Greta is at it..AGAIN

[yosemitemike]

Right, and fracking took place because world conventional production peaked in 2015, which the IEA confirmed in 2010 and King predicted correctly in 1976.

If any, fracking supports what the Club of Rome said. Otherwise, there'd be no need to resort to uncoventional production in the first place.

The same with the Ehrlich wager: they were focusing on price, not diminishing returns, which is what the mining industry has been experiencing for decades:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFyTSiCXWEE

A century ago, you could get lots of high-grade copper with no heavy equipment. Now, you need the latter to get lower amounts of copper and of lower grade. It's the same with oil: you start with an energy return of a hundred barrels for each barrel used, then after several decades it goes down to three, and then you resort to fracking.

No, it proves that the Club of Rome's basic premise is wrong.  We have proved reserve than before, not less.

It's not unconventional production that we are resorting to.  It's a new method of extraction that was invented.

There is a direct connection between supply and prices.  Prices were used as a proxy for supply.

Then you come up with a new technology to access resources that were not previously accessible at an economical cost.  Saying that we are "resorting to" this doesn't change anything.

[jhkim]

I agree that neither pollution should be discounted -- but they should be evaluated fairly. I'm reading through your recent links, but they don't seem to be doing side-by-side comparison. An EV battery is good for 100k to 200k miles -- which is the equivalent of 4000 to 8000 gallons of gasoline, or about 200 to 400 barrels of crude oil. So the question is:

1) What is the damage from drilling, refining, and then burning the gasoline from 300 barrels of crude oil?
2) What is the damage from mining the materials and manufacturing one EV battery?

I don't have exact answers for these. Battery manufacture produces toxic material, but it's a question of how much is produced and how much of that will get into people's bodies -- compared to breathing in output from car exhaust like carbon monoxide, ground-level ozone, and particulates.

I do know that around 5 million people a year have early deaths from air pollution. How many would you guess have early deaths every year from battery waste? I'm skeptical that it is anywhere close to 5 million. You can say "battery waste is toxic" but that's like saying "nuclear waste is toxic". It's technically true, but nuclear waste is relatively tiny and extremely well-handled -- particularly when compared to dumping toxins directly into the air that people breath.

So the water pollution from mining the lithium doesn't count? https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1399997488/photo/greenbushes-lithium-mine.webp?b=1&s=170667a&w=0&k=20&c=_pJKX6mjys2DVjDsFz7smuxqiYFHDFXykI4LWfJLBWc=

ALL the air pollution from the mining, shipping the Lithium to China doesn't count?
All the air pollution from the manufacturing of the batteries in China doesn't count?
All the air pollution from shipping those batteries to the US?
What about the air pollution from manufacturing and shipping the EVs to the US?
What about the air pollution from producing the electricity to charge the batteries?

You KNOW I live in México City right?

GeekyBugle, how is this disagreeing with anything I said? Yes, everything should be counted, both for EVs and for gasoline cars. So it counts the pollution from mining for material for the gasoline car, shipping the gasoline car, running the refineries, shipping the gasoline to the gas stations, etc. Here's one analysis of both for several different options for lifetime emissions, for example:

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/2228291

Browsing, most other estimates are similar. The lifetime emissions can range from 20% less to 60% less than a gasoline car, depending on how its made and especially on what source you're charging it from.

Living in México City, I can see that would make you mad about air pollution. From what I read, it does seem to be getting better than in the 1990s, but it's still bad - especially NO2 and particulates. Here's the graph I'm looking at:


Source: https://thecityfix.com/blog/expanding-mexico-citys-air-quality-forecast-to-help-citizens-live-more-healthy-lives/

What do you think should be done to help clean it up further?

[yosemitemike]

The lifetime emissions can range from 20% less to 60% less than a gasoline car, depending on how its made and especially on what source you're charging it from.

So, by only comparing lifetime emissions, you are conveniently leaving out the environmental harm done in the process of strip mining for the minerals needed to make the batteries to make the EVs.  You can't be unaware of this problem since GeekyBugle has brought it up several times in detail.  I can only conclude that you are being deliberately disingenuous and deliberately presenting a false view of the costs.  In short, you are arguing in bad faith again.   

[Brad]

So, by only comparing lifetime emissions, you are conveniently leaving out the environmental harm done in the process of strip mining for the minerals needed to make the batteries to make the EVs.  You can't be unaware of this problem since GeekyBugle has brought it up several times in detail.  I can only conclude that you are being deliberately disingenuous and deliberately presenting a false view of the costs.  In short, you are arguing in bad faith again.

You're trying to argue with someone who knows fuckall about the subject matter and is simply using leftist talking points.

[oggsmash]

  Why is it people who say they are so against Carbon emissions are at the same time so for mass migration from the 3rd world to the West...where swelling the population is going to accelerate massively any carbon emissions?  Why are they always so so silent about China and India releasing emissions at MUCH MUCH higher levels than the west and especially the USA?   Almost as if they simply lie constantly to press some agenda they wont say out loud.

[Silverblade]

So, by only comparing lifetime emissions, you are conveniently leaving out the environmental harm done in the process of strip mining for the minerals needed to make the batteries to make the EVs.  You can't be unaware of this problem since GeekyBugle has brought it up several times in detail.  I can only conclude that you are being deliberately disingenuous and deliberately presenting a false view of the costs.  In short, you are arguing in bad faith again.

If you dig to the core of the issue you will understand leftist and virtue signalers in general only bring solutions that help them. It's why they only focus on air pollution because that directly affects them. The environmental damage from mining doesn't affect their daily lives. It's the NIMBY syndrome.

I guarantee if someone dropped a lithium mine in their backyard that will destroy their beautiful land and contaminate their ground water, they would resist mining for batteries. Who cares if third world people suffer if you can feel good about how you are "helping" the environment?  Throw a couple of other people's tax money to feel good about yourself.

Energy is a trade off and most people would rather trade someone else's pain than theirs.

[jhkim]

The lifetime emissions can range from 20% less to 60% less than a gasoline car, depending on how its made and especially on what source you're charging it from.

So, by only comparing lifetime emissions, you are conveniently leaving out the environmental harm done in the process of strip mining for the minerals needed to make the batteries to make the EVs.  You can't be unaware of this problem since GeekyBugle has brought it up several times in detail.  I can only conclude that you are being deliberately disingenuous and deliberately presenting a false view of the costs.  In short, you are arguing in bad faith again.

By "lifetime" I mean end to end, including both production and disposal -- i.e. including the minerals needed for the car body, engine, battery, etc.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Great commentary by Dr. Steve Turley about the debate between Jordan Petersen and the Woke clown Destiny, covering Environmentalism, Covid, History, and more.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[GeekyBugle]

I agree that neither pollution should be discounted -- but they should be evaluated fairly. I'm reading through your recent links, but they don't seem to be doing side-by-side comparison. An EV battery is good for 100k to 200k miles -- which is the equivalent of 4000 to 8000 gallons of gasoline, or about 200 to 400 barrels of crude oil. So the question is:

1) What is the damage from drilling, refining, and then burning the gasoline from 300 barrels of crude oil?
2) What is the damage from mining the materials and manufacturing one EV battery?

I don't have exact answers for these. Battery manufacture produces toxic material, but it's a question of how much is produced and how much of that will get into people's bodies -- compared to breathing in output from car exhaust like carbon monoxide, ground-level ozone, and particulates.

I do know that around 5 million people a year have early deaths from air pollution. How many would you guess have early deaths every year from battery waste? I'm skeptical that it is anywhere close to 5 million. You can say "battery waste is toxic" but that's like saying "nuclear waste is toxic". It's technically true, but nuclear waste is relatively tiny and extremely well-handled -- particularly when compared to dumping toxins directly into the air that people breath.

So the water pollution from mining the lithium doesn't count? https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1399997488/photo/greenbushes-lithium-mine.webp?b=1&s=170667a&w=0&k=20&c=_pJKX6mjys2DVjDsFz7smuxqiYFHDFXykI4LWfJLBWc=

ALL the air pollution from the mining, shipping the Lithium to China doesn't count?
All the air pollution from the manufacturing of the batteries in China doesn't count?
All the air pollution from shipping those batteries to the US?
What about the air pollution from manufacturing and shipping the EVs to the US?
What about the air pollution from producing the electricity to charge the batteries?

You KNOW I live in México City right?

GeekyBugle, how is this disagreeing with anything I said? Yes, everything should be counted, both for EVs and for gasoline cars. So it counts the pollution from mining for material for the gasoline car, shipping the gasoline car, running the refineries, shipping the gasoline to the gas stations, etc. Here's one analysis of both for several different options for lifetime emissions, for example:

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/2228291

Browsing, most other estimates are similar. The lifetime emissions can range from 20% less to 60% less than a gasoline car, depending on how its made and especially on what source you're charging it from.

Living in México City, I can see that would make you mad about air pollution. From what I read, it does seem to be getting better than in the 1990s, but it's still bad - especially NO2 and particulates. Here's the graph I'm looking at:


Source: https://thecityfix.com/blog/expanding-mexico-citys-air-quality-forecast-to-help-citizens-live-more-healthy-lives/

What do you think should be done to help clean it up further?

Assuming those comparisons aren't manipulated:

What about the OTHER environmental damage done to mine the minerals for the batteries? What about the pollution from the used batteries?

You're too busy focusing on air while it's not the only thing to consider.

Cleaning the City's air? Didn't you see the photo of the Tula Thermoelectric? Guess why they keep expanding the limitations to citizen's cars and they just can't breakthrough to a point where it's no longer needed?

Edited to add:

What page are those savings on green house gas emissions at?

[GeekyBugle]

The lifetime emissions can range from 20% less to 60% less than a gasoline car, depending on how its made and especially on what source you're charging it from.

So, by only comparing lifetime emissions, you are conveniently leaving out the environmental harm done in the process of strip mining for the minerals needed to make the batteries to make the EVs.  You can't be unaware of this problem since GeekyBugle has brought it up several times in detail.  I can only conclude that you are being deliberately disingenuous and deliberately presenting a false view of the costs.  In short, you are arguing in bad faith again.

By "lifetime" I mean end to end, including both production and disposal -- i.e. including the minerals needed for the car body, engine, battery, etc.

BUT you're ONLY focussing on gas emissions, because?

If I was a betting man I would say it's because you can't argue your way out of the TOTAL environmental damage done by EVs

[ralfy]

Bill Gates: The Net Zero transition will require the energy grid "to be about three times bigger than it is today".

"Consumers can help us by stretching to buy an electric car, or an electric heat pump, or food that's made a low emissions way."

"The rich countries owe it to the world not only to reduce their emissions, but to drive down the cost of these green products."

https://archive.is/l8M85

Exactly! So why is the Club of Rome seen as wrong? In order to meet the basic needs of the world population, we'll need at least an additional earth in terms of energy and material resources. To meet wants including EVs for personal use, three more.

BECAUSE all their predictions, since the 70s have been wrong and BECAUSE your lñeaders are buying beach front property comrade.

Then why did real data from 1972 to 2012 track the LtG standard run model?

[ralfy]

Right, and fracking took place because world conventional production peaked in 2015, which the IEA confirmed in 2010 and King predicted correctly in 1976.

If any, fracking supports what the Club of Rome said. Otherwise, there'd be no need to resort to uncoventional production in the first place.

The same with the Ehrlich wager: they were focusing on price, not diminishing returns, which is what the mining industry has been experiencing for decades:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFyTSiCXWEE

A century ago, you could get lots of high-grade copper with no heavy equipment. Now, you need the latter to get lower amounts of copper and of lower grade. It's the same with oil: you start with an energy return of a hundred barrels for each barrel used, then after several decades it goes down to three, and then you resort to fracking.

No, it proves that the Club of Rome's basic premise is wrong.  We have proved reserve than before, not less.

It's not unconventional production that we are resorting to.  It's a new method of extraction that was invented.

There is a direct connection between supply and prices.  Prices were used as a proxy for supply.

Then you come up with a new technology to access resources that were not previously accessible at an economical cost.  Saying that we are "resorting to" this doesn't change anything.

Why are you using proven reserves? That doesn't make sense, including what's technically recoverable. What you should look for is capex vs. production rate increase.

New methods of extraction is unconventional production. The depletion rates per well are higher, which is why capex is higher. Why do you think Hubbert talked about it back in 1956 but oil industries didn't resort to it until much later. Read the BP Stats report from 2012 for details.

Direct connection? When oil prices went up, demand didn't go down. When oil prices plummeted to zero or lower during the early stage of the pandemic, demand didn't soar. And do you know who sets prices? Not the end users but the ones who speculate at the bourse and negotiate with the sellers.

For the same reason, price is not a proxy for supply. Did supply soar when price plummeted during the pandemic. Did it go up after 2005 because supply fell?

Worse, did you also look at demand per day, which is 100 Mbd? You got a field with potentially 5 billion barrels. How much supply is that for the world economy? 50 days?

Finally, what economical cost? Capex has been doubling the last two decades, and in exchange for what? A third of the previous increase in oil production? And covered by increasing debt, consisting of mostly junk bonds?

[ralfy]

The lifetime emissions can range from 20% less to 60% less than a gasoline car, depending on how its made and especially on what source you're charging it from.

So, by only comparing lifetime emissions, you are conveniently leaving out the environmental harm done in the process of strip mining for the minerals needed to make the batteries to make the EVs.  You can't be unaware of this problem since GeekyBugle has brought it up several times in detail.  I can only conclude that you are being deliberately disingenuous and deliberately presenting a false view of the costs.  In short, you are arguing in bad faith again.

By "lifetime" I mean end to end, including both production and disposal -- i.e. including the minerals needed for the car body, engine, battery, etc.

BUT you're ONLY focussing on gas emissions, because?

If I was a betting man I would say it's because you can't argue your way out of the TOTAL environmental damage done by EVs

EVs have low energy returns and quantity because much of mining, at least half of manufacturing, and the bulk of shipping involve fossil fuels. Similar applies to mechanized agriculture.

Meanwhile, energy returns from fossil fuels have been dropping, from a hundred barrels for each barrel used in the 1930s to three today. Why do you think the oil industry has been resorting to not only fracking but tar sands, biofuels, natural gas, etc., with even countries like Saudi Arabia investing in nuclear and solar power?

It's like debating with Greta and her counterpart, and both living in a fantasy world: one imagines utopia based on environmentalism and the other based on the Jetsons.

[GeekyBugle]

The lifetime emissions can range from 20% less to 60% less than a gasoline car, depending on how its made and especially on what source you're charging it from.

So, by only comparing lifetime emissions, you are conveniently leaving out the environmental harm done in the process of strip mining for the minerals needed to make the batteries to make the EVs.  You can't be unaware of this problem since GeekyBugle has brought it up several times in detail.  I can only conclude that you are being deliberately disingenuous and deliberately presenting a false view of the costs.  In short, you are arguing in bad faith again.

By "lifetime" I mean end to end, including both production and disposal -- i.e. including the minerals needed for the car body, engine, battery, etc.

BUT you're ONLY focussing on gas emissions, because?

If I was a betting man I would say it's because you can't argue your way out of the TOTAL environmental damage done by EVs

EVs have low energy returns and quantity because much of mining, at least half of manufacturing, and the bulk of shipping involve fossil fuels. Similar applies to mechanized agriculture.

Meanwhile, energy returns from fossil fuels have been dropping, from a hundred barrels for each barrel used in the 1930s to three today. Why do you think the oil industry has been resorting to not only fracking but tar sands, biofuels, natural gas, etc., with even countries like Saudi Arabia investing in nuclear and solar power?

It's like debating with Greta and her counterpart, and both living in a fantasy world: one imagines utopia based on environmentalism and the other based on the Jetsons.

If only we had electric freaking roads!

Huh? Gasoline is less energy dense now than in the 30s? Or what the fuck are you talking about?

Tell me you haven't read a freaking thing I've written without telling me you haven't read a single thing I've written.

Either that or you have ZERO reading comprehension.

[yosemitemike]

Then why did real data from 1972 to 2012 track the LtG standard run model?

That doesn't change the simple fact that none of the Club of Rome's doom and gloom predictions came true.  None of Paul Erlich's predictions came true either.  Climate change alarmists also have a long track record of doom and gloom predictions that didn't come true.

Why are you using proven reserves?

Because that's the best measure of the resources that are actually available.  Production is subject to various economical and political pressures.  For example, the Biden administration blocking drilling in almost half of the National Petroleum Reserves for political reasons.

New methods of extraction is unconventional production.

Bullshit.  All methods of extraction were new method of extraction at some point.  If that means that they are unconventional methods of production, the all methods of production are unconventional methods of production.  You are are just trying to come up with some justification for why this increase in proved reserves doesn't count because it wrecks your entire line of logic by disproving the premise that it is all built on.

Direct connection? When oil prices went up, demand didn't go down. When oil prices plummeted to zero or lower during the early stage of the pandemic, demand didn't soar. And do you know who sets prices? Not the end users but the ones who speculate at the bourse and negotiate with the sellers.

Worse, did you also look at demand per day, which is 100 Mbd? You got a field with potentially 5 billion barrels. How much supply is that for the world economy? 50 days?

I tell you what.  We'll come back here in 50 days.  If were are out of oil at that time, I will admit that you are right.  That's not going to happen though.  We have been about to run out of oil since the 70s and, yet, that somehow keeps not happening.  Instead, we have substantially more proved reserves now than we had then. 

Finally, what economical cost? Capex has been doubling the last two decades, and in exchange for what? A third of the previous increase in oil production? And covered by increasing debt, consisting of mostly junk bonds?

As I already pointed out and, I suspect, you are already aware, production is affected by factors that have nothing to do with resource availability or economics and everything to do with politics.