Green Transition? ExxonMobil Predicts Steady Oil Demand For The Next 25 Years
ExxonMobil produced a report on Monday that anticipated oil demand reaching a “plateau” in 2030 and remaining fairly stable for the next 20 years: A prediction far out of line with political narratives of a “transition to green energy.”
ExxonMobil’s “plateau” of oil demand was calculated at 102.2 million barrels per day, which is roughly what global demand worked out to last year.
The report predicted this equilibrium would be maintained by the developing world dramatically increasing oil consumption while the U.S. and Europe scale back their demand.
The overall vision of the report was a much slower, limited, and realistic “transition” than environmentalist politicians have demanded.
If the report’s projections are correct, the world will still be getting more than half of its energy from fossil fuels by 2050, but emissions will decline by 25 percent thanks to cleaner and more efficient methods of burning those fuels.
“Renewables will play an important role. So will oil and natural gas,” ExxonMobil predicted.
Coal also reportedly has a key role to play despite being one of the fuels most despised by the climate change movement.
The report envisioned oil and gas providing 54 percent of global energy by 2050, followed by “renewables” (wind, solar, and hydropower) at 15 percent, then coal at 13 percent.
The top five energy sources were rounded out with bioenergy at ten percent and nuclear power at six percent.
Bioenergy is, for the most part, plant matter converted into liquid fuel – ethanol and methane derived from the manure of herbivorous animals, for example.
One reason for the growing interest in bioenergy is that it can be combined with coal burning to maintain the energy output of coal with lower emissions.
This is also one reason environmentalists are turning sour on bioenergy, combined with their belief that it releases too much carbon into the atmosphere, driving climate change.
Coal plus bioenergy hitting 23 percent of global power generation in 2050, while oil and gas continue to account for more than half, is not the “energy transition” climate activists had in mind.
ExxonMobil’s prediction for oil demand was notably higher than that of rival BP, which projected demand of just 75 million barrels per day (versus ExxonMobil’s 102 million) in a similar report produced this year.
Both of those projections are far higher than the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) vision of 55 million BPD consumption in a truly climate-sensitive 2050.
However, even ExxonMobil’s bullish forecast is lower than that of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which said oil demand will reach 116 million BPD by 2045.
ExxonMobil analysts were quite insistent that BP got it wrong, and the IEA was simply daydreaming.
The Texas oil company warned politicians and investors that making plans based on less than 102 million BPD consumption – or using raw political power to try to force demand below that level – would result in a global oil shock, potentially increasing the price of crude oil by 400 percent or more.
***************************************************
Stick to Finance, Financial Times; Weather is Not Getting Worse
A recent article in the Financial Times (paywalled) features a discussion between writer Attracta Mooney and Celeste Saulo, the current secretary-general of the United Nations World Meteorological Organization. Claims made in the post include that 2023 and 2024 were the hottest years on record, that recent global wildfires and drought in parts of the Mediterranean are caused by climate change, and that extreme weather in general is getting worse. These claims are false. Data undermine and often directly contradict such assertions.
The article, titled “Meteorologist Celeste Saulo: ‘Climate change is not a movie. This is real life’,” is mostly a flowery biographical piece about Saulo, whom the author sat down with to enjoy an insultingly decadent French lunch in Geneva, Switzerland, while they discussed how the rest of us need to cut way back on our standard of living. Writer Mooney begins the piece by discussing how it was hot in Geneva, implying that “almost 30°C” (86°F) is very hot for August. A quick search online shows that while on the high end of the spectrum, it is still within Geneva’s normal range for August; highs in the 80s are not unusual for Geneva as summer nears its end.
Mooney writes “[w]ith wildfires burning in Greece and Turkey, large chunks of the Mediterranean parched as drought spreads across the region, and all just weeks after the world experienced its hottest days on record,” continuing that 2023 “was the hottest on record and 2024 is on course to be even warmer.”
Saulo concurred with Mooney’s framing. Mooney goes further to report that the U.N. secretary-general, Saulo’s boss, agrees that “we need to start adapting to a warming world where wildfires, heatwaves, floods, droughts and other extreme weather events are more intense.”
The problem is, all of this is false, and as a meteorologist Saulo should know this.
Wildfires are certainly not becoming more intense or widespread, for one. Global wildfire tracking done by NASA satellites as well as the European Space Agency show that there has been a gradual decline in global burned area, not an increase.
Drought is likewise not becoming more of a problem, and the region that Mooney chose to highlight, the Mediterranean, is explicitly one which is known for having hot, dry summers. The Mediterranean even has a climate type named after it, the “Mediterranean climate,” which describes a climate with “irregular rainfall with most of the rainfall in winter.”
Also, the United Nations, which employs Saulo, reports with “high confidence” that precipitation has actually increased over the mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere at least, and has “low confidence” about negative trends globally, as discussed in Climate at a Glance: Drought.
When it comes to the “hottest year on record,” much of that media frenzy was just that – media hype lacking factual basis to make the claim.
There is plenty of evidence, such as results from the carbon-dating of trees from the middle ages recently exposed by retreating glaciers, which points to other periods in relatively recent history being hotter than at present.
Also, a lot of the “record breaking heat” measurements were merely tenths of a degree hotter than previous measurements, which is hardly alarming, and are likely either statistical anomalies resulting from the reanalysis of data put out by flawed climate models or the result of the biased urban heat island effect, as discussed Climate Realism, here, here, and here, for example.
Data was also misused; for example, many stories in July 2023 breathlessly claimed that the 3rd and 4th of July were the hottest days of all time based on a “dataset” that was not actually displaying measured temperatures, or data at all but but rather modelled simulations of temperatures. The University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer was where the claim originated. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization publicly distanced itself from the claim, explaining that the model output is “not suitable” as real temperature measurements for the purpose of keeping a climate record.
There is in fact any trend of increasingly extreme weather, as Saulo must know, otherwise why would the only evidence she cites for the claim be the alleged “28 disaster events” in the United States which cost “at least $1bn each in 2023.” As a writer for the Financial Times, surely Mooney knows that the costs of disasters are not necessarily evidence of worsening disasters, at all; other factors go into it, like the increasing value of property and the expanding bullseye effect. Climate Realism has pointed this out several times, including here, here, and here.
The juxtaposition throughout the article of the two discussing climate change and policy, including how people need to change the way they eat and take vacations, with frequent breaks to discuss how nice their lunch in prosperous Geneva was, was a bizarre writing choice for a journalist trying to emphasize urgency when it comes to climate action. The Financial Times should stick to what it is known for – financial news and analysis—and leave the climate puff pieces to other outlets, especially if the depths of their climate reporting efforts are to uncritically publish falsehoods.
https://climaterealism.com/2024/08/stick-to-finance-financial-times-weather-is-not-getting-worse/
***************************************************EV driver exposes major problem with repairing an electric car: 'I thought it was a misprint'
An electric car owner has lashed out at the expensive cost to repair a vehicle.
The Victorian panel beater was left stunned after he was quoted $3,000 for a front bumper replacement for his MG EV.
His story comes as mechanics reveal repairing electric vehicles are substantially more expensive than their petrol competitors.
'I thought it was a misprint but no, that's the cost,' the panel beater wrote online.
'I looked for a second-hand bar, no go! Bugger all availability. My last phone call I got very lucky, only one available in Melbourne I could find and it’s the same colour.'
He drove some 500km to collect the bumper, which had some chips in its paint, from a wrecker for $770.
Sydney Hybrid and Electric Cars owner Gerry Marson said replacement and repair costs are indeed high in the industry and predicts the situation will be further exacerbated if cheap EVs from China flood the Australian market.
He said there is no information on where spare parts for the vehicles would come from.
‘It's crazy. The government should be responsible,' he told Yahoo.
'The problem is, they (Chinese EVs) will sell well as people gravitate to these vehicles as they're cheap.'
He said an EV mechanic's job was already difficult as they were required to run diagnostics on sophisticated technological components.
Mr Marson said sourcing specialist mechanics and having to buy repair parts from overseas mean a major failure in an EV could cost between $10,000 and $15,000.
He predicts a large number of EVs will be scrapped when owners are hit with massive mechanic bills on a cheap, older EV cars.
‘As problems start to occur, you cannot get this and you can’t get that. It doesn’t matter whether it’s diesel, petrol, hybrid or EV if you have an engine or software problem. You can’t even change a headlight without software,’ he said.
Mr Marson revealed he recently endured a troubling ordeal with an unnamed Chinese manufacturer who insisted he pay freight costs on warranty parts – additional costs that would be passed onto the customer.
However, he says the cost of all repairs has risen since he started working in the automotive industry, linked to the rising price of technologies for both electric and petrol powered vehicles.
‘EVs are more expensive to repair but overall, even a petrol engine water pump can cost between $600 to $1000,' Mr Marson said.
'That would be $50 in my day, those days are gone. All this modern technology all around us comes at a huge cost.’
Australians with older EVs have been blindsided by the amount of technology they’ve had to replace in their cars.
Many are content with the operation of the internal motor, and the batteries which are expected to wear slightly with use over time.
The Electric Vehicle Council of Australia states the current costs for servicing an EV are about $300 to $400 cheaper than a combustion vehicle per year.
However, when the cars require structural repairs, owners feel the pinch.
One report by American vehicles collision technology and insights firm Mitchell found EVs were nearly 20 per cent more costly to repair following an accident than a petrol or diesel vehicle in the States.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13801317/EV-driver-mechanic-replacement-expensive.html
************************************************Australian Greens plan to drive most landlords out of business
The Greens have their eyes firmly focused on winning over renters at the next election, with a new policy aimed at giving tenants more power in resolving disputes with their landlords.
The Greens have announced plans to establish a National Renters Protection Authority (NRPA) which would only deal with tenancy disputes, including enforcing national minimum standards the party has put forward, covering ventilation, heating, cooling and insulation.
Costed at $200m a year by the parliamentary budget office, based on the Greens rental policies, the NRPA is proposed to have 1,000 staff across the nation “allowing them to investigate rental breaches as well as offering advocacy, advice and education to renters all around the country”.
The Greens say investigators with the proposed body would be able to issue fines of up to $18,780 to real estate agencies found to have breached the rules, as well as on-the-spot fines of up to $3,756. The fines would increase for “serial offenders”.
The agency would take the place of state and territory administrative tribunals, which are often overwhelmed with rental disputes, particularly over bond payments.
With polling showing that a hung parliament will be a likely outcome at the next election, the Greens are looking to hold the balance of power and see one of Australia’s forgotten demographics – its 7 million tenants – as one of the pathways.
The proposed agency would sit as the centrepiece of the Greens’ array of rental policies, which include a two-year rental freeze and ongoing caps of 2% for increases, measures the government is not entertaining as part of its own suite of housing policies.
The minor party also wants the right to guaranteed lease renewals and access to five-year leases, arguing tenants deserve better security when it comes to their rental properties.
The government responded to growing anger from tenants earlier in the year by convening the state and territory leaders for a national cabinet to discuss rental reforms. The result was an agreement to work towards national minimal standards for properties, consistency on reasonable grounds for eviction and limiting rental increases to once a year.
But little has changed and with growing anger, the Greens see an electoral advantage.
The party’s leader, Adam Bandt, said both major parties had abandoned renters, treating them as “second class citizens”.
“Unlimited rent increases should be illegal. Unliveable rentals should be illegal. That’s what a National Renters Protection Authority would achieve,” he said.
“Labor and the Liberals think they can tinker around the edges with a fundamentally broken housing system but renters will punish them at the ballot box.”
The party’s housing spokesperson, Max Chandler-Mather said the nation needed an agency dedicated to renters.
“What’s the point of minimum standards for renters if there’s nobody to call when the landlord or real estate breaks the rules?” he said.
“There will be no more pleading with the landlord to send a plumber, fix the heater or send an electrician – it’s your right to have a livable rental home, and the Greens will make that a reality.”
The housing minister, Clare O’Neil, has said she is “intensely concerned” about Australia’s rental crisis and promised “profound and transformative” investment from the government to increase housing supply.
But the government has not changed its policy positions. Labor, after fierce negotiation with the Greens, which included more immediate funding for social and affordable housing, passed its housing future fund that is touted to build an additional 30,000 homes a year.
Its shared equity plan, help to buy, and the development incentive build-to-rent remain stalled in the Senate, with Labor and the Greens locked in a negotiation impasse.
The Coalition has also withheld support, unless the government agrees to its super for housing policy, another measure Labor has previously ruled out.
On Sunday, Liberal senator Andrew Bragg raised the possibility of withholding GST from the states unless they accelerated domestic housebuilding, which has not previously been raised as one of the Coalition’s policies. Bragg said “everything was under consideration”.
***************************************
All my main blogs below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment