I am sure you have covered the fact that we get a lot more than gas and diesel from oil, we get lubricants, medicines, plastics, road materials, roofing, propane, wax, etc etc etc - just where does one expect to get / synthesize all of that - and if you can, at what multiple of cost 2X? 7X ? 31X ? ? ?
91% of each barrel of oil is burned. All of it >can< be synthesized - all that is required is a reliable source of energy. If that source of energy is petroleum, the input energy required is about 3x what is returned - so not a viable strategy. Nuclear >might< become cheaper than fossil fuels someday, but right now that day looks to be 50 years out or more (political obstacles). The better candidate just getting started in the race is closed-loop geothermal (Eavor is the front runner). It is definitely NOT cheaper today - they are still finishing their first commercial plant in Germany - but extensive engineering studies show that with experience it may well become significantly cheaper than fossil fuels.
Yes - for sure - we have been speaking with Eavor about syn fuel application - of course, we want to make syn fuel that is better , cleaner AND Cheaper than fossil - that is the only metric that matters, otherwise, no one will do it just to be nice
Someone has to make the sacrifice to do a tour in the DoE or NRC - Those agencies are riddled with a cancer. The tumor is in the form of go nowhere functionaries who have literally made it their life's work to block all nuclear - re-license, waste, new build, they want NONE . . . these losers have given their lives ( one doubts they'd make it in the real world ) in order to endlessly obstruct progress - so, some on our side need to do their time countering these folks [ I am too old ]
I live in Kenya. The guys who sell the illegal LPG don't sell it at a discount. They sell at the prevailing prices and pocket higher margins. That's why it's so lucrative and in their best interests to forgo the law. They can afford any legal fees and bribes and still make a lot of money
"Last month, Cornell professor Robert Howarth told Bloomberg, 'We need to get rid of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Let’s just move on and get rid of the gas system.'”
Someone needs to ask Howarth to point out a single item in a hospital trauma bay or operating room that isn't made of petroleum products, with petroleum products, or supplied to the hospital using them. Then ask him where TF he thinks those items will come from if he ever "moves on and gets rid of the gas system."
As usual Mr.Bryce is right on target. The globalist green energy advocates continue to ignore the facts, and prefer their feel good nonsense to actually helping the population of the third world.
You look good on TV! Great article Robert. The goal seems to be having Americans chasing tanker trucks for spilled fuel, not helping Africans avoid it. Made me re-watch Road Warrior.
We had a brief consulting gig in Nigeria many years ago. One of the oil majors had a huge refinery and a gasoline pipeline about 50 miles to the port. People were always drilling into the pipeline and taking gas. A genius came up with a process improvement and replaced the hand drill with an electric one and a Honda generator. The resulting explosion and fire killed a bunch of people burned a large town to the ground and knocked out a large section of pipe.
The oil company got blamed, of course. They had a tough time for a while.
The Left and their puppet masters want to phase out and prohibit the use of fossil fuels so they can have it all to themselves for their private jets, super-sized yachts, multiple massive homes, etc.
In the late 1960’s my dad’s old college roommate was a Peace Corp director in Sierra Leone. The locals would steal gasoline from the central supply tank, replacing it with water to conceal the theft. When the tank was almost all water, they would stage a fire, rinse and repeat. Or so I was told.
The “socialist republic” of Victoria (actually a State in Australia) has also banned natural gas mains attachments to new home builds. We ask”How can they do that?” And there is just silence. It’s sickening to know the fate we all have in store when energy should be so plentiful…
When the inevitable shortfalls of nat gas loom for the east coast of Australia just watch them turn to the 500 trillion c/f of the stuff in the ground in the NT. If they don't want an actual "Mad Max" scenario they will have no choice. Even if Australia goes kicking/screaming to nuclear (likely in my opinion) that takes 10 years optimistically.
A tell tale sign a person is a climate propagandist is if they say “end all hydrocarbons” rather than “end all hydrocarbon based transportation fuels”. The later could be achieved for most individuals and maybe even across most of the transportation sector someday. But the former is absolutely impossible to achieve. You simply cannot replace the products created by the other 75% of the Petro-barrel feedstock, with something made of wind, solar, hydro and even nuclear.
So a person can live off the land riding a horse and spend 100% of their time hunting and gathering to survive, but they cannot replicate a modern human life with “renewable” energy. So anyone advocating to “do away with all hydrocarbons” is speaking nonsensically and should not be taken seriously.
I feel like I understand the 30,000 foot view of proper climate policy well
Warming is concentrated at the poles. People die of cold stress over heat stress by 9-1. While the costs of warming will be greater in equatorial regions where the relative impact is greater the costs of climate policy are also much greater for them. Decisively, people experiencing significant costs of warming in 2100 will be much better off and able to adapt than people today can, with minimal economic forecasts for a world twice as rich as today
All of these combine to make a powerful case for responsible climate policy. But the way Robert brings it right home and puts us face to face with energy poverty may be more effective than knowing all of that
The experience of honest brokering has two parts. The first and more important is poking a pin in the emotion and narrative driven catastrophe perception. Critically, the most effective pin is quality science. That science includes a CO2 warming effect. As Judith Curry said under oath "it makes no sense to call a climate scientist a denier" - because all climate scientists, including Curry, including Lindzen, agree that there is a warming effect
That's where the second part of honest brokering comes in. Mobilizing support for responsible climate policy and for an accurate assessment of the science behind it, because that is the true antidote to fear driven economy wrecking climate policy
Climate alarmism is a raging bull. Punching it in the nose will not do much. You need a sword and a cape - real alternative policy and real science. You need honest brokering
Howarth's science that he uses to condemn the use of natural gas only works because he completely ignores natural emissions of methane. There are natural methane seeps that leak billions of cubic feet of natural gas into the atmosphere on an annual basis. Even deep natural gas reservoirs leak continuously to the surface in measurable amounts. One of these seeps offshore California was capped in about 1978 with an underwater metal structure that captured the natural gas and directed it up a pipeline to the shore. Air quality in the area of Santa Barbara increased measurably. Of course, in typical California fashion that production, which continues to this day, is now leaking to the atmosphere again because the shore facility has been shut down by the state and the operator was forced into bankruptcy. I found it fascinating that the methane "hotspot" blamed on the leaking gas storage facility at Aliso Canyon a few years ago was visibly connected to this "hotspot" and downwind of the natural seep. That natural seep has possibly exceeded the leaking gas storage reservoir in volume. No one mentioned that the natural seeps offshore Santa Barbara and in the nearby mountains even existed. I have seen other seeps of this magnitude, some are around the edges of the San Juan Basin, where there were recorded fires from natural gas seepage on the hillsides back in the 19th century before anyone started drilling there (Colorado actually created an abatement program by drilling to relieve pressure on the seeps). Similar seeps have biblical references because they have existed for so long. Howarth ignores natural methane emissions from seeps as it would take away from his purpose (and he can't measure it so he claims it is "background").
The problems with unsafe handling of hydrocarbon fuels exists all over the undeveloped world. Infrastructure is poor if it exists at all. I used to tow a trailer with my diesel fuel in it in Ethiopia, because there was no where to buy it outside of the capital. In Albania I used to see kids on the side of the roads selling two liter bottles of gasoline and diesel. It is the Albanian version of a gas station. And we have probably all heard of the Nigerians killed when a pipeline that they had tapped into exploded in flames. But just as dismal is the smog that envelopes many third world cities each morning as everyone lights a fire burning charcoal or dried cow manure to make their breakfast. Old women earn a meager living sitting beside the street selling small piles of cow dung in Ethiopia. Young men make a living burning any wood they can find to make charcoal and selling it in large bags that they carry on their back. The more arid areas end up denuded of vegetation in order to make charcoal. I can't imagine the look on some western advocate of green energy when they realize that breakfast and dinner is cooked with cow manure by billions of people in the world. It adds a whole new dimension to our need for livestock, and I am sure the enviros have not realized their zealous hatred of methane emissions from ruminants would deprive much of the world of both milk and fuel for their cooking stove. Since they can't afford LPG stoves and have no access to places to buy propane or butane, they simply use what is available, and the result is smog worse than Los Angeles has ever experienced. And none of it is caused by fossil fuels.
Prior to the industry’s existence we had all the natural methane sources we have now and no climate problems. We were considered colder than normal in the 1978 book on atmospheric climate by Harvard geophysicist, Heinrich Holland.
We have less cows on earth now than prior to 1982. Hansen marched to Congress to proclaim global warming in 1988.
The cause of global warming is methane hydrate dissociations, which release searing heat, up to 438F. They began in our seabeds in oil and gas extraction areas in 1972. The cause of dissociations is reduced density over them. Shale bedrock is blown apart and dissolved with acids to convert immature source rock organic matter, kerogen,to fossil fuel. Earlier drilling below in carbonate rock combined with fresh water the industry used to re-pressurize their wells to form methane hydrates, fracking in shale dissociated them.
If the industry had stopped when real oil was gone, we would not have this problem, and we do have a high methane leakage problem. NASA is reporting only lands based leaks. The bulk are in our seas. Every drop of that methane becomes extinction causing formaldehyde, hydrogen and never before on Earth water vapor. If fracking is not stopped we will have no food. I do not want to eat synthetic food to provide for the industry’s future.
I'm not familiar with Howarth's work, and your analysis may be completely correct. However, from examination of other "100 percent renewable" plans, I find they ignore the reality of the supply chains and dismiss intermittency with the assumption that storage and transmission can meet loads anywhere and everywhere. When you ask them how they will replace 2.16 TWH each day, they have no answer.
I am sure you have covered the fact that we get a lot more than gas and diesel from oil, we get lubricants, medicines, plastics, road materials, roofing, propane, wax, etc etc etc - just where does one expect to get / synthesize all of that - and if you can, at what multiple of cost 2X? 7X ? 31X ? ? ?
91% of each barrel of oil is burned. All of it >can< be synthesized - all that is required is a reliable source of energy. If that source of energy is petroleum, the input energy required is about 3x what is returned - so not a viable strategy. Nuclear >might< become cheaper than fossil fuels someday, but right now that day looks to be 50 years out or more (political obstacles). The better candidate just getting started in the race is closed-loop geothermal (Eavor is the front runner). It is definitely NOT cheaper today - they are still finishing their first commercial plant in Germany - but extensive engineering studies show that with experience it may well become significantly cheaper than fossil fuels.
Yes - for sure - we have been speaking with Eavor about syn fuel application - of course, we want to make syn fuel that is better , cleaner AND Cheaper than fossil - that is the only metric that matters, otherwise, no one will do it just to be nice
Who is "we?" Would be interested to hear more. You can put it in our private chat if you prefer.
Keep on pluggin’! (Literally!). If asked, would u accept a position in the Dept. of Energy?
Someone has to make the sacrifice to do a tour in the DoE or NRC - Those agencies are riddled with a cancer. The tumor is in the form of go nowhere functionaries who have literally made it their life's work to block all nuclear - re-license, waste, new build, they want NONE . . . these losers have given their lives ( one doubts they'd make it in the real world ) in order to endlessly obstruct progress - so, some on our side need to do their time countering these folks [ I am too old ]
Great article!
I live in Kenya. The guys who sell the illegal LPG don't sell it at a discount. They sell at the prevailing prices and pocket higher margins. That's why it's so lucrative and in their best interests to forgo the law. They can afford any legal fees and bribes and still make a lot of money
"Last month, Cornell professor Robert Howarth told Bloomberg, 'We need to get rid of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Let’s just move on and get rid of the gas system.'”
Someone needs to ask Howarth to point out a single item in a hospital trauma bay or operating room that isn't made of petroleum products, with petroleum products, or supplied to the hospital using them. Then ask him where TF he thinks those items will come from if he ever "moves on and gets rid of the gas system."
As usual Mr.Bryce is right on target. The globalist green energy advocates continue to ignore the facts, and prefer their feel good nonsense to actually helping the population of the third world.
You look good on TV! Great article Robert. The goal seems to be having Americans chasing tanker trucks for spilled fuel, not helping Africans avoid it. Made me re-watch Road Warrior.
We had a brief consulting gig in Nigeria many years ago. One of the oil majors had a huge refinery and a gasoline pipeline about 50 miles to the port. People were always drilling into the pipeline and taking gas. A genius came up with a process improvement and replaced the hand drill with an electric one and a Honda generator. The resulting explosion and fire killed a bunch of people burned a large town to the ground and knocked out a large section of pipe.
The oil company got blamed, of course. They had a tough time for a while.
The Left and their puppet masters want to phase out and prohibit the use of fossil fuels so they can have it all to themselves for their private jets, super-sized yachts, multiple massive homes, etc.
In the late 1960’s my dad’s old college roommate was a Peace Corp director in Sierra Leone. The locals would steal gasoline from the central supply tank, replacing it with water to conceal the theft. When the tank was almost all water, they would stage a fire, rinse and repeat. Or so I was told.
Global Warming/Climate Change/The Climate Crisis is a 1st world issues.
BTW wish they would make up their mind on What To Call It.
The “socialist republic” of Victoria (actually a State in Australia) has also banned natural gas mains attachments to new home builds. We ask”How can they do that?” And there is just silence. It’s sickening to know the fate we all have in store when energy should be so plentiful…
When the inevitable shortfalls of nat gas loom for the east coast of Australia just watch them turn to the 500 trillion c/f of the stuff in the ground in the NT. If they don't want an actual "Mad Max" scenario they will have no choice. Even if Australia goes kicking/screaming to nuclear (likely in my opinion) that takes 10 years optimistically.
A tell tale sign a person is a climate propagandist is if they say “end all hydrocarbons” rather than “end all hydrocarbon based transportation fuels”. The later could be achieved for most individuals and maybe even across most of the transportation sector someday. But the former is absolutely impossible to achieve. You simply cannot replace the products created by the other 75% of the Petro-barrel feedstock, with something made of wind, solar, hydro and even nuclear.
So a person can live off the land riding a horse and spend 100% of their time hunting and gathering to survive, but they cannot replicate a modern human life with “renewable” energy. So anyone advocating to “do away with all hydrocarbons” is speaking nonsensically and should not be taken seriously.
Unfortunately, the response from the climate hysterics will be that we will rectify this imbalance by paying reparations to the unplugged world.
Lets purpose a solution that will never work to a problem that doesn't really exist. Gotta Love The Left!
I feel like I understand the 30,000 foot view of proper climate policy well
Warming is concentrated at the poles. People die of cold stress over heat stress by 9-1. While the costs of warming will be greater in equatorial regions where the relative impact is greater the costs of climate policy are also much greater for them. Decisively, people experiencing significant costs of warming in 2100 will be much better off and able to adapt than people today can, with minimal economic forecasts for a world twice as rich as today
All of these combine to make a powerful case for responsible climate policy. But the way Robert brings it right home and puts us face to face with energy poverty may be more effective than knowing all of that
There is no Human Induced Climate Change (HICC). Stop it.
The experience of honest brokering has two parts. The first and more important is poking a pin in the emotion and narrative driven catastrophe perception. Critically, the most effective pin is quality science. That science includes a CO2 warming effect. As Judith Curry said under oath "it makes no sense to call a climate scientist a denier" - because all climate scientists, including Curry, including Lindzen, agree that there is a warming effect
That's where the second part of honest brokering comes in. Mobilizing support for responsible climate policy and for an accurate assessment of the science behind it, because that is the true antidote to fear driven economy wrecking climate policy
Climate alarmism is a raging bull. Punching it in the nose will not do much. You need a sword and a cape - real alternative policy and real science. You need honest brokering
Bryce for Secretary of Energy in the next Trump administration, with Alex Epstein as his deputy. America would be a much better place.
Howarth's science that he uses to condemn the use of natural gas only works because he completely ignores natural emissions of methane. There are natural methane seeps that leak billions of cubic feet of natural gas into the atmosphere on an annual basis. Even deep natural gas reservoirs leak continuously to the surface in measurable amounts. One of these seeps offshore California was capped in about 1978 with an underwater metal structure that captured the natural gas and directed it up a pipeline to the shore. Air quality in the area of Santa Barbara increased measurably. Of course, in typical California fashion that production, which continues to this day, is now leaking to the atmosphere again because the shore facility has been shut down by the state and the operator was forced into bankruptcy. I found it fascinating that the methane "hotspot" blamed on the leaking gas storage facility at Aliso Canyon a few years ago was visibly connected to this "hotspot" and downwind of the natural seep. That natural seep has possibly exceeded the leaking gas storage reservoir in volume. No one mentioned that the natural seeps offshore Santa Barbara and in the nearby mountains even existed. I have seen other seeps of this magnitude, some are around the edges of the San Juan Basin, where there were recorded fires from natural gas seepage on the hillsides back in the 19th century before anyone started drilling there (Colorado actually created an abatement program by drilling to relieve pressure on the seeps). Similar seeps have biblical references because they have existed for so long. Howarth ignores natural methane emissions from seeps as it would take away from his purpose (and he can't measure it so he claims it is "background").
The problems with unsafe handling of hydrocarbon fuels exists all over the undeveloped world. Infrastructure is poor if it exists at all. I used to tow a trailer with my diesel fuel in it in Ethiopia, because there was no where to buy it outside of the capital. In Albania I used to see kids on the side of the roads selling two liter bottles of gasoline and diesel. It is the Albanian version of a gas station. And we have probably all heard of the Nigerians killed when a pipeline that they had tapped into exploded in flames. But just as dismal is the smog that envelopes many third world cities each morning as everyone lights a fire burning charcoal or dried cow manure to make their breakfast. Old women earn a meager living sitting beside the street selling small piles of cow dung in Ethiopia. Young men make a living burning any wood they can find to make charcoal and selling it in large bags that they carry on their back. The more arid areas end up denuded of vegetation in order to make charcoal. I can't imagine the look on some western advocate of green energy when they realize that breakfast and dinner is cooked with cow manure by billions of people in the world. It adds a whole new dimension to our need for livestock, and I am sure the enviros have not realized their zealous hatred of methane emissions from ruminants would deprive much of the world of both milk and fuel for their cooking stove. Since they can't afford LPG stoves and have no access to places to buy propane or butane, they simply use what is available, and the result is smog worse than Los Angeles has ever experienced. And none of it is caused by fossil fuels.
Prior to the industry’s existence we had all the natural methane sources we have now and no climate problems. We were considered colder than normal in the 1978 book on atmospheric climate by Harvard geophysicist, Heinrich Holland.
We have less cows on earth now than prior to 1982. Hansen marched to Congress to proclaim global warming in 1988.
The cause of global warming is methane hydrate dissociations, which release searing heat, up to 438F. They began in our seabeds in oil and gas extraction areas in 1972. The cause of dissociations is reduced density over them. Shale bedrock is blown apart and dissolved with acids to convert immature source rock organic matter, kerogen,to fossil fuel. Earlier drilling below in carbonate rock combined with fresh water the industry used to re-pressurize their wells to form methane hydrates, fracking in shale dissociated them.
If the industry had stopped when real oil was gone, we would not have this problem, and we do have a high methane leakage problem. NASA is reporting only lands based leaks. The bulk are in our seas. Every drop of that methane becomes extinction causing formaldehyde, hydrogen and never before on Earth water vapor. If fracking is not stopped we will have no food. I do not want to eat synthetic food to provide for the industry’s future.
I'm not familiar with Howarth's work, and your analysis may be completely correct. However, from examination of other "100 percent renewable" plans, I find they ignore the reality of the supply chains and dismiss intermittency with the assumption that storage and transmission can meet loads anywhere and everywhere. When you ask them how they will replace 2.16 TWH each day, they have no answer.
Powerful.