The heading give's the rationale for the story, its the thinking process that should be interesting to a discerning reader.
The article is written by an economist I greatly admire in Greg Canavan, when you read this you may pick up some more information about climate alarmism. It is not a climate change article. just like the previous one that has gone unread (so be it) but one that more of the "unwashed" should listen to and understand where we are going.
Why am I publishing these things? because the ignorance around climate alarmism has been lost in the debate about "climate change".Underlined emphasis is mine.
You could see this coming…
I wrote as much in an article for The Insider back in June…
With the coming energy transition, does oil (and other fossil fuel energies) fade off into the sunset, or does it go out with a bang?
Most people I know think the fossil fuel industry is a dead man walking. Demand will relentlessly drop in the years ahead, and prices will fall along with it.
The court rulings and shareholder activism (against fossil fuel companies) will do one thing: make investment in new supply that much harder/more expensive. That wouldn’t be so bad if you think demand was going to drop off a cliff anyway. But it’s not going to happen.
Not unless you believe in fairy tales.
After reading the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) report about how we get to ‘net zero by 2050’, I’m even more bullish on energy prices long term. In my view, the sector will go out with a bang, not a whimper.
Let me explain…
In the document, the IEA provides a few scenarios:
The Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS)
The Announced Pledges Case (APC)
STEPS ‘takes account only of specific policies that are in place or have been announced by governments’. The APC ‘assumes that all announced national net zero pledges are achieved in full and on time, whether or not they are currently underpinned by specific policies’.
It is easy to make a virtue signalling pledge about net-zero emissions by 2050. Especially when you know you’re not going to be around then. But it’s another thing to make it happen.
So the scenario based on ‘announced pledges’ is not realistic. It might sound good, but it’s not realistic to make any investment assumptions based on it.
Let’s look at STEPS, then. This is more realistic because developing nations simply won’t jeopardise their growth by turning away from cheap fossil fuels.
‘There is strong divergence between the outlook for emissions in advanced economies on one hand and the emerging market and developing economies on the other. In advanced economies, despite a small rebound in the early 2020s, CO2 emissions decline by about a third between 2020 and 2050, thanks to the impact of policies and technological progress in reducing energy demand and switching to cleaner fuels. In emerging market and developing economies, energy demand continues to grow strongly because of increased population, brisk economic growth, urbanisation and the expansion of infrastructure: these effects outweigh improvements in energy efficiency and the deployment of clean technologies, causing CO2 emissions to grow by almost 20% by the mid‐2040s, before declining marginally to 2050.
‘In advanced economies, energy use falls by around 5% to 2050, despite a 75% increase in economic activity over the period. In emerging market and developing economies, energy use increases by 50% to 2050, reflecting a tripling of economic output between 2020 and 2050.
‘The global fuel mix changes significantly between 2020 and 2050. Coal use, which peaked in 2014, falls by around 15%. Having fallen sharply in 2020 due to the pandemic, oil demand rebounds quickly, returning to the 2019 level of 98 million barrels per day (mb/d) by 2023 and reaching a plateau of around 104 mb/d shortly after 2030. Natural gas demand increases from 3 900 billion cubic metres (bcm) in 2020 to 4 600 bcm in 2030 and 5 700 bcm in 2050. Nuclear energy grows by 15% between 2020 and 2030, mainly reflecting expansions in China.’
So coal demand falls by 0.5% per year, oil demand grows modestly, while natural gas demand grows 46%! What do you think will happen to prices when activism and regulations make it very hard and expensive to develop new sources of supply?
They’re not going to fall sharply, as the IEA expects, that’s for sure.
Look, long-term forecasts like this are a mug’s game. There are so many moving parts. And it is undeniable that the energy transition is underway in the world’s ‘wealthy’ economies.
But developing economies is another question entirely. China has pledged to be net zero by 2060. Anyone who believes that is an idiot. China has underwritten their growth for the past 20 years by ignoring the West.
Technological breakthroughs will ensure the energy transition continues. But in my view, this will occur with fossil fuel prices rising much higher than anyone thinks possible. That will occur due to robust demand and supply constraints.
Think about it. What better way to force developing nations to join the energy transition than through much higher prices?
***
You’ve seen the initial evidence of this over the past month, with natural gas spot prices exploding in Asia, Europe, and the UK. The desire to replenish supplies ahead of the Northern Hemisphere winter has also seen coal prices surge to record highs.
In addition, both Brent crude and West Texas Intermediate oil prices recently broke out to multiyear highs.
The supply side issue I discussed a few months ago is now a reality. A recent Bloomberg article highlights the extent of the issues:
‘Oil explorers need to raise drilling budgets by 54% to more than half a trillion dollars to forestall a significant supply deficit in the next few years, according to Moody’s Investors Service Inc.
‘Crude and natural gas drillers chastened by last year’s unprecedented collapse in demand and prices haven’t responded to the recent market rebound as the industry typically does by expanding the search for untapped fields. While international crude and U.S. gas have risen more than 50% and 120% this year, respectively, drilling outlays are only forecast to increase by 8% globally, Moody’s said in a report Thursday.’
Replies
This is an interesting article. I would however say that I am surprised by the claim that coal consumption peaked in 2014.
For instance Kooragang Island is currently operating at about 150 million TPA close to its capacity of 200 MTPA. This while they are receiving record high prices for both Thermal and Metalurgical coal. Coal demand is rising all over the world.
What else that I find interesting is that very few developed countries are doing well reducing CO2 emissions, NZ included. Many of those former great manufacturers are achieving some reductions by abdicating their manufacturing positions to nations like China,India and Brazil along with their CO2 emissions.
The big issue in my opinion is that there are very few if any of these countries that have committed to Nett Zero by 2050 given any indication how they will get there or what the cost will be.
Even the IEA admit that the technology to achieve nett zero emissions is not currently available.
Further all the talk about using batteries for base load power is laughable. Currently the use for batteries in high tension power supply is limited to smoothing out the renewable electricity to enable control of the power and frequency of power to kickstart the grid after blackouts.
If they are seriously looking to use battery technology for base load power they will need to invent a new technology that is not even on the horizon currently. They are never going to get there with current technology Lithium Ion. It may work OK in smart phones and EV’s but will never achieve base load capability.
The best technology available currently to achieve low emissions is nuclear, double the cost of coal generation, and Hydro. However definitely not pumped Hydro.
I will not be around to see it but what will happen to now powerful nations like the US, Europe, the UK and Australia when the Tiger evonomies of the aforementioned developing nations using more economic rationale to run their nations and energy grids, rise to become the new economic powers of the world.
I don't even need to go down the path of debating whether fossil fuels energy can be done without. It can't , not in the next 100 years anyway. Kevin Rudds a climate alarmist and he bought a mega mansion a few years back on the beach. And the poster boy of Extinsion Rebellion lives here ! What do we think his carbon footprint would be ? Not even a close enough solar panel system and yup water front again . Dumb Kents
we can not go without burning coal, we have oodles of it and we will all suffer immensely if we keep shutting down coal and gas run power stations.
KRudd and by the looks of it extinction rebellion boy have shitloads of money, so turning off cheap power is not a problem for them.
Something that makes me chuckle at these climate shysters is that many of the high profile ones have waterfront homes e.g Cate Blanchett buys an an island in Vanuatu, Tim Flannery buys a waterfront home on the Hawkesbury. Don't really understand the logic in this if you believe that sea levels are or will rise at rapid rates/ ice melting in the poles due to etc....
nuclear is the way go, can't see how you can be serious about lowering emissions/clean energy without it.
Yup , Wollongong councils littered with fuckwits who treat our rates like their own personal climate hobby funds. The two worst offenders both women who live beachfront.
imagine living in a house that blatantly flys in the face of the reducing carbon footprint action and being the poster boy for climate action. Are these people as dumb as they look or just simply so drunk on their own power they couldn't give a shit as their followers are as dumb as they look. This dickheads sisters who also jump on his bandwagon protesting are Instagram selfie fuckheads who fly all over the globe taking selfie's of their flaps .
OK people you are starting to get the drift on this......this is no longer a climate change debate.
This is a story about satisfying left wokists who are obseesed with climate change (rightly or wrongly) but do not have the capacity to actually change anything.
I am writing this because people that are still on the "old debate" need to understand the damage climate alarmists are causing and if you want a real extinction event, let them continue with what they are doing.
I have been watching Sky News in London during the night and it is almost a religious obsesssion they have with climate change and the undertakings to bring in their medicine to fix it.
I noticed an interview during last night specifically when they referred to the Australian Prime Minister warning about economic consequences if not thought through carefully......the two experts then said these countries that don't understand the planet is in danger need to be punished.
We are dealing with climate zealots that have no economic understanding of what you are explaining Wiz, it is genuinely frightening.
I'll start taking climate change (or Global Warming as it was formerly known) seriously, when the mega rich start selling all of their private jets, private yatchs, collectible cars, mega mansons by the oceans, sell all of their oil & gas shares out of protest and finally reduce their own carbon footprints. We know theres buckleys of that actually happening.....
Then and only then will I begin to believe that we are on the verge of a true global climate catastrophe - until then this bullshit is really only pandering to the young woke leftists and the easily brainwashed morale supremicists who have zero understanding of what the resultant costs upon developing nations, humanities future development and future civilisations quality of life.
The people with the power (rich) love their lifestyle so will be reluctant to initiate change and those without power (poor) can't afford too.
The rich are the biggest hypocrites using china who do what they want to produce cheap throw away products with no regard to emission. 4wd gas guzzlers are the car of choice and they fly around the world to be photographed at an event or with a celebrity. Not to mention all the waterside mansions. They will say the right things while continuing as they please. Volkswagen is perfect example with their false emission claims. They want to preach their wholesomeness while doing as they please to ensure their $$$$ bottom line isnt affected.
Yes the government talks a good game including green energy and electric cars with the knowledge they will never replace current cars and base load coal power any time soon.
Our base load power is struggling now with growing population, and demand. As seen in areas shutting coal powerplants with increased blackouts and problems yet they are pushing people to use more electricity for their cars which isn't cost effective. That's why hybrids are becoming the norm. You can claim you are doing your bit as the badge on your car says, while still using petrol power.
It has also been proven that green energy is not as sustainable as they claim with lifespan on solar panels and wind farms so I don't care if they sign 2050, 2060, 2070 until it is financially viable and reliable there won't be any mass changes.
Politicians want to be re-elected and puting things out of reach of the average worker due to climate policy will end that politicians ride in the gravy train. At the moment they can talk the talk but eventually when action has to catch up to the talk it will crumble. They either go renewable and let it fail then public opinion will finally silence the vocal minority driving this shit, or they try to cover it up like Volkswagen and try to buy more time but the end result is the same. We continue using fossil fuels with sideshow of renewables
I was staying away from this blog, Pseudo, but I just had to come say "Lets give this man a round of applause".
Actually Pseudo, i just re-read your post.
Well done. You win the internet for today
excellent article from Malcolm Turnbull, I note the Queen is on side as well WOKE? I don,t.t think so
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/18/malcolm-turn...
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 11 Next