The IEA is out with its latest “road map” for zero emissions by 2050. Is there a word more expressive than “delusional” in the English language? We have never read such self-serving drivel in our lives. It is as “bizarre” as the valuation of Tesla’s stock price.
In fact, it seems impossible to us that grown adults can put forth such obvious nonsense and still be taken seriously. I read it and immediately needed a Nurofen, which I didn’t have, so instead, I went out and chainsawed a tree down that was pissing me off. Pah, take that!
We urge you to have a read of the report and ask yourself: but how is all this going to be achieved? What resources will it take, and at what cost? Are there enough resources in the first place? Will required investments occur if the cost of capital rises (which it will) and can developed countries tell emerging countries how to live their lives (more on this in the next section)?
Well, those are just a few macro questions that pop to mind. You may think of others.
As an appetizer to the report, we have pulled out a few juicy charts. We think the following two sum up the delusion. In this
Great Leap Forward Build Back Better fantasy world fossil fuels are virtually gone by 2050 onwards. So what replaces them? Assuming the world’s demand for energy doesn’t change, or heaven forbid, if the demand for energy grows (which it has done every year since the 1800s) then we have some issues.
We are told that replacement is going to be by wind and solar at least from an electricity generation perspective. Wind and solar electricity output go up about 12x. Not double, not triple, not quadruple. Twelve times!
Coal and natural gas are gone. Woosh, like the foreskin on a Jewish baby. And nuclear stays unchanged. Where the materials are going to come from to produce all those wind turbines, solar panels, associated infrastructure is an interesting question that goes completely unanswered. And what about the land required for all those “energy farms”?
Then, while reading through this piece of fiction, we immediately had to ask ourselves what will be the cost of a megawatt of electricity generated by wind and solar given the massive uptake and the demands on materials used to construct the wind turbines and solar panels?
And one final thing, 2020 has some 85% of electricity being generated by baseload technology. But by 2030 according to these dolts 50% will be base load. And as if that wasn’t loopy enough, by 2050 they say it’ll be 35%.
So what happens when that wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine? Now, as you know I’m no engineer, but I do know that to achieve anything that is even a fraction of this delusion there must be energy storage technology which as of today doesn’t exist. Current technology for batteries won’t do it. We already know that.
And here is something that is deeply troubling. You have to ask yourself this question: are advanced economies going to be able to dictate to emerging markets how their economies should be operated?
This is essentially a question of countries willingness to lose their sovereignty and the tail wagging the dog. It is no trivial question.
In fact, if there is one takeaway from this report that is the most glaringly dangerous this is it. Forcing EM countries to turn off their power will quite literally kill people. When you live hand to mouth and your ability to feed yourself and your family is on a knife-edge, then this right here is deadly. The costs of food and shelter will absolutely explode.
Moving along… Take a look at this. The world will consume less fuel related to transport by 2040. By 2050 fossil fuels represent, and I can’t say this with a straight face, 10% of fuel consumed for transport. We note that by 2050 hydrogen will account for more than fossil fuels.
Can someone tell them how hydrogen is produced?
Please! Hydrogen comes from splitting it out from water via electrolysis, and that takes huge quantities of… deep breath.. electricity, no doubt coming from wind and solar because remember, natural gas and coal are gone.
This simply means even more demands being placed on materials/resources required to manufacture wind and solar equipment and infrastructure. As a side note hydrogen production currently comes predominantly from using natural gas for the energy component.
One would have logically thought that nuclear power would have featured in the energy revolution as it is the ONLY baseload emission-free technology. But that would actually be logical and clearly, such thinking isn’t featuring here.
One of the most amusing aspects of this report is that it plays second fiddle to the resources required to build out this “energy revolution”.
For example, is it physically possible to increase global copper production 4x by 2030, and lithium, cobalt, and nickel by 30x?
These forecasts are not just delusional but rather they are criminal. As an example, 70% of cobalt comes as a byproduct from copper mining, so pray tell, how do you get 30x more cobalt when copper production is “only” going to increase by 4x? Really?
In any event, if you could increase copper production by 50% come 2030 it in itself would be a miracle.
Then to add more insanity to this grand pile of stinking delusion, we’re told that this transition to a significantly less dense energy medium will result in lower energy costs. What!?
These forecasts obviously assume that the additional 4x demand on copper is available “on tap” and that this demand will have no effect on the price of copper in any way (just using copper as but one example).
The report overlooks the dramatic increase in energy costs in Germany who have gone full retard on renewables and energy costs since 2004 and have subsequently enjoyed a lack of energy supply forcing them to import their energy (without lowering CO2 emissions, by the way) while simultaneously causing our friendly sauerkraut-eating friends to enjoy the highest energy costs in all of Europe.
Rightly so. The electricity grid will have to triple its capacity by 2040. Ok, folks, if you say so, but how is that possible when 2030 is only 10 to 20 years away?
And what of the additional resource requirements for that let alone the additional financing charges?
We marvel at where all this money is going to come from. I mean back in 2018 we said that the central banks and governments of the US, the UK, and the EU would ultimately turn to fiscal spending policies as monetary policy had clearly failed but we never anticipated this sort of spending.
We knew and have been writing about the incoming inflationary depression but this, if pushed by these delusional twats, is really going to be catastrophically bad.
But let’s stick with ramifications. The financing of this is going to need to be yuuuge. And that, of course, means debt (lots of it) on government balance sheets.
Speaking of debt, pray tell, what happens to the cost of capital in all of this?
Clearly, the IEA obviously assumes that the cost of capital will remain near zero and that all this additional spending on infrastructure won’t increase the cost of capital.
Inflation? Hell, what is that word? Only silly old fools who studied economics 101 textbooks some 30 years ago still think that is relevant.
No, not in this brave new world of “exponential everything”. None of that is required in this brave new world. Economics doesn’t matter when you can get a degree in gender studies, or political science, and simply invest in “exponential age” with dog money.
And just one last point: over half of the emissions reduction from 2030 to 2050 would have to come “from technologies that are currently at the demonstration or prototype phase.” Their words, not mine.
Are we going senile and clinically insane at the same time? This report is too stupid for words.
It really is a situation where you have to ask yourself if you are the one going mad. In that light, I was having a solid back and forth with my friend and energy specialist Tracy (@chigrl), who shared with me her thoughts on this topic and hence contributed to our own thoughts. We are not, and I know that because Tracy is one helluva sharp energy analyst.
On the same topic but specifically related to pushing forward this agenda, I just had this forwarded to me.
The title sounds pretty upbeat, almost as if this green “revolution” is actually going to bring growth, which makes sense. After all, we’re talking about the Guardian, which means the article is most likely written and edited by woke masked gender-confused vegans snacking on fair trade tofu. In any event, this little gem caught our eye.
“The report said the UK experienced its longest spell of low wind output in more than a decade during the first three months of this year. The authors said output from the country’s 24.4GW fleet of wind turbines fell to as low as 0.6GW on 3 March – in contrast with the 18.1GW delivered later that month.
Between 26 February and 8 March – a total of 11 days – the capacity of the national wind turbine fleet did not go above 20%.
Grid operators had to call on gas-fired units to generate power to plug the gap, with every gigawatt of falling wind output being replaced by 0.84GW of gas, thereby harming Britain’s carbon-cutting ambitions, said the report.
“Britain’s ever-changing weather could put its landmark net-zero climate target at risk and become a threat to the power grid’s security unless policymakers take action,” it claimed”
If you’re in the UK, buy some woolly underpants because you’re in for brownouts.
Sticking with the energy theme…
See how contrarian hedge fund managers are
frontrunning central banks and out-of-control governments.
Go here (it's free)