Don’t Miss a Post. Subscribe now.

Is Going Green Really Worth It?

Headlong Into Electrification

This is a guest post. Everything that follows is by Rick Mills and does not necessarily reflects my views.

I find the ideas presented by Mills to be well presented and worthy of consideration.

Damn the consequences, Rushing headlong into electrification, the West is replacing one energy master with another, says Rick Mills. 

Emphasis in Italics Mine, Bolding His.

The United States and its allies, such as Canada, the UK, the European Union, Australia, Japan and South Korea, face a dilemma when it comes to the global electrification of the transportation system and the switch from fossil fuels to cleaner forms of energy.

On the one hand, we want everything to be clean, green and non-polluting, with COP26-inspired goals of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050; and several countries aiming to close the chapter on fossil-fuel-powered vehicles, including the United States which is seeking to make half of the country’s auto fleet electric by 2030.

Yet many of these same countries are continuing to go flat-out in their production of oil and natural gas — considered a bridge fuel between fossil fuels and renewables, wrongly imo, for environmental reasons — a/ because they want to be energy-independent; and b/ because they have to. Germany is a good example of a country that tried to switch too soon to renewable energy, retiring its nuclear and coal power plants, only to find that the wind and sun didn’t produce enough electricity. Germany is now having to rely on Russian natural gas and the burning of lignite coal to keep the lights on and homes/ businesses heated throughout the winter.

We all remember (well those that are old enough do) the long gas station lineups of the 1970s during the OPEC oil embargo. At that time, the US was almost 100% dependent on Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states for its crude oil.

Well times have changed and the US is supposedly energy-independent — in September 2019 the United States exported 89,000 barrels per day more petroleum (crude oil and petroleum products) than it imported, the first month this happened since monthly records began in 1973.

Now the materials required for a modern economy are those needed for electrification and decarbonization — metals like lithium, graphite, nickel and cobalt for EV batteries; copper for wiring, motors and charging stations, as well as renewable energy systems; silver for solar cells, and rare earths like neodymium for wind turbines.

The problem is, getting to 100% renewables, if that is even possible (I’d say more like 40%, if we’re lucky) will require more metals than are currently available in the world’s mines. Shortages are forecasted by 2030 for cobalt, copper, lithium, natural graphite, nickel and rare earths. Moreover, getting those minerals in the amounts demanded means going to some environmentally unfriendly places, including Indonesia for sulfide nickel, the DRC for cobalt, and China for rare earths.

The irony is, the rush to “go green” carries with it the simple fact that the mining of this stuff is anything but. Yet because Western countries like Canada and the US haven’t bothered to develop their own mine to electric vehicle, or mine to renewable energy plant supply chains, they are dependent on imports. EVs and solar/wind sound green, but how green are they when the materials are being imported from places like Indonesia, which allows tailings to be dumped into the sea, and the extremely polluting HPAL method of separating laterite nickel into the end product used in batteries?

It all comes down to security of supply. Western countries don’t have it, because they haven’t bothered to mine, or refine, domestically and continue to rely on imports especially from China but also South Africa and Russia.

And we can’t forget fossil fuel dependency because many countries cannot, and will not, build the infrastructure needed to decarbonize/ electrify.

They will continue to require huge amounts of coal, oil and natural gas. Even Europe, supposedly on the leading edge of “green”, relies heavily on Russian gas, as we shall see below. Japan, which has no natural resources of its own, in 2020 imported the majority of its oil from Saudi Arabia. And Australia, despite being a mining powerhouse (coal, iron ore), will by 2030 be 100% reliant on imported petroleum, due to the ongoing closure of its refineries.

Our addiction to oil means that hybrid vehicles, obviously requiring gasoline, are expected to continue outpacing full electrics for years.

When it comes to energy, we have in effect replaced one master, Saudi Arabia which ruled the global oil markets for decades, with China, which “owns” the EV supply chain. And despite eco-dreams of killing off fossil fuels, they remain very much in the picture, with Russia lording power over European gas imports, for example, and Japan and Canada continuing to rely heavily on Middle Eastern oil.

Even if we wanted to reduce our dependence on these countries, the mining industry faces significant local opposition to mineral exploration, mining, processing and smelting. Ironically, the greens who require all these minerals, to go electric, are the same people opposing their extraction.

We don’t have the metals

The adage “if it can’t be grown it must be mined” serves as a reminder that electric vehicles, transitional energy, and a green economy start with metals. The supply chain for batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, electric motors, transmission lines, 5G — everything that is needed for a green economy — starts with metals and mining.

The fossil-fueled based transportation system needs to be electrified, and the switch must be made from oil, gas, and coal-powered power plants to those which run on solar, wind and thorium-produced nuclear energy. If we have any hope of cleaning up the planet, before the point of no return, a massive decarbonization needs to take place.

Commodities consultancy Wood Mackenzie said an investment of over $1 trillion will be required in key energy transition metals over the next 15 years, just to meet the growing needs of decarbonization.

Transportation makes up 28% of global emissions, so transitioning from gas-powered cars and trucks to plug-in vehicles is an important part of the plan to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.

Kozak and O’Keefe forecast EVs will make up about 15% of new car sales by 2025, doubling to 30%, or 30 million EVs, by 2030.

A green infrastructure and transportation spending push will mean a lot more metals will need to be mined, including lithium, nickel, and graphite for EV batteries; copper for electric vehicle wiring and renewable energy projects; silver for solar panels; rare earths for permanent magnets that go into EV motors and wind turbines; and silver/ tin for the hundreds of millions of solder points necessary in making the new electrified economy a reality.

In fact, battery/ energy metals demand is moving at such a break-neck speed, that supply will be extremely challenged to keep up. Without a major push by producers and junior miners to find and develop new mineral deposits, glaring supply deficits are going to beset the industry for some time.

According to a report by UBS, a deficit in nickel will come into play this year, for rare earths in 2022, for cobalt in 2023, and in 2024, for lithium and natural graphite.

Wind and solar energy do not happen without mining, and they take unbelievable amounts of metals. Just replacing the current amount of energy demanded by coal and natural gas, let alone inevitably higher figures in future, with solar and wind, we calculated it would take over 60,000 solar farms and more than 120,000 wind farms. In all it’s about a 450% increase in renewables.

Ain’t gonna happen, folks. We will run out of metals long before we reach that level of renewable energy capacity. In fact we would be surprised if we even make it to 40%. Without a concerted and global push to mine more, the prices of the required metals will keep climbing, crimping demand for them.

In Indonesia, nickel is produced from laterite ores using the environmentally damaging HPAL technique. The advantage of HPAL is its ability to process low-grade nickel laterite ores, to recover nickel and cobalt. However, HPAL employs sulfuric acid, and it comes with the cost, environmental impact and hassle of disposing the magnesium sulfate effluent waste. The Indonesian government only recently banned the practice of dumping tailings into the ocean for new smelting operations, and it isn’t yet a permanent ban.

Chinese nickel pig iron producers in Indonesia now are looking to make nickel matte, from which to turn laterite nickel into battery-grade nickel for EVs. The process however is highly energy-intensive and polluting, as well as far more costly than a nickel sulfide operation (up to $5,000 per tonne more). According to consultancy Wood Mackenzie, the extra pyrometallurgical step required to make battery-grade nickel from matte will add to the energy intensity of nickel pig iron (NPI) production, which is already the highest in the nickel industry. We are talking 40 to 90 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per tonne of nickel for NPI, versus under 40 CO2e/t for HPAL and less than 10 CO2e/t for traditional nickel sulfide processing.

What’s the point of making supposedly “green” battery components when the refining process is so dirty?

Mining practices in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have elevated the issue of “conflict minerals” to the public consciousness, with stories of armed groups operating cobalt mines dependent on child labor, as well as in Guinea, where riots have broken out over bauxite mining.

The cost of electrification/ decarbonization

To put it bluntly, ridding the planet of fossil fuel-generated power — coal, oil, and natural gas — is untenable. Not only are solar and wind inappropriate for base-load power, because their energy is intermittent, and must be stored in massive quantities, using battery technology that is still in development, they don’t have anywhere near the energy intensity provided by fossil fuels, or nuclear.

Driven by the need to decarbonize due to increasingly apparent climate change, governments around the world right now are choosing to de-invest from oil and gas, and instead are plowing funds into renewable energies even though they aren’t yet ready to take the place of standard fossil-fueled baseload power, i.e., coal and natural gas.

We have seen this foolish endeavor playing out in Europe, where natural gas prices are hitting records due to coal plants being shut down as well as nuclear plants shelved, such as in Germany and France. The skyrocketing cost of electricity is being borne by ordinary citizens who had no part in this dumb policy of “premature decarbonization”.

Oil, gas & hybrids

What happened in Europe is important for resource investors to understand, because it could exemplify what is coming to North America, if we continue this mad dash to decarbonize without respecting our ongoing dependence on oil and gas.

NDTV lays it out nicely in an article titled, ‘Europe Sleepwalked Into an Energy Crisis That Could Last Years’.

Starting with the observation that its natural gas stockpiles are running dangerously low, the article points out that Europe was blindsided by an energy crunch because it was unprepared.

European Union

Germany is one the world’s largest natural gas importers. Data from Rystad Energy shows that in 2019, the country shipped in 55.5 billion cubic meters of gas from Russia, 27 bcm from Norway and 23.4 bcm from the Netherlands.

So much for Germany’s “energiewende” (energy transition).

What’s wrong with importing gas from Russia? The report notes that Russia has a history of interrupting natural gas flows for political gain:

This ever-growing dependence on Russia makes the EU potentially vulnerable to natural gas supply disruptions that could result from geo-political events, such as Russian meddling in the former Soviet Bloc countries. In the past, Russia has punished European countries that were selling Russian gas to Ukraine by cutting off natural gas being delivered through both Nord Stream and an existing pipeline to the Ukraine.

United States

For decades the United States imported more oil than it exported. It wasn’t until 2019 that US net imports of crude oil and finished products flipped from negative to positive, making the country energy-independent. That year, US oil production reached a record 12.2 million barrels per day. However in May 2020, the States was back to being a net oil importer, and it has oscillated since.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2005, U.S. refineries relied heavily on foreign crude oil, importing a record volume of more than 10.1 million barrels per day (b/d). About 60% of the imported crude oil came from four countries: Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, and each was responsible for between 12% and 16% of total U.S. crude oil imports that year. By 2019, U.S. crude oil import trading patterns had changed significantly. In total, U.S. crude oil imports have fallen sharply, but imports from Canada have risen steadily to 3.8 million b/d, more than twice the imports from Canada in 2005.

Exactly one year ago the US didn’t import any Saudi crude for the first time in 35 years. Bloomberg notes that 12 years prior, American refiners were routinely importing about 1 million barrels a day, the second-largest supplier to the U.S. after Canada and seen as a major security risk.

How did the US become energy-independent? It began hydraulic fracturing tight shale oil fields like the Permian, Eagle Ford, Marcellus and Bakken. Fracking may have pushed US oil production to a situation of energy independence, but it came at a huge environmental cost. Pumping a toxic mix of chemicals and proppants to liberate oil and gas from tightly packed rock layers requires huge amounts of water and has been known to seep into and pollute groundwater. Fracking also releases methane, a greenhouse gas 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, with research indicating the US oil and gas industry emits 13 million tonnes of methane annually.

In sum, the the holy grail of US energy independence has only been achieved by sacrificing the environment; air and water pollution not only costs money, but the health of people and animals living next to wells, and sometimes, their lives.

Conclusion

At the end of the day we have to ask, “Is going green really worth it?” To determine that, we first need to check whether mining all of the metals required for electrification and decarbonization is actually green. Chinese rare earths, Indonesian nickel, Congolese cobalt, are anything but.

For many years the United States and its allies bought their oil and gas from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. In recent years that dependence has eased.

At AOTH we’ve been warning for a decade the dangers of relying on fracking for anything but short term energy dependence. “The decline rate of shale gas wells is very steep. A year after coming on-stream production can drop to 20-40 percent of the original level. If the best prospects were developed first, and they were, subsequent drilling will take place on increasingly less favourable prospects.”

“My thesis is that the importance of shale gas has been grossly overstated; the U.S. has nowhere close to a 100-year supply. This myth has been perpetuated by self-interested industry, media and politicians. Their mantra is that exploiting shale gas resources will promote untold economic growth, new jobs and lead us toward energy independence.“ Bill Powers, author ‘Cold, Hungry and in the Dark: Exploding the Natural Gas Supply Myth’ in a Energy Report interview.

“Each year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts production from the nation’s tight oil and gas plays — the hydrocarbon-rich formations targeted by the U.S. fracking industry. And each year, the EIA predicts rosy prospects for the nation’s oil and gas output. David Hughes carefully peered through the EIA’s forecasts, basin by basin, comparing the agency’s assumptions against the real-world drilling data that showed faltering productivity and fast declines from many shale wells. And he concluded that the EIA’s long-term oil and gas outlook suffers from an optimism bias so extreme that it borders on fibbing.” New Report Throws Doubt on Overly Optimistic Fracking Forecasts From U.S. Government,Clark Williams-Derry

But many Western nations remain under the thumb of oil oligarchs or sultans. Take Germany, which consumes the most natural gas of any EU country, the majority of which comes from Russia. 77% of natural gas exports from Russia’s Gazprom go to the EU. Of the over €286 billion worth of natural gas imported by the EU from Not Free countries between 2005 and 2019, almost €165.3 billion worth, or nearly 58%, came from Russia.

In a world that still runs on oil, how free are Western nations, when they depend on the good graces of places like Russia, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, for their oil and gas?

How free is the West when it must go cap and hand to China, for the new electrification/ decarbonization metals?

Consider: China rules the electric vehicle supply chain. It is also a major player in renewable energy markets (solar & wind), and is building the most new nuclear power plants of any country.

In the rush to electrify/ decarbonize, is the West not just substituting one energy tyrant for another? The world’s largest consumer of commodities already has a monopoly on rare earths mining/ processing, produces the most lithium and cobalt, and dominates the graphite market.

China controls about 85% of global cobalt supply, including an offtake agreement with Glencore, the largest producer of the mineral.

Beijing also appears to be locking up nickel supply, through investments in the leading producer, Indonesia. China is working with Indonesia to develop a huge facility for developing battery-grade nickel.

According to the International Energy Agency, China processes about 90% of the world’s rare earth elements, along with 50 to 70% of lithium and cobalt.

The United States is 100% import-reliant on 13 of the 35 critical minerals the Department of the Interior has classified. They include manganese, graphite and rare earths. According to Market Intelligence data, the majority of critical minerals imported during the second quarter of 2021 came from South Africa (41.4%), with 7.9% shipped from China.

“We are dependent upon different countries, most notably China, for a number of our critical mineral resources,” S&P Global quotes Abigail Wulf, director of critical minerals strategy for Securing America’s Future Energy, a group advocating for greater US energy independence.

As China’s fist tightens on the mining of critical and green economy metals, Western politicians like Justin Trudeau, Joe Biden and Germany’s (ex-Chancellor) Angela Merkel have supported green energy/ transportation at the expense of fossil fuels.

Germany is phasing out nuclear and coal-fired plants but has not yet achieved the renewable power capacity needed to replace shuttered power-generation facilities.

It needs Russian natural gas just to keep the lights on and buildings heated. The recent decision to shutter three of its six nuclear power plants in the middle of winter is foolish and cruel. What of the millions of Germans, and other Europeans unable to afford a quadrupling of power bills, that are being left in the dark to freeze?

Think about it. Without a workable plan to transition from fossil fuels to renewables, one that does not involve natural gas shipments from Russia, burning coal, or buying petroleum products from Saudi Arabia (like Canada and Japan), and without a concerted push to mine and explore for minerals within its own borders, the West is literally giving away its energy security to two countries: China and Russia.

They must be laughing at our stupidity.

Richard (Rick) Mills
aheadoftheherd.com

Mish Comments 

That was a condensed excerpt from an even longer post by Mills. Inquiring minds may wish to give his article a closer look.

I do not expect this to change anyone’s opinion of the question Mills asked “Is Going Green Really Worth It?

Indeed, Mills did not directly answer the question himself.

However, Mills raises some very important questions about a headlong rush into allegedly green energy without having a plan as to what it really takes. 

Green advocates and economic illiterates praise AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, etc., but when did any of them address the questions Mills’ raised?

When did they discuss real costs of their proposals?

The answer is never. And Germany is living proof right now of what happens. 

50 Years of Dire Climate Forecasts and What Actually Happened

Let’s review 50 Years of Dire Climate Forecasts and What Actually Happened

2014 John Kerry: “We have 500 days to Avoid Climate Chaos” discussed Sec of State John Kerry and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabious at a joint meeting.

I list 21 predictions and what actually happened.

Also, please recall my January 2019 post Ocasio-Cortez Says World Will End in 12 Years.

Huge Disconnect 

In case you haven’t noticed, there’s A Huge Disconnect Between Climate Rhetoric and Doing Anything About It

The reason is cost. People are waking up to the fact there are massive costs now to protect against alleged disaster decades from now. 

To make the threat appear immediate, every storm, fire, hurricane, snowflake (and lack of snowflakes) is blamed on not doing enough.

Goals But No Plan

The unfortunate bottom line is we have forever changing goals but no real plans.

So even if you think we need to do something, how do we do it that does not use up all the metals and pollute the world getting them while driving up inflation in the process? 

And how do we force China to stop using coal without a huge inflationary response?

Meanwhile, please note Germany’s Surrender to the Greens Forced a Second Surrender to Russia.

Biden, AOC, and Warren seem hell bent on forcing the US to follow the path of Germany.

Thanks for Tuning In!

Like these reports? If so, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen.

Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish 

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Comments to this post are now closed.

54 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
prumbly
prumbly
4 years ago
So how is this “energy transition” working out for the green wackjobs?
Last year, 2021, more COAL was used than any year in history.
Last year, 2021, more NATURAL GAS was used than any year in history.
Oil consumption hasn’t yet fully recovered, but is expected to exceed prior levels within a couple of years.
prumbly
prumbly
4 years ago
After 30 years of massive ‘green’ investment, today less than 3% of the world’s energy comes from wind and solar combined. And global energy demand increases by about 3% every two years.
What a joke!
Rbm
Rbm
4 years ago
I would say as a country we should embrace (green energy) for diversification along.  Multi sources of energy make us less reliant on foreign powers who may seek to use energy as leverage. Think Russia gas to german and Ukraine policy.  
In past the us would lead in any new technology which would mean jobs and growth.   
SHOfan
SHOfan
4 years ago
Gonna have to start with: no more private jets,
no more 20,000 lb. limousines that are flown all over the world to meetings.
No more $100 million fighter jets that burn thousands of pounds a fuel a minute. 
No more airlines flying people all over the globe, on vacation. 
Closing thousands of gov’t office building, in the northeast, that consume gigantic amounts of energy, for no real value. 
prumbly
prumbly
4 years ago
Reply to  SHOfan
You forgot to add compulsory freezing to death for old people. We will need that too.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
4 years ago
I am sure President Cluster Fudge has a plan, just as he had a plan for Covid.
Dumb people and Democrats no doubt believe that Biden can save us from global warming, climate change, whatever; however, at the end of the day, all countries want the same living standard as the US, which means the ONLY solution is a much smaller human population.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
“Going Green” has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with any of it. Noone in any position of influence cares one whit. The “green” part, is just ad copy to fool the easily fooled.
Instead, the point is solely to redistribute wealth:
  – FROM highly complex and competitive industries and areas where any earnings come from tight margins, and where only the leanest and most competent is able to stay competitive.
  – And TO silly makework-shops of incompetent dilettante children playing office; where “earnings” come simply from free money handed out to the the dumbest of the dumb, in exchange for nothing more than childish fantasies, made up hype and idiotic Flash Gordon reenactments.
Electric cars are “the future” in The West, solely because Western makes can no longer profitably compete with Toyota. “Electric cars,” otoh, are so simple any idiot can build them. But noone, not even Toyota, can build them profitably. So instead of the leanest, most competent and competitive “winning”; “the winners” in BEVs, and even more so wrt BEVs vs proper cars, are instead entirely up to arbitrary acts of governments, central banks and implied government backstops and bailouts.
Ditto the whole AI idiocy. Real, open environment human replacing AI is no meaningfully closer now than it was when Marvin Minsky (more understandably perhaps back then) got suckered in. “We” still can out-AI a mosquito. But who cares, as long as government can transfer vast sums to the dilettante children of connected idiots, under pretense of “venture capital?” It’s not as if any of the “companies” the children play office at, have any need to ever actually make any real money anyway, as long as the dilettantes can instead “make money” from stock options, “exit strategies” and other games that dumb little children believe makes getting fed stolen loot by central banks sound somehow better.
Effectively, countries “go green” once financialization and debasement has transferred enough wealth; From the competents who built and ran highly developed, hard-as-heck competitive industries evolved over decades; TO the kind of complete and utter rank idiots who “make money” on “Wall Street”, from their “home”, from their “portfolio”, their “investments” or whatever else it is that dumb and useless people call the makework they do in exchange for being handed stolen money from the debasers. Since the dumb ones can’t do anything of value anyway (it takes at least some modicum of talent, in a competitive world); once they have had a large enough share of wealth transferred their way to hold the largest sway over government (which, like all else, is always and everywhere for sale to the highest bidder); complete, trivially obvious, idiocies can be relied upon to replace competence-requiring industry, as the thing that the monkeys call “the future.”
That’s all there is to it. “Green” is just a convenient marketing meme, for getting the dimbulbs excited enough to pump their fists for ever more redistribution and wealth transfers to the dumb and useless.
billybobjr
billybobjr
4 years ago
I get a laugh out of this, everywhere you look you will see 1 person in and SUV or huge truck,  now the energy thing is mostly bull  but if you think you are going to get the Suburban mom out of her SUV and into and energy hybrid civic type car well I wish you good luck . You see they think they are entitled to get what they want, we all do . Look at the people that push this crap they are the biggest polluters and don’t even pretend to try and practice what they preach ,they are hypocrites . Studies show that a little fiat type hybrid  will do what most people need 90 percent of the time. 
Just like 95 percent all the 4 wheel drive or all wheel drive vehicle are never needed by the people who drive them they are less efficient . houses that are 3000 square feet and up everywhere along with 2nd and third homes that set empty much of the time . Waste , waste and more waste  everyone thinks if they can afford they should get it . There is a mindset that is locked in and people used to be more energy conscious 40 years ago than they are today . I don’t know how it gets solved but my guess is it takes a major shock or something .  
Zardoz
Zardoz
4 years ago
Reply to  billybobjr

… and the vast majority of the trips in those cars are unnecessary.  It’s stupid stacked high with stupid topping and a stupid cherry on top.

KidHorn
KidHorn
4 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
True. I have a green neighbor who drives a hybrid car. She told me she was doing it for the planet. I drive a honda odyssey. I compared my mileage with hers and calculated her driving produces more CO2 than my driving. Not even close. She drives a lot more than I. She also has a fire pit in her backyard and several times a week she lights a fire and sips wine next to it. I find most green people to be incredibly dumb. I would say hypocritical, but I think to be hypocritical you have to have some knowledge of what you’re doing.
Zardoz
Zardoz
4 years ago
I didn’t buy my Tesla to go green so much as to not have to go to the gas station …. And that it’s the fastest car I’ve ever owned. The Fast and Furious guys still try to race it, often with a little tantrum when they get smoked. I like keeping even with them till they hit third, and then it’s bye bye ricerboi!
Yes, I am still essentially a teenager…
Doug78
Doug78
4 years ago
Perhaps we should define “going green” first because it means different things to different people. Are we talking about limiting CO2 to managable levels or going full Neolithic?
Zardoz
Zardoz
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
Ultimately  humans produce 4 things: Sewage, garbage, pollution, and humans.
The greenest thing you can do is not have kids. 
Doug78
Doug78
4 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
Do you know that nature produces all of that also and by itself even if we are not here? The comet that killed the dinosaurs really did a job of creating a global wasteland. Not having kids will not make any difference whatsoever to the planet in the short, medium and longterm. It will remove those who choose that path from the gene pool thus confirming that evolution does happen. The unsuitble do not pass on their genes.
Zardoz
Zardoz
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
Where are the landfills that predate human existence ? The plastic? The rotten old buildings and concrete chunks?
EVERYTHING is a product of nature, including uranium and arsenic. That doesn’t mean it’s healthy to be around.
Doug78
Doug78
4 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
Nature even ran a nuclear reactor for several hundred thousands years a billion and a half years ago which I find impressive. You are right everything is a product of nature and we just have to be more careful so we can still keep on but we should not destroy civilization to do it. That would be counterproductive and frankly the Earth without humans has no interest for me because I am human.
BowserB46
BowserB46
4 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
And when your Tesla dies, will its remains be part of America’s Chernobyl landfill due to toxic discarded lithium ion batteries?
prumbly
prumbly
4 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
“EVERYTHING is a product of nature”
Yeah right.. they grow iPhones on trees in Taiwan
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
4 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
The second greenest thing you can do is not have personal transportation.
thimk
thimk
4 years ago
Go for the low hanging CO2 fruit .   Shutting down the worst 5% coal powered plants would cut electricity’s carbon emissions by 75%. Makes sense to me.
Cocoa
Cocoa
4 years ago
Going Nuclear with modern, smaller, neighborhood reactors is plenty safe. There is no real danger as long as the system is smaller. Honestly any energy system requires multiple sources. We have cheap and clean natural gas for a good long time. Solar and wind can trickle charge the system. Hydro when it works. And the push for EVs is nonsense. Good public transit is the only cure for reliance on personal vehicles. Having personal EVs is a total waste of resources for rich white people as well
Zardoz
Zardoz
4 years ago
Reply to  Cocoa
I want a reactor in my Tesla.
thimk
thimk
4 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
Sorry you must have a DeLorean . 
Dutoit
Dutoit
4 years ago
The only technology used now for solar energy is the solar panel. But maybe the solar furnace would need less rare minerals.
thimk
thimk
4 years ago
Another example of a proposed solar farm . This one the largest in the USA . And yes these installations occupy a large footprint,, usually  existing farmland.
Zardoz
Zardoz
4 years ago
Reply to  thimk
There is an ocean of desert in the west that would serve perfectly.
KidHorn
KidHorn
4 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
Most is too far away from where it’s consumed.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
4 years ago
Reply to  thimk
Incredibly stupid idea driven by hype and subsidies. Replace corn fields with solar panel fields!
vboring
vboring
4 years ago

You have to start with the question of whether going green is possible before addressing whether it is worth it.Part of the framing for the question of whether it is possible has to include continued rapid expansion of low income countries.Properly phrased, the answer is that globally no fuels will be taken off the table. Can you imagine what would happen if a rapidly growing India and China were told that they couldn’t import Australian coal anymore because the rich countries emitted too much over the last century?Insanity. We’ll use all fuels for the foreseeable, hopefully including a significant ramp up of nuclear energy coming out of China. 

Dutoit
Dutoit
4 years ago
Unfortunately “Is Going Green Really Worth It?” is not the only question.
Another one:
“Can we go on using oil, gas and (ordinary) nuclear plants?”
The answer is NO, there are less and less oil, gas and uranium remaining under the ground.
whirlaway
whirlaway
4 years ago
For green energy to be practical, the overall per capita energy consumption has to come down significantly.   That means mass transit almost everywhere, with very little use of personalized transport.    The idea that we would still be able to drive our own cars, but all the cars will instead be powered by green energy, is laughable.   

It also means a major shift away from non-vegetarian diets to mostly vegetarian ones.     

Sadly, the entire world seems to be going in the opposite direction.   There is far more personalized transport now, even in the most populous countries like China and India, and their diets have become more non-vegetarian than ever before.
Zardoz
Zardoz
4 years ago
Reply to  whirlaway
Gotta endorse the mostly veg diet. Dropped 35 lbs and feel really good.  When I do eat meat, it’s high quality steak, and the experience is transcendent.
garryl44
garryl44
4 years ago
Ok many valid points yet technology is and will continue to advance.  Didn’t have time to look for the source but in materials used, cost, time to charge battery advances will astound over the short term and for sure over the long term.  We will never move 100% from fossil fuels so conserving what remains for the long term and specific uses technologically impossible to replace is common sense.  The main thing that bothers me is this issue should not be one that is politicized and would not be if we had never legalized bribery of politicians. 
PreCambrian
PreCambrian
4 years ago
It is easy to write an article like this when you don’t provide any footnotes and references. You can’t check the facts. I would agree that the world will not run on 100% renewables but the answer to his question “Is it worth it?” will soon play out and as we watch billions die the survivor’s might say no but the dead would probably say yes.
It is somewhat contradictory that the author is so concerned about the effects some types of pollution associated with mining but not very concerned about the effects of pollution caused by fossil fuels. The author also the argument that there will be problems in other countries that we cannot control. That may be somewhat true but if both the United States and China imposed trade sanctions on Indonesia then I am sure that Indonesia would find a way to control the pollution from its mining and minerals processing.
This is just another article to raise doubt to prevent any political progress and keep current profits flowing to individuals and companies with established investments in the current energy structure.  If an energy transition isn’t going to work then these groups would not be fighting it so vehemently since they would have nothing to worry about. This obfuscation method works well on all sorts of problems and that is why the United States has gone backward (in almost all respects) for many years. 
Governments have done a poor job in researching and publicizing various alternative roadmaps to achieving a viable energy transition. There are almost always solutions to problems but there will always be “winners” and “losers” for each decision. But the way that our system “works” is that the current “winners” do everything they can to delay the inevitable. We have to be forced into it in order to make a political decision. Only this time the delay will cost many billions of lives and many quadrillions of dollars.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
Reply to  PreCambrian
“but not very concerned about the effects of pollution caused by fossil fuels.”
It’s because fossil fuels can be burned almost completely clean, without any pollution, while still providing massive amounts of net energy. While they do contain toxins as recovered, they do so only in very limited amounts. For the most part, they’re almost pure hydrocarbons. Even coal can be scrubbed, and still provide huge net energy from combustion. The processes required to burn them cleanly, are also very well understood. Those processes are not as cheap as not giving a toot and just smogging up surroundings, but neither are they prohibitive, nor as-of-yet-not-understood.
QTPie
QTPie
4 years ago
Given current technologies and mineral extraction capacity there really aren’t a lot of good options to seriously advance decarbonization. Under these constraints, I really only see a limited set of solutions to achieve meaningful decarbonization:
Until some novel technology comes about which allows for truly cost-effective, long-term stationary storage capacity for the electric grid, thus allowing renewables to really take over baseload electric generation, Lithium-ion based batteries should be prioritized for mobile applications (EVs) where they offer the most bang-for-the-buck. If this is not done, then due to the competition from stationary battery storage applications, EVs will continue to be considerably more expensive than ICE vehicles, which will greatly slow down EV adoption.
Build a lot more nuclear using currently-deployed best available technology. The latest generation of fission nuclear plants use passive safety systems and are inherently much, much safer than the reactors that have been involved in accidents which are used as examples of why supposedly we shouldn’t build nuclear plants. The argument against nuclear is akin to saying that no one should drive cars anymore because during accidents, 1970s-era Ford Pintos would catch fire when tapped in the rear by something. The real problem with latest-generation nuclear is NOT safety, it’s that the West has lost the ability to construct nuclear plants in an efficient and cost effective manner. This problem must be addressed and solved.
By concentrating on these two issues, meaningful decarbonization can be achieved!
Dr_Novaxx
Dr_Novaxx
4 years ago
Considering that plants & trees require CO2 to survive and thrive through photosynthesis, and commercial greenhouses promote vigorous plant growth by supplementing their atmospheres with CO2, I think the best way to green up the planet is to maximize our CO2 emissions and fossil fuel usage is one of the best ways to do that.
Jmurr
Jmurr
4 years ago
Reply to  Dr_Novaxx
And plant billions of trees. A low cost investment that will actually reduce greenhouse gases. 
thimk
thimk
4 years ago
Reply to  Jmurr
yes , here is an interesting data point from visual capitalist.
whirlaway
whirlaway
4 years ago
Reply to  Dr_Novaxx
Well, increasing fossil fuel usage has gone hand in hand with increasing deforestation.   The more energy we use, the more of other resources that we use as well and that includes forests.
Tex
Tex
4 years ago
Decline of vegetation …. Storms – Tempests ….  search Bertha Dudde 1888
Pollution of air – water – food ….  search Bertha Dudde 6855
Doug78
Doug78
4 years ago

It was a
nice article but short on detailed data about the EU so I have decided to fill this void
by posting a study done by the European Commission Quarterly Report on Gas
Markets in the EU second quarter 2021 in order to give you some hard figures so
you can make up your own mind. I concentrate on LNG because we probably have a game-changing situation for Europe here. For those of you who are visual it has lots of colorful charts and graphs but unfortunatly no animations, songs or dances. 

EU Commission Study:

In the US
natural gas is very cheap because it is essentially a waste product of oil
fraking which makes us very competitive in several industries. Because it is
cheap the LNG (liquefied Natural Gas) terminals that a few years before were
built to import gas have been quite rapidly repurposed to export gas and many
additional terminals have been already built and more on the way. The US is now
the largest exporter of LNG in the world now and it does change the equation
for Europe.  

Russia furnishes 45% of the
EU’s gas needs. It is mostly by pipe with some by LNG. Norway supplies 23% and
the rest is Non-Russian LNG of which the US is the top supplier. The EU is planning
on using more LNG imports and less pipeline gas in the coming years contrary to
what Russia says and wants.  The EU report
clearly states that the switch from pipe to LNG is because of security reasons;
they don’t trust Russia for some reason.

If you look
at figure 24 and 25 of the EU study we see that US gas prices are way below
others and that US LNG is highly competitive. There are more and more LNG ships
sailing the seas and more being built. The added value of LNG gas is that the
ships sail to wherever the prices are the best and that creates a very
responsive market. When gas process went through the roof in the EU recently
ships from the US diverted to Europe and broke the price rise quite nicely. LNG
is flexible and pipelines are not. LNG gives Europe freedom to choose suppliers
and that is a very important factor. The EU just classified nuclear as green which means nuclear will have financing and several countries such as France have announce nuclear building projects. If Germany doen’t want nuclear that their choice but their choice cannot be imposed on the other countries now.

I am sure
that you are aware of the really weird ultimatum Russia gave the US and NATO
recently where Russia said clearly that they want their Soviet era zone of
influence back or there will be war or something like that. The US, the EU and
NATO rejected it yesterday. That doesn’t make Russia look like a reliable
energy partner. The 2014 Ukraine invasion did not bear the fruit that Russia
expected but had the opposite effect and Europe acted accordingly.  Russia’s influence on Europe’s energy markets
is diminishing and they know it and can’t do anything about it.

Felix_Mish
Felix_Mish
4 years ago
This posting comes across as a wail from someone who wants to shout from a street corner, “The world is ending!”
OK. The world is ending. And? What do you propose? And do you think the problems you identify are unsolvable?
It’s not written by a problem solver.
That said, does his list of problems with subbing electricity from multiple sources for transportation fossil fuels tell us that such a substitution can’t be done? Such would be an interesting prediction.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
Reply to  Felix_Mish
“OK. The world is ending. And?”
Upside is: Only those clueless enough to be sufficiently anthropocentric and navel gazing to believe they and theirs are in any way capable of ending anything all that meaningful; are all that worried about the world meaningfully “ending.” The world just slowly changes as it keeps spinning around. Incentivizing those competent enough to matter, to adapt to the changes.
Another way to look at it: By the time humanity amasses tools and powers powerful enough to pose a real risk to the earth itself, humanity will no longer be bound by, hence dependent on, its ancestral planet. And that’s some ways off, even in Musk’s imagination, to put it mildly.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
So…the sensible path is to use the natural gas until we can go mostly nuke with a  newer, safer generation, which is already being  rolled out. It’s simply the only path that comes close to being doable, never mind the author’s point about environmental damage. Nothing comes without environmental damage of some kind, except powering down, which is something nobody wants to talk about.
People like Warren, and  most Americans concerned about climate change for that matter, are woefully ignorant about EROI and the way baseload power makes  the world go around, as far as generating electricity.There is no renewables free lunch. 
Fission power only gets us out a generation or two, and by then hopefully we have a more elegant means of power that doesn’t harm the planet. Maybe. I hope so.
Zardoz
Zardoz
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Fusion is still only 40 years away…
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
“So…the sensible path is to……..”
The sensible path, as always and everywhere, is to not have all manners of arbitrary opinions about what some dude named “we” should be doing, on account of ever changing, mostly imaginary, things which noone fully understands.
We got to where we currently are, not on account of any dinosaur deeming and finding and deciding and judging what “they” had to to to get there. And nothing meaningful has changed since then.
shamrock
shamrock
4 years ago
Peak metal.  Sounds a lot like peak oil.  We found more oil, I’m guessing we will find more metals.
Dr_Novaxx
Dr_Novaxx
4 years ago
Reply to  shamrock
It does sound like “peak oil,” but remember, “rare earth metals” are called rare for good reason.  These are very difficult to find and expensive to mine.  No one has ever called oil or natural gas “rare.”
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
4 years ago
Reply to  Dr_Novaxx
However, finding cheap oil or natural gas is becoming rare. Fracked or tarsand oil has very low EROI.
Siliconguy
Siliconguy
4 years ago
Reply to  shamrock
The problem isn’t finding the metals, it’s the politics of mining them. I am trained in extractive metallurgy and worked at a gold mine, but had to shift to a different industry because Clinton, Gore, and Babbitt, with a lot of support from the coastal elites, did everything they could to kill mining. 
The College of Mines and Earth Resources at the U. of Idaho was closed in the early 2000s due to no enrollment, due to no job prospects. Several other colleges also closed their mining programs. At the moment even training a new generation of mining people would be difficult. 
Zardoz
Zardoz
4 years ago
Reply to  shamrock
There is that asteroid belt, just sitting there, waiting… though I wonder what the effects of introducing large amounts of various elements into the ecosphere will be.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
Reply to  shamrock
“We found more oil,”
Not nearly as cheap, though…. Hubbard no doubt overestimated the insensitivity of the post-peak downward slope to additional resources being thrown at combatting it, but he did call the peak in “cheaply” recoverable oil pretty accurately.
As an aside: Shale oil, which is what has “saved” oil output, differs from traditional oil in that it is recovered by huge numbers of independent, quick to both form and fold, operators; facing a much simpler regulatory environment. Which allows for much shorted ooda loops (in defense jargon), and much more real time experimentation. Rather than grand plans about something far out in the future, hatched by largely insulated hacks operating in gigantic “public-private partnerships” blah, blah. That’s not accidental. Unregulated swarms learning from each other, appropriating new knowledge and innovating in continuous babysteps, all with as little externally imposed friction as possible, simply works. Pretty much universally. Something self-importantly attempted moonshots by self important elites, just possibly may have done at most once (the actual moonshot).
davebarnes2
davebarnes2
4 years ago
Anything that screws the camel jockeys of Saudi Arabia is good by me.
Cf. Mohamed Bone Saw.
Anything that screws the Russian dictator is good by me.
Cf. Vladimir Putin.

Decorate Your Walls with Mish Fine Art Images

Click each image to view details or purchase in the store.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.