Why is electricity considered a form of energy comparable to oil, nuclear, etc. Doesn't electricity just come from another fuel source (like oil, nuclear, etc.)?
Many of us have been reading your books for years and you have helped us learn the basics of energy science and economics. Then you got on X and more people started learning your energy commonsense. But, your move to Substack has taken your work to new levels and you and other authors on Substack reinforce one another. With increased public knowledge and efforts by the Trump Administration and people in that Administration like Chris Wright and Doug Barnum, the prospects for future backsliding into crazy energy policies are greatly reduced.
Substantial increases in monthly electric bills over the next 3 years due to the policies and actions pre Trump will turn many more heads to commonsense methods of producing energy. But, someones like you and others on Substack will have to continue to tell the truth and call out Emmanuels.
Your report on Japan and Mitsubishi a a real eye-opener. Have you published anything on the completely nonsensical policies being pushed by Ed Miliband in the UK? If you have, I'd love to read it.
Robert, I am not sure what a load of flapdoodle is, but I do know what complete BS is, and Democrats are completely full of it. Offshore wind is perhaps the stupidest of all, and its death is well deserved. Good article!
Robert .. my subscription is the best investment I made last year on reading informative articles ..been a fan for 15 years.. here is to another great year…
Thank you for calling out the Emmanuel piece. That piece is a very important early warning that you will hear a lot more of this from Democrats going into the next election. Blame Trump for cancelling the IRA, not the disastrous "transition" to solar, wind and batteries that actually causes shortages and increased prices. The MSM, big social media and all governments and academics in the Western world will follow suit, so the message will be powerfully delivered. It remains to be seen whether the "people" will see through the propaganda and support the sensible new team Trump energy approach.
IMO, there are more problems with the Exxon chart than units. According to you, China is currently building 204 GwH of coal fired power plants in China and additional plants in Africa. China currently has 1,171GwH of coal power capacity. Any yet the Exxon chart shows that coal usage will decline.... tomorrow. In addition, they see hydrogen as having a role, despite the fact that there are no commercial deposits of geologic hydrogen and all conversions to create hydrogen (CH4, NH4 electrolysis) take more energy than they create.
Thanks for pointing that out. Like you, I don’t see how coal use declines that quickly. One other point: you have GWh where you should have GW, i.e., China is now building 204 GW of new coal plants.
Thank you for your work. I am very grateful. I am also concerned that in my home state of New Jersey the Democratic candidate for governor is hellbent on following California’s policies, already admitting that it will be expensive but that “good people” will support wind & solar.
Why did anyone ever think that windpower on the grid would work? This is a truly scandalous situation because wind droughts should have been considered before the wind power catastrophe even started.
Failing to check the reliability of the wind supply enabled a public policy blunder as serious as any other in peacetime history.
Sailors at sea and millers on land experienced wind droughts for centuries.
Trillions of dollars have been spent around the world rolling out wind and solar infrastructure and we have got in return more expensive and less reliable power with catastrophic environmental impacts.
The elephant in the room is the wind droughts or dunkelflautes that Australian investigators documented over a decade ago.
Note that the Climate Change Authority assured the May government that there would be no problem with wind droughts.
Recommendations. A very senior and serious inquiry into the failure of the meteorologists to issue wind drought warmings and an inquiry into the failure of due diligence on the wind supply.
Wind power has very little to do with saving the planet. Whatever the original justification for wind power, it quickly devolved into one simple reason - money. Anyone owning an onshore wind farm (offshore is a different matter) has a constant source of profit. If the wind blows it generates electricity which grid operators are obliged to purchase at a fixed price, regardless of whether there is a current need for that electricity. Since wind can be guaranteed on a long-term basis to blow for about 30% of the time, the wind farm owners merely need to build this into their pricing and endless profit is ensured.
The only way this scam can be overcome is for some national chief executive with a hide like a rhinoceros to call it for what it is and decree that grid operators will henceforth be at liberty to purchase electricity from the lowest-priced source at any given tine. Donald Tump?
That won't happen. The political class in Australia have too much to lose in losing 'face', credibility, future job prospects (UN), and the almighty dollars that will flow in.
We don’t have to change the minds of committed alarmists, we just have to get to the people who haven’t thought about it yet, like the people who changed their minds about The Racist Voice in the year leading up to the vote. That was when the Liberal Party showed some ticker and promoted the NO case. The same thing can happen when the Liberals take a stand on the NO case for net zero!
It looks like Exxon took the current slope of wind/solar energy growth and just drew a straight line at that slope from the current value. I wonder if they were punting on trying to predict where it's going to go.
I would like to believe that it (wind/solar) is going to slow and then disappear, but I sympathize with Exxon if my guess is accurate. With the EU doubling down, and future election prospects in the US uncertain, who knows where it is going?
I don’t buy that Exxon curve for solar and wind. Projecting that is a cheap way to avoid criticism. But with most new electric capacity going into developing countries, they will want sources that are secure and reliable. Wind and solar do not qualify. And will not, since dreams about magic, cheap batteries with 10x the energy storage of present batteries are put fantasy.
Regarding your chart, electricity is a way to transport energy, but it does not exist on its own. Electricity is always created by converting some other form of energy into electric power.
Why is electricity considered a form of energy comparable to oil, nuclear, etc. Doesn't electricity just come from another fuel source (like oil, nuclear, etc.)?
Many of us have been reading your books for years and you have helped us learn the basics of energy science and economics. Then you got on X and more people started learning your energy commonsense. But, your move to Substack has taken your work to new levels and you and other authors on Substack reinforce one another. With increased public knowledge and efforts by the Trump Administration and people in that Administration like Chris Wright and Doug Barnum, the prospects for future backsliding into crazy energy policies are greatly reduced.
Substantial increases in monthly electric bills over the next 3 years due to the policies and actions pre Trump will turn many more heads to commonsense methods of producing energy. But, someones like you and others on Substack will have to continue to tell the truth and call out Emmanuels.
Your report on Japan and Mitsubishi a a real eye-opener. Have you published anything on the completely nonsensical policies being pushed by Ed Miliband in the UK? If you have, I'd love to read it.
Robert, I am not sure what a load of flapdoodle is, but I do know what complete BS is, and Democrats are completely full of it. Offshore wind is perhaps the stupidest of all, and its death is well deserved. Good article!
Grateful reader here.
Awesome. Thanks.
Robert .. my subscription is the best investment I made last year on reading informative articles ..been a fan for 15 years.. here is to another great year…
Wow. That’s very kind. Thank you.
congrats on a year of great substack!! Keep the info coming, Robert!!!
Thanks, amigo. Will do.
Thank you for calling out the Emmanuel piece. That piece is a very important early warning that you will hear a lot more of this from Democrats going into the next election. Blame Trump for cancelling the IRA, not the disastrous "transition" to solar, wind and batteries that actually causes shortages and increased prices. The MSM, big social media and all governments and academics in the Western world will follow suit, so the message will be powerfully delivered. It remains to be seen whether the "people" will see through the propaganda and support the sensible new team Trump energy approach.
Agree.
IMO, there are more problems with the Exxon chart than units. According to you, China is currently building 204 GwH of coal fired power plants in China and additional plants in Africa. China currently has 1,171GwH of coal power capacity. Any yet the Exxon chart shows that coal usage will decline.... tomorrow. In addition, they see hydrogen as having a role, despite the fact that there are no commercial deposits of geologic hydrogen and all conversions to create hydrogen (CH4, NH4 electrolysis) take more energy than they create.
Thanks for pointing that out. Like you, I don’t see how coal use declines that quickly. One other point: you have GWh where you should have GW, i.e., China is now building 204 GW of new coal plants.
Thank you for the reply and the typo correction.
Thank you for your work. I am very grateful. I am also concerned that in my home state of New Jersey the Democratic candidate for governor is hellbent on following California’s policies, already admitting that it will be expensive but that “good people” will support wind & solar.
NJ provides yet another example of a heavily Democratic state government promoting impossible energy policies.
Robert, congratulations on the first anniversary of paid subscriptions. Glad to see you get paid for this fabulous source of information.
Thank you. I’m having a great time. I love Substack.
Thank you for critiquing the Emmanuel piece. The gaslighting from that OpEd was immense.
Why did anyone ever think that windpower on the grid would work? This is a truly scandalous situation because wind droughts should have been considered before the wind power catastrophe even started.
Failing to check the reliability of the wind supply enabled a public policy blunder as serious as any other in peacetime history.
Sailors at sea and millers on land experienced wind droughts for centuries.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/the-sinister-threat-of-wind-droughts
Data on wind speeds have been recorded for several decades on the North Sea oil and gas platforms.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/a-curious-tale-of-the-north-sea-winds/
Trillions of dollars have been spent around the world rolling out wind and solar infrastructure and we have got in return more expensive and less reliable power with catastrophic environmental impacts.
The elephant in the room is the wind droughts or dunkelflautes that Australian investigators documented over a decade ago.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/the-late-discovery-of-wind-droughts
Dirt farmers are alert to the threat of rain droughts, but the wind farmers never checked the reliability of the wind supply.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/we-have-to-talk-about-wind-droughts
This story documents the criminally incompetent energy planning in Britain in recent times.
https://thecritic.co.uk/british-energy-planning-a-horror-story/
Note that the Climate Change Authority assured the May government that there would be no problem with wind droughts.
Recommendations. A very senior and serious inquiry into the failure of the meteorologists to issue wind drought warmings and an inquiry into the failure of due diligence on the wind supply.
Wind power has very little to do with saving the planet. Whatever the original justification for wind power, it quickly devolved into one simple reason - money. Anyone owning an onshore wind farm (offshore is a different matter) has a constant source of profit. If the wind blows it generates electricity which grid operators are obliged to purchase at a fixed price, regardless of whether there is a current need for that electricity. Since wind can be guaranteed on a long-term basis to blow for about 30% of the time, the wind farm owners merely need to build this into their pricing and endless profit is ensured.
The only way this scam can be overcome is for some national chief executive with a hide like a rhinoceros to call it for what it is and decree that grid operators will henceforth be at liberty to purchase electricity from the lowest-priced source at any given tine. Donald Tump?
Wind energy has always been a grift.
Wind “power” was and is the poster child for green grift.
That won't happen. The political class in Australia have too much to lose in losing 'face', credibility, future job prospects (UN), and the almighty dollars that will flow in.
We don’t have to change the minds of committed alarmists, we just have to get to the people who haven’t thought about it yet, like the people who changed their minds about The Racist Voice in the year leading up to the vote. That was when the Liberal Party showed some ticker and promoted the NO case. The same thing can happen when the Liberals take a stand on the NO case for net zero!
It looks like Exxon took the current slope of wind/solar energy growth and just drew a straight line at that slope from the current value. I wonder if they were punting on trying to predict where it's going to go.
I would like to believe that it (wind/solar) is going to slow and then disappear, but I sympathize with Exxon if my guess is accurate. With the EU doubling down, and future election prospects in the US uncertain, who knows where it is going?
I don’t buy that Exxon curve for solar and wind. Projecting that is a cheap way to avoid criticism. But with most new electric capacity going into developing countries, they will want sources that are secure and reliable. Wind and solar do not qualify. And will not, since dreams about magic, cheap batteries with 10x the energy storage of present batteries are put fantasy.
Regarding your chart, electricity is a way to transport energy, but it does not exist on its own. Electricity is always created by converting some other form of energy into electric power.
Yes. That is noted at the bottom of the chart. Exxon notes that in the original chart, saying electricity and H2 are secondary forms of energy.
I missed that note