerican Atlantis. The desert begins in the hills a few miles to the west  and extends for 300 days to where 'Mountains are like teeth piercing the sky' there is the Pacific Ocean ... and the fog-wreathed, fantastic Fran, the El Dorado.

 

These are things read about it paper books, no one has gone, to see and returned to tell about it, except sailors, who are notorious liars. It is unknown what sort of society remains on the western side of what was once the United States of America ... nobody can tell how many of us are left in this year 2060.

 

May god have mercy on our souls.

 

 

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:15 | Link to Comment Matt
Matt's picture

Latex tires from plants. wood gas from poplars. Unless things change suddenly with a mass die-off and widespread book burning, I doubt there will be a sudden loss of knowledge.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:42 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

We'll wear lether clothing that will last a lifetime. We'll climb the sears tower using vines. That's what Tyler Durden foresaw.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:16 | Link to Comment CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

You almost have it right.

But not quite.  There will remain radio.  There will be no internet, of course, but radios can be built and communications maintained with the other far flung tiny communities that can feed themselves without hundred mile food transport.

The other thing you have missed is destruction of roads by weather. 

Healthy populace remains, though, with no refrigeration for insulin.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 06:32 | Link to Comment Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

What a crock of shit...

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:50 | Link to Comment Falconsixone
Falconsixone's picture

Free energy or leg energy

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 22:55 | Link to Comment brokesville
brokesville's picture

what a crock, not until they can corner the market and tax your ass for it

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:04 | Link to Comment NoWayJose
NoWayJose's picture

If we could harness the hot air expelled in Congress, or capture the methane emitted from the decay of our government, we would have all the energy we need.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:08 | Link to Comment Edward Fiatski
Edward Fiatski's picture

"In neither scenario do we manage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to limit temperature rise to two degrees Celsius"

ROFLMAO.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:44 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

GE showed the Fortune 500 how to suck up to statists and here Shell does their level best.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:16 | Link to Comment Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

2060...he's worried about lowering the temp a couple of degrees ....I'm hoping we don't raise it by a few thousand. We'll be lucky to be around that long.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:27 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Beans and rice will be the #1 energy resource.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:53 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

But the CO2 is from carbon sources sequesterd recently in the biosphere. Farting doen't add to the problem. Well, not to the global warming problem, anyway. Other problems. It might make you gay.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 01:10 | Link to Comment thisandthat
thisandthat's picture

Truthfully, the only way to deal with GW BS seriously is by not taking it seriously.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:29 | Link to Comment tony bonn
tony bonn's picture

"...highlight the need for business and government to find ways to collaborate..."

fascism - no thanks.

the same people who brought us dot.com, housing, debt, and goat shit bubbles will bring more energy shortages, poverty, and war....fuck you

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 12:52 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Just like GE and the Obama Administration! Immelt paved the way

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:33 | Link to Comment Joebloinvestor
Joebloinvestor's picture

What really sucks is either way, government still exists.

 

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 23:34 | Link to Comment carlsbro
carlsbro's picture

Gold will be the main energy source

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:01 | Link to Comment samsara
samsara's picture

The red looks like the right side of a very large global bell curve.

Kinda looks like 2005ish was the peak.

Hubbert would be proud.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:02 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

 

 

Bong und a Blintz?

I think it was predicted, (past tense) by the Dutch some time ago...

 

http://imgur.com/zBSaQ

 

They didn't build it for nothing.

 

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 01:08 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

They do love those burning cones so.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:04 | Link to Comment onlooker
onlooker's picture

Today in Southern California I bought $1 of regular gas. It barely filled up the lawn mower. I am talking about a small one that does not self propel or do fancy tricks. I remember buying 4 or 5 gallons to drive to school for $1 in the 50’s. Most of us in High School were making 25 to 50 cents an hour. With gas about $4 today, and maybe $7 an hour pay for kids, the numbers are fairly close for 60 years. The shallow on-shore wells and no EPA oversight made the cost of producing and delivery to the pump cheaper than now. But if you look at miles per hour--- as miles driven per hour of labor, it is close.

 

What has changed dramatically is the electric power from dams. We can not build dams for water and electric power in today’s “save the frog and mudwomps” society. We need more stored water almost everywhere. Clean hydro-electric is a sweet heart without a suitor. Not much talk about it cause the dammed lakes do take up space that houses could be built on, and then too there would be the homeless mudwomps to deal with. During the Great Depression DAMS were built and many people were given jobs with those projects. If we ever need jobs--- just sayin.

 

We have huge reserves of coal. But coal is dirty. Too bad we do not have any technology to make it burn clean. Too bad there is no research to cleanly use this huge energy source.

 

We have energy and we have reserves of energy. What we do not have is LEADERSHIP. Let me rephrase it, what we don’t have is good leadership. We paid a bunch for leadership and have not come up with much for our money.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:58 | Link to Comment otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

look what we got for damming up the raging Colorado River- the shithole known as AZ and the Hoover Dam gave us the shithole known as Las Vegas.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 04:17 | Link to Comment NaN
NaN's picture

If we burned crude oil directly in our cars, it would be very dirty. Instead we have refineries that separate out the various components and impurities. We really need coal refinerires so that common practice is to refine it, not burn it directly.

Coal can be turned into methane by bacteria and various chemical processes. The real trick is to not give the industry a free externality to exploit.

 

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 08:21 | Link to Comment SmallerGovNow2
SmallerGovNow2's picture

clean coal technoligy is here.  the epa keeps lowering the bar on emissions to riddiculous levels, therein lies the problem...

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:31 | Link to Comment dunce
dunce's picture

The last paragraph casts huge doubt on the every thing previous. It claims to know how much global warming there will be and why.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 00:47 | Link to Comment MikeMcGspot
MikeMcGspot's picture

The most significant player missing from this voodoo/video logic is....

Nuclear energy over time..100 years X current investments including distribution systems.

Look at the short to midterm century of investment is into this via fossil fuels and let the last two collaborative brain cells you have contemplated it for a bit.

The entire scenario above was given to you without some big chunks of the equation.

Factor that broken robot bitches.

The religious perspective this article woos you with " In neither scenario do we manage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to limit temperature rise to two degrees Celsius"

Per my knowledge no significant scientific correspondence between greenhouse gas emissions can even be correlated with any sanity to current weather dynamics.

If so, because of all the billions and billions of dollars spent on weather modeling we could accurately predict (with + or - 5%) what the fuck is going on weather or otherwise.

The inputs of Fiat per outcome of ability has not yet rendered such a value proposition bitches.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 01:07 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

If you keep doing that, you're going to get Parkinsons.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 08:19 | Link to Comment SmallerGovNow2
SmallerGovNow2's picture

"Factor that broken robot bitches."

further proof, when you cannot win the argument, attack the messenger...

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 02:03 | Link to Comment Walt D.
Walt D.'s picture

Since when does burning natural gas not produce CO2? ( CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O would imply that burning 16 tonnes of methane would gererate 44 tonnes of CO2)

They do not appear to have grasped that any new economic boom is unlikely with high energy prices. 

" High energy prices in general will lead to more investment in research of alternative sources of energy, which will eventually cause solar power to become the dominant source of energy on the planet in about 50 years time."

This is highly unlikely. You are not going to get solar power to work in Manchester regardless of how much money they spend.

Don't forget, we have been trying to get break even fusion reactions since the 60's.

"neither scenario do we manage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to limit temperature rise to two degrees Celsius"

They must have pulled this from a place where the sun was not shining. Someone must have forgot to tell them that despite a 3ppm per year increase in CO2, no warming has taken place for the last 10 years. 

Looks like big oil is looking for a government handout.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 08:17 | Link to Comment SmallerGovNow2
SmallerGovNow2's picture

BINGO, the natural warming cycle ended circa 1998...

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 03:22 | Link to Comment Floodmaster
Floodmaster's picture

What's in your inefficient vehicle tank? Dirty Canadian Oil Sands. The rest of the world is so much more efficient than the U.S. What A Shame.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 06:04 | Link to Comment WhiteNight123129
WhiteNight123129's picture

Get yourself some Tellurium, Indium, Gallium, Germanium, nice store of value.

 

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 04:13 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Nat gas or solar to become N01 energy source in the future.

It takes an 'american' genius to figure that out. Another 'american' who thinks he deserves every cent he makes. What a gift to humanity.

'Americans' have put the world on the path of depletion.

This means that oil will be exhausted. Woooo, what an 'american' genius it takes to determine that as oil is depleted, another energy source will turn predominant.

Dumbfounded by such 'american' deep foresight.

More propaganda to hide the question here.
It goes without saying that once oil is gone, something else will take place as number one.
Only 'americans' sell the idea of a collapsing world, which would return to stone ages in a trice. Once again, in order to hide the question.

The question is obvious though: 'americans' have been claiming they could overcome the environment. That is why they should be handed down the environment.

It follows that the question is to know whether the new number one not only can stand up for the ex number one but also delivers more.

That is the question. Not whether there will some new number one, which is mechanically compulsory or whether the lack of delivery by new sources will drag the world back to the stone ages. It wont.

But, hey, if 'americans' did not produce heaps of cheap propaganda to hide what they are, and to forget about what they claim to be able to deliver, they would not be 'americans'.

And 'americans' are 'americans'. So...

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 07:04 | Link to Comment Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

A Tibetan OTOH using virtually no energy except horse manure and their own muscle power, must be dragged kicking and screaming (literally) into the modern treadmill of Chinese citizenism.

They must be re-educated to be a modern consumer debt slave, they must come down from their peaceful mountain existence where they once lived in harmony with nature, and they must toil in the sweatshops of the newest easternmost proto empire.

It is impossible to have a people living a peaceful simple and fulfilled existence. This is simply not permissible in the world of Chinese citizenism.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 08:38 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

That is some funny recount of tibetan life.

You mean that people who used to own slaves, torture and whose priests were so keen on raping kids that the surrounding families had to order them to move in group only were living in harmony in nature?

Some would see them as proper material for 'americans'

But hey, inventing stories to justify themselves is what an 'american' does, is what 'americans' have been doing since 1776, July, 4th.

Ah, yes, if ever they were to be turned in relentless consumers, better for them they are taught by 'americans'. Always learn from the best. And in that department of mindless consumption, 'americans' are second to none. By far.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 09:27 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Ah, ah, very good propagation, using US of A and 1776,July,4th to divert attention away from Chinese citizenism.

Communautist Chinese Citizenism is very big on scapesgoatery. Is is a tried-and-true tactic fordenial and avoiding self indiction.

When people see this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2277907/Horrifying-image-Tibetan...

best course is to employ Red Chinese Herringism, redirect to 'americanism', and pour blames onto US of A.

Fine tactic also to sing the broad-brushed painting of Tibetans as being enslavers, tortures, and rapers of the childrens. Fine tactic indeed.

Just hope nobody hears on the wind somesuch Chinese citizenism treatings of children slaves:

http://chinaview.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/modern-slavery-in-china-status...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_slave_scandal

Best for Communautist Chinese Citizenism Party if such things do not gaining mentions.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 04:43 | Link to Comment Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

Good to see the energy lobby shrills out in force here, must give them something different to do after lobbying obama to build keystone so they can get rich(er) selling canadian oil to china.

Solar, wind and wave are infinite, fossil fuels and gas are not, therefore businesses will not invest in exploiting renewable resources and the state will try to invest in them.

Why would Acme fish co teach a man to fish, if they could keep him dumb they can sell him a fish every day for the rest of his life.

That is exactly whats happened with oil and cars.

Cars are a waste of resources, all that crap used to send a single human from a to b, trains, buses and bicycles do it much more effeciently and for less energy and resources used.

So you have energy sources that are cheap to exploit and a mode of transport that is far more efficient, what possible reason could oil co and car mfr have for telling us renewables are bad and mpg should be lower except to profit off of our mindless individualism and penis envy.

Who killed the electric car?

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 08:12 | Link to Comment SmallerGovNow2
SmallerGovNow2's picture

yes, when you cannot win the argument with science then call anyone who disagrees with you an "energy shill".  This is a page right out of their book (the AGW crowd).  Attack the messenger.  Because we believe in the planet and all green projects and we care and you don't. 

Wed, 03/06/2013 - 16:38 | Link to Comment Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

Cinderella,

I'm just showing you the slipper, you're the one who says it fits.....

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 08:42 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Solar, wind and wave are infinite,
________________

What is not infinite in an 'american''s universe?

After all, infinite growth, humanity, here we come. 'American' mantra.

Solar, wind and wave are not infinite. The first two will last as long as the Sun lasts.

Their collection and the rate of their collection, none of them are infinite.

Nobody pressure for this or that but 'americans'

'Americans' has the key, so they said. The management of the environment must be handed down to 'americans' because 'americans' know.

The only thing 'americans' have proven about the environment: they can consume it faster and bigger than anyone else in history.

That is the only thing 'americans' prove concerning their so called management of the environment.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!