David Wojick
I normally despise the bogus issue of “loss and damage,” which is featured in the upcoming COP 28 extravaganza. But for now, I love it because it has squarely raised the long overdue issue of China’s status as a so-called developing country.
The simple issue is, will China pay into the new Loss and Damages Fund? Assuming they ever get it going. It seems obvious they should, and a lot of countries are calling for it, including the US, which might even make it a condition of our participation.
I mean, China is the world’s largest CO2 emitter, right? They produce more electricity than the US, EU, and UK combined, mostly by burning billions of tons of coal a year. What could be simpler?
Well, it turns out to be really complicated, for legal reasons, of all things. COP 28 is the 28th Conference of Parties to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the grand climate treaty that everyone signed onto.
Core to that massive treaty is a division between developed and developing countries. China was dirt poor in 1992, so of course, they are on the developing list. Today, they are the industrial powerhouse of the world, but the list has not been changed.
The Loss and Damage Fund is also under that treaty, so it is supposed to accept money from developed countries and distribute it to developing ones. Thus, there is no provision for China to pay, a point China happily repeats endlessly. So sorry.
The obvious solution is to change the UN climate treaty to reflect reality, but that would be an almost impossible task, especially since any COP member country can veto any change.
In fact, when you look at the list of big CO2-emitting countries, it quickly becomes apparent that we are not just talking about mighty China. Thanks to their wonderful economic progress in the last 20 years, a good number of those developing countries now emit a lot more than some on the developed list.
China is number 1 in CO2 emissions, but India is 3rd, Iran is 8th, Indonesia is 10th, Brazil is 12th, Mexico 13th, and so it goes. Basing who pays on emissions would open a Pandora’s box of impossible wrangling. After all, Denmark is number 70.
The press coverage is hopeless, as usual. This issue gets almost no attention. More broadly, their whole perspective is wrong as they keep saying the next step is to iron out the details. The opposite is true.
UN negotiations always work from the easy issues to the middle ones and, finally, the really hard ones, which is where we are now. Who pays, how much, and to whom are not details. They are the core, make-or-break issues. The issue getting all the attention, whether the World Bank handles the money or a new UN fund, is tiny in comparison.
Another huge press confusion is repeatedly describing loss and damage as rich countries paying for the climate damage they are causing. The greener version is to call it reparations.
There is nothing about causation or liability in the UN text. It reads like an agreement for the developed countries to send aid to the developing ones for a specific cause, namely climate (actually weather) caused losses and damages. This lack of liability language was a requirement for the US and some other developed countries to agree to kick off trying to set up a fund of some sort. If this fund ever gets set up, which is far from clear at this point, I am sure the US will see its contributions as foreign aid. Certainly not a reparations.
In the meantime, the issue of China paying looks pretty impossible. China has said it does not want any of the aid, but that does not resolve the glaring fact they are by far the world’s biggest CO2 emitter.
It is all looking pretty funny at this point, which is just how I like it.
Stay tuned to CFACT as the COP 28 loss and damage fiasco plays out.
Man made atmospheric carbon dioxide is a tiny proportion of all greenhouse gases and has never affected the climate and never will. Look at the scientific conclusions of the thousands of highly qualified CLINTEL scientists. The climate has always changed but it is not due to man who has no contyrol over it.
I was an early signer of the CLINTEL declaration. It says there is no climate emergency. It does not say we have nothing to do with climate change.
https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
CO2 of mankind is a very small actor in the overall picture, as shown in this article.
The oceans/invisible water vapor/cloud cover are the thermostat regarding the earth’s temperature.
The varying solar input energy is the climate driver, already for billions of years.
CO2 in the atmosphere is at its lowest point in at least 100 million years
The ppm increase from 0.028% in 1850 to 0.042% in 2022 is extremely small, compared to increases over millions of years.
Plants in greenhouses thrive at 1000 ppm CO2; at 420 ppm they are starving.
CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO FLORA AND NO FAUNA
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life
Offshore Wind Placed on Operation in 2021
World: During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity put in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MWand the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW
Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating capacity, about 1/3%
By the end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition
World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major
Here’s hoping Orsted abandons the third Mid-Atlantic project (Skipjack).
Another one bites the dust
LONDON (Reuters) – Shell’s finance chief said on Thursday the firm had exited a power purchase agreement (PPA) for the planned SouthCoast windfarm off the coast of Massachusetts, agreeing to pay a penalty rather than face rising costs for building the project.
Energy firms from BP to Orsted have announced hefty writedowns in recent days for their U.S. windfarm projects in the face of high inflation.
The “climate scientists” have had “climate” redefined so now “climate” is only 30 years. With that short time period, it is only the weather, which is always changing.
The facts:
True but not very relevant to my article.
The facts are always relevant David
Ewise, you know nothing…don’t you get this message daily ? ( /s)
So, ‘climate change’ is officially defined as that which is caused by humans.
By definition, climate is human caused.
(I guess I can see why the zealots are so confused by any skepticism)
Since global warming is net beneficial, how can there possibly be a Loss and Damage fund?
No.
“Net” means benefits outweigh harm, but there can still be harm.
Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that countries with the greatest emissions of carbon dioxide should receive net payments from the loss and damage fund. Of course, this logically means that poor countries which emit virtually no carbon dioxide emissions will need to make net payments into the fund.
True but the whole schmozzle boils down to whether we should be getting rid of fossil fuels.
The benefits of fossil fuels outweigh the harms by orders of magnitude. The world’s population is living longer and healthier and are less in danger from natural disaster.
Story Tip: Peter Zeihan, who describes himself as a green who can do math, weighs in on the demonstrated futility of electric vehicles. link Apparently even Tesla is thinking of scaling back. 🙂 He hasn’t said anything the average WUWT reader doesn’t know but he does quip that we may have reached peak EV.
Hey, a stratfor guy. I wonder if his predictions are equally good as friedmans.
When it comes to specific predictions, you’d probably do better tossing a coin.
Having said the above, both of them often present interesting, and sometimes useful, information.
Can someone list the “harm(s)” from fossil fuel?
The UN treaty which my article is about is predicated on fossil fuels causing harmful climate change. This claim is false but cannot be ignored because it is dangerous. That is why I am tracking COP 28 closely.
It is very dangerous to our pocket books
The environment will be looking like a pin cushion, with wind turbines everywhere.
Sea life and birds population will be reduced to 10% from present already-low quantities
Solar panels will be covering desert lands
Greatly more cabling and super expensive storage to make it all work.
CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO FLORA AND NO FAUNA
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life
US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
“Solar panels will be covering desert lands”
And then we will all get to experience “The PVHI effect caused ambient temperature to regularly approach or be in excess of 4 °C warmer than the natural desert in the evenings, essentially doubling the temperature increase due to UHI measured here. During these warm seasons, average midnight temperatures were 25.5 + 0.5 °C in the PV installation and 23.2 + 0.5 °C in the parking lot, while the nearby desert ecosystem was only 21.4 + 0.5 °C.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35070
Don’t go swimming in a lake of oil, apart from that, though…
How many developing nations have a space programme?
Two: India and China
Their time is up
Indeed, but as I point out in the article there is no easy way to do that.
There are 74 countries with Space Programs, including Malaysia, Indonesia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Kazakhstan, Nigeria and Venezuela – it’s a veritable who’s who of ambitious countries. Only 24 of those have a launch capability (including esa) but presumably one country could buy a launch from another. I don’t think that this was necessarily a good metric to have used.
I’m so surprised that China won’t be paying a cent to Vanuatu for climate reparations, as per the ICJ interim ruling in March this year. Climate “justice” is as bunkum as every other woke-left concept of “justice”.
Regarding woke-left concept of justice, thank God for Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana.
John Kennedy Confronts Nominee With Her Past Statements About Housing Transwomen In Female Prisons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6cZYWnFi2s
I’ve been watching him grill woke-lefties in hearings. He’s a treasure. Nobody does it better.
For years, if not decades, the concept of ‘justice’ internationally has been replaced by ‘might makes right’.
You want justice? Then you need to change the entire world.
Oh no, I see our King is attending and making the opening speech. Oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear. Has he not looked at the success of the previous 27? And their effect on the Keeling Curve? That is to say none, nil. I suppose he thinks he can affect China’s behaviour. How our Monarchy is demeaning itself. Sheikh Whoever will have a good laugh. His mother would have politely refused through a junior aide and her private remarks would have been worth listening to, bless her.
Never mind the Halfwit….
GIANT ULEZ ROBOT SET TO BURN ON BONFIRE NIGHT
https://order-order.com/2023/11/01/giant-ulez-robot-set-to-burn-on-bonfire-night/
I saw the King on some news show- appolgizing to the people of Kenya for the Empire. But that wasn’t good enough- the local leaders now demand reparations. If it wasn’t for the Empire, they’d be living in grass/mud huts. I don’t have a link for it.
“, they’d be living in grass/mud huts.”
They’d have nothing & be happy … except when the next tribe comes over to steal their nothing & another tribal war starts.
David presents a view that is, or should be, alarming to any sane person in any country. The United Nations is the biggest Organized Crime Family on the planet. Their behavior regarding the Hamas (who is supported by petrodollars from Iran, a developing country?) terrorist invasion of Israel, is additional proof of the UN choices for which side to support. Get the UN out of New York.
The UN and EU fund education and textbooks in Gaza…
“””Palestinian Authority textbooks encourage violence against Israelis and include antisemitic messages, according to an unpublished report commissioned by the European Union in 2019 and obtained by The Jerusalem Post.
The European Commission kept the report under wraps after receiving it from the Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research earlier this year.”””
https://m.jpost.com/middle-east/eu-study-finds-incitement-in-palestinian-textbooks-remains-unpublished-670505
“Get the UN out of New York”
Today, Iran, the biggest State sponsor of terrorism in the world, and the instigator of the current fighting going on in the Middle East, will become the head of the UN Human Rights Forum.
That’s how corrupt the UN is.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the most prolific state sponsors of terrorism to date. Qatar has politically and financially supported Hamas (as well as other groups) whilst Saudi Arabia has been funding numerous terrorist groups throughout the middle east as part of it’s salafist jihadism. Iran has most definitely funded and supported Hezbollah activities in other states but Hamas is not Hezbollah and there don’t appear to be links between the two. Incidentally, the leader and several key figures of Hamas are living openly and in some luxury in Turkey apparently without fear of interference.
By saying this I am not supporting Hamas, Iran, terrorism or violence but if you are going to fire at a target, please make sure your aiming point is in the right place.
“Incidentally, the leader and several key figures of Hamas are living openly and in some luxury in Turkey apparently without fear of interference.”
Well, maybe those terrorists shouldn’t feel so secure.
They should study history. If they did, they would learn that the Israelis are relentless in hunting down their enemies. The Israelis killed or jailed many Nazi leaders after World War II. They hunted them all over the world for decades. The fate of Hamas leaders will be no different.
All so the West can feel great that its emissions haven’t grown faster than they have- as if emissions on the other side of the planet are less important.
The Wokeachusetts state government actually brags that its the most energy efficient state in America- now that it’s exported all its heavy industries. You’d have to look hard to find a smokestack anywhere in this state. But then we import almost everything from China. I’ve ranted at state politicians and enviros that emissions should be counted in the locality the products are consumed- not where produced. Not that I care at all about CO2 emissions- it’s just that I hate the state bragging when it’s not justified.
story tip
Crater Lake Latest Update: A Natural Wonder Under Threat and Important Information
climate change, but of course!
Important information for visitors…. don’t go there, obviously.
The Climate in the region remains unchanged thus not a factor in their weird outlook.
‘COP 28 is the 28th Conference of Parties to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the grand climate treaty that everyone signed onto.‘
Worth noting that the US originally signed on to this nonsense under the administration of Bush I. It’s a glacial process, but I see signs that the Republicans are slowly beginning to resist climate alarmism.
It was just a feel good treaty in 1992. The Republicans have been resistant to harmful action all along. Polls consistently show that about 80% of Republicans reject alarmism.
Given where we are in terms of climate / energy policy, not to mention overall Federal overreach, I don’t think ‘resistant’ is a term I would apply to many Republican politicians. But I do agree that the electorate seems to be coming around. I just hope it’s in time.
No, it won’t – they are also a beneficiary of foreign aid to help build more coal fired power stations
‘Will China pay climate change “loss and damage”?’
LOL! No. The best they will do is rename some economic/humanitarian aid as ‘loss and damage’.
I’d wager they’d go to war before paying a cent of real ‘loss and damage’.
They might, but only if THEY get to control where and how it is spent AND provided the countries getting that assistance are thereby indebted to THEM (China).
The “Chinese”, or at least their government, probably feels that they are doing more to help others with their “Belt and Road” project than any phony anti-CO2 initiative. Naturally, the West sees this as a Chinese attempt to purchase influence in the developing world, as if the West hasn’t engaged in the same sort of behavior over many years.
China certainly has its share of scientists, some of whom may be climatologists. The product of their research, if it exists, might likely be published in Chinese. Is there an effort in the West to find, translate, catalog and publish the results of germane Chinese climate research and if so where is this to be found? We’ve no reason to believe that Chinese research is any more affected by political factors than that of the West. It only makes sense for the West to investigate academic China’s take on the CO2 issue, which is, after all, the heart of the problem.
Everybody knows they won’t but it’s a good way for the western countries to keep kicking the ‘reparations’ can down the road a bit.
“Will China pay climate change ‘loss and damage’?”
Of course not. It’s simple:
Therefore, China is a victim. They can do no wrong.
We are all victims of the IPCC and WEF scare-mongering, aided and abetted by the compliant, subsidized Mass Media, and soon with government-controlled AI, a la way beyond 1984
World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major
China is an absolute dictatorship with four times the population of the USA and has nuclear weapons. It cannot be coerced to do anything not in its own interests.
The UN trying to force China to pay “climate fines” is like a kitten trying to steal a meal from a grizzly bear. It would be a bad day for the kitten.
But remember the Mouse that Roared?
https://www.bedtimeshortstories.com/the-mouse-that-roared-story
Or the Mouth that Roared.
Hmm. So nothing to do with the duchy of Grand Fenwick then?
On Google, it says the average income in China is about $US49,200(2023) while the average US income is around $US31,133(2019).
If the current US budget proposal is adopted and signed by the geriatric-in-chief the US will be spending $7 on each Chinese resident to keep them from taking over the world.
It’s not a treaty. A treaty requires Senate approval. The current Administration is very careful to never use the word “treaty.”
Of course we need a “loss and damage” fund. The politicians, corporate cronies, bureaucrats and activists that promoted, supported, made or enforced green policies deserve to be made to pay reparations to us, the victims of their bad policies.
The answer is yes, they will. Just as soon as pigs fly and/or hell freezes over.
“Core to that massive treaty is a division between developed and developing countries. China was dirt poor in 1992, so of course, they are on the developing list. Today, they are the industrial powerhouse of the world, but the list has not been changed.”
On a yearly per capita basis, here’s how China compares to the US on its fossil fuel energy usage and subsequent emissions if you care about that.
US Oil: 922.4 yearly gallons per capita
China Oil: 139.9 yearly gallons per capita
US gas: 83.93 yearly cubic feet per capita
China gas: 4.83 yearly cubic feet per capita
US coal: 2234.25 yearly cubic feet per capita
China coal: 3081.5 yearly cubic feet per capita
So China only outranks the US in coal usage but is very far behind in energy usage overall. Very far behind. So the idea China is even using its fair share by US standards is wrong. India is the same.
You forgot the most important metric
US Oil: 922.4 yearly gallons per capita … 304,260,000,000 gallons 304B
China Oil: 139.9 yearly gallons per capita … 1,119,200,000,000 gallons 1.1T
US gas: 83.93 yearly cubic feet per capita … 276,9639,000,000 cu’ 276.9B
China gas: 4.83 yearly cubic feet per capita … 38,640,000,000 cu’ 38.6B
US coal: 2234.25 yearly cubic feet per capita … 7,373,025,000,000 cu’ 7.7T
China coal: 3081.5 yearly cubic feet per capita … 24,652,000,000,000 cu’ 24.65T
China uses far more Coal and Oil than the US and 1/2 of the Chinese people are energy impoverished, little to no access
As far as China’s usage goes, That’s nearly 4 times the amount of Oil and Coal that the US uses.
The problem with that way of viewing the usage is that it leaves the impression China has somehow “caught up” whereas in fact its still way behind and is still trying to catch up so that its people can enjoy a similar standard of living to those in the US.
If somehow it were possible for the Chinese to enjoy the same energy standard of living as the US overnight using fossil fuels, then our fossil fuels would be depleted in quite literally a few short years. Coal might last a few decades.
Any argument people make that we have have fossil fuels for many decades comes with the baggage of the energy poor in the world remaining that way.
But to your argument more directly, “countries” dont need energy, people do.
Ant the problem with viewing it as per capita in 1/2 of the Chinese population do not create emissions load.
For example…You could have 1 person contributing emissions from 1500 gallons of oil, 150 cubic feet of gas and 3000 cubic feet of coal per year. Surely you would consider that person as contributing far more to the global warming problem than any country as their per capita emissions are higher even than the US.
See the problem? What happens to global emissions if that person cuts their emissions by 75%?…NOTHING!
IF climate is controlled by total emissions Load then it is the Total Load contribution that matters most and “per capita” figures are just smoke and mirrors
Your numbers are wrong. Taken as a whole, China’s Oil consumption is 12,791,553 barrels of oil a day but the US consumes 19,687,287 barrels. Your figures suggest that China uses much more oil than the US as a country but that’s just not true.
Ref: https://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-consumption-by-country/
China does use more coal but…
Its wishful thinking to suggest individuals use all the resources in China when its fairly obvious China’s industry uses the lion’s share of the electrical energy from the coal.
The problem with fossil fuels is that they can never provide the US level of energy to the world. China has about 9x the population of the US and uses about a sixth of the oil. That’s a factor of more than 50 and there is just no chance oil production could ever be increased to meet the demand. No chance whatsoever.
So what do you think China should be doing to provide energy and transport to its citizens?
*China and India combined has a population of 9x, not China alone.
The Oil usage is based on your supplied figures times 330M US and 8B China. If my figures are wrong then your figures are wrong
US 922.4 x 330,000,000 = 304,392,000,000
Ch 139.9 x 8,000,000,000= 1,119,200,000,000
Dang used 8B Instead of 1.5B
Yes, this.
You might want to check your China population number at 8 Billion.
Now I thought that Wind and Solar were far cheaper and more easily deployable than FF energy, especially with Cheap Chinese Solar Panels and Wind Turbines being made locally by Uyghur slave labor. If this is the case then every Chinese person should be able to enjoy the western lifestyle without adding to the GHG load.
But we both know a western lifestyle cannot be powered by the horseshite that is renewable energy…even China realizes that.
“But we both know a western lifestyle cannot be powered by the horseshite that is renewable energy”
Not today, no. There’s work to be done on energy storage to make them viable. On the other hand nothing can ever be done to make the world suitably or equitably powered by fossil fuels.
Sorry Tool,
“Equitable” anything is just a meaningless buzzword used to foster hatred of any group viewed as having power over another group. Equitably powered is just another way to express envy
Thankyou for succinctly stating your position on how you view those less fortunate than yourself.
And thank you for succinctly demonstrating your hatred for those you view as more fortunate than you
In my opinion everyone ought to be able to aspire to living well (in terms of energy). That is equality of opportunity and its what I believe in.
However in a world powered by fossil fuels, not everyone can live well because there simply aren’t enough of them to go around.
That’s not hate, its a realisation of the reality of fossil fuels.
Let me fix that for you
Not today, not ever. There’s far too costly work to be done on energy storage to ever be able to make them viable.
Especially considering Petawatt Hours of back-up capacity would be needed in the form of rechargeable batteries and pinned storage just to cover night time wind falloff AND with Petawatts of additional battery capacity necessary for global EV adoption
Cost isn’t the issue with energy. Its not an option like buying a new car or and iPhone is. When we need the energy (and we will) then we need to transition to it irrespective of “cost”
The longer we leave the transition, the harder it’ll be.
Then, once again, we return to reducing total annual emission load increases. Which leads us back to emissions load leader…China which is responsible for 1/3 of total annual global emissions
Most of which is Coal measured in Trillions of cubic feet per year followed by Oil in Trillions of gallons per year.
If you aren’t interested in reducing total annual load increase of GHG emissions then you are only interested in villainizing the west
I’m not interested in reducing emissions. I’m only interested in continuity of energy supply. The fossil fuels we have remaining give us the time to transition. But they wont last forever and we need a lot of energy to actually make that transition.
Then transition to a reliable, dispatchable energy source with a 90+% capacity factor and a 100% reliability factor that requires NO expensive battery back-up and isn’t affected by either inclement weather or perfect but still night time weather.
Nuclear is more reliable
Nuclear works 24/7/365
Nuclear requires ZERO battery back-up
Nuclear doesn’t require goldilocks conditions to function
Nuclear does it all
Solar and Wind just can’t cut it now or 2050 or 2075 or 2100
If you aren’t interested in emissions then why bring up emissions in your initial post?
On a yearly per capita basis, here’s how China compares to the US on its fossil fuel energy usage and subsequent emissions if you care about that.
For other people…
I dont care about emissions.
Nuclear will almost certainly form part of the solution but its far from cheap and is slow to build. And nobody is doing it. Also a nuclear solution doesn’t fix transport where we’ll still need energy storage and lots of it.
Nuclear is the only choice for energy Not dependent on weather
Solar works 4 hours a day and half works 2-3 hours a day but doesn’t work 17 hours a day
Wind works provided the wind blows between 9 and 50 mph otherwise it doesn’t work.
Neither can produce energy on demand with unfavorable timing and weather conditions
Both require massive expensive batteries to store the power from when it is produced until it is needed
Nuclear only requires annual refueling outages (planned) and maintenance (planned and unplanned) and as such generally would require 120% of demand capacity for emergency coverage
Nuclear IS cheap compared to a 600% Solar build out and 400% wind build out to allow for the Reserve necessary to recharge the battery back-up systems and allow for sufficient capacity to cover weeks long generation loses during Winter blocking high wind lows.
That remains to be seen. Thousands of them at billions of dollars each doesn’t feel cheap to me. Let alone the NIMBY issues they’ll have.
One thing about renewable sources is that individually they’re relatively cheap and are being deployed bit by bit over time.
But despite that, I’ve no doubt nuclear will play a part.
As far as transportation goes, you don’t need sufficient storage if you have sufficient on demand directly accessible generation capacity
Every car needs a substantial battery (or energy storage of some description).
And there are 2.2 billion globally. Electrification of transportation by 2035 or 2050 or 2075 or even 2100 will not happen
Its already happening. Do you mean every last vehicle? No probably not.
Then gas and oil will not be eliminated and left in the ground… What ALL environmentalists want, especially JSO nutcases
Not fast enough to reach Nut Zero, even in just the US, by 2030, 2035, or 2050. Not enough mineral availability that could be…
Mined
Transported
Processed
And used to manufacture EVs components and Batteries to reach Net Zero by 2050. (Net Zero requires replacement of all 275M registered ICE vehicles in the US)
And just as an aside transportation still requires oil and gas exploration and extraction to create petrochemicals for…
Lightweight plastic EV components
Synthetic Rubber Tires
Plastic insulation for EV wiring
Brake lines (Trucks Semis and Busses)
Asphalt paving
Coal is still needed for
Structural steel EV framing and battery support
Silica reduction to silicon for EV electronic components
PC boards
EV Touch screen displays
Electric Transport cannot provide intercontinental ocean shipping or intercontinental air travel (air freight). Nuclear could provide intercontinental shipping and make it affordable
At some point it will have to.
It CAN’T. Not for 12,000 miles nonstop at 650 mph and allow for 350 passengers and baggage per flight.
Who knows what storage technologies will appear in the future. If we make fusion work it might be worth synthesising hydrocarbon fuels for jets and rockets. One thing’s for certain, though. We cant be using fossil fuels forever.
Ah so your arguement is based on the possibility of technology that doesn’t yet exist but might be found in the future.
In that case let the world thrive with FF until a viable replacement does exist.
Intermittent Wind and Time of Day Solar certainly aren’t viable replacements for modern societal needs
Not when you’re comparing to a seemingly relative abundance of fossil fuels today with the resurgence of fracking and your blind spot to other countries. But that view is myopic and wrong and will become apparent in the future.
It’ll be great if we have fusion. That would be ideal. But its proving to be very difficult to make work and we’ve been trying for decades.
Fission will likely play a role but isn’t happening yet so isn’t part of the transition.
If we were to simply stop with solar and wind (as you’d like to see), then we’d need to start with fission.
Fission is definitely the only way forward for cheap, clean, reliable electricity generation. Fusion is just a pipe dream that’s always 10 years away. It was 10 years away in the 90s and it’s still 10 years away to day. But for now and through this century at least Oil and oil derivatives will power transportation.
EVs simply require too much expensive and nonexistent infrastructure upgrades to be viable in the foreseeable future…Beyond a rich man’s toys.
More than a doubling of current generation capacity would be necessary to go Net Zero in the transportation industry.
Except in practice, its not.
Diablo Canyon NPP has been in flawless operation since 1968 (55 years) and currently generates electricity at a cost of 6¢ kWH at a current capacity factor greater than 90% and a lifetime capacity factor of greater than 87% .
In practice fission generation is definitely…
Reliable
Affordable
Emission free
When done right.
When done wrong…
Nuclear generation issues have only happened when design flaws or operating short cuts have affected plant operations.
Chernobyl… Operating short cuts
Three Mile Island…Operating short cuts
Fukushima Daiichi…design flaws
They’re not a replacement for fossil fuels until they’re being planned built at scale. We’re a long way from that happening.
Only because of environmentalists and political policy.
And they’re not a replacement for FF in Transportation. But to eliminate FF in transportation energy supplies need to be allowed to evolve naturally and not forced by government edict.
Due to materials availability and facing a global demand, Battery EV is also not the answer to transportation, though Nuclear Fission Generation is a viable solution to the EV recharging capacity demand problem.
But alternative energy supplies are worse than fossil fuels so they wont naturally evolve. Only when fossil fuels are irretrievably on the decline might there be a “natural” take up but at that point its going to be much too late.
In the scheme of energy costs overall, the government subsidies are absolutely peanuts.
Only too late in your narrow way of thinking. The world evolved A symbiotic process where plants want CO2 to create Carbohydrates and give back Oxygen in return. Plants LOVE CO2, the biosphere hungers for CO2, crops do better with CO2 enrichment. Why deny the biosphere what it wasn’t most and hungers for?
I assume you’ve noticed what happens when there is even hint of a shortage of something people need? People go crazy and horde. Prices sky-rocket. Society struggles. It’s happened with oil before such as in the 70s.
When fossil fuels genuinely peak we’d better be well on the path to change or we’ll be in serious trouble.
It won’t be some graceful transition at that point.
So then, why go through the tumultuous conditions created from an artificial shortage by denying access to affordable energy provided by FF simply to leave them in the ground where no-one benefits from them?
We’ll use as many of them as it takes to get to an alternative energy source. They wont be left there if the world needs energy. Guaranteed.
I’m certain Biden and Newsom would devoutly disagree with you on that
“In the scheme of energy costs overall, the government subsidies are absolutely peanuts.”
Yep, except that Wind and Solar cannot function against FF without them. So if the subsidies are peanuts then Wind and Solar promoters are plain Nuts for promoting Costly unreliable Free Energy Subsidy Mines to replace artificially inflated yet reliable FF energy that is really inexpensive…all things considered
The previous proposals to compensate developing countries for the effects of fossil fuel use by the developed ones fell far short of it targets. So what make anyone think that whatever pledges are made at COP-28 will be any more successful? Haven’t global emissions continued to rise since the first COP conference was held? So it’s a safe bet that this increase will continue, while any funds to compensate countries for climate damage won’t be forthcoming.
It’s interesting to note which countries benefit from coal exports:
And who buys it: