Industrial electricity use in the EU is collapsing. US policymakers "Have no excuse for not looking at Europe and learning." Plus: screenings in Dallas, Tulsa, Fairfax, & Austin.
EIA discussing EU electricity, permanent demand destruction and this is before Chinese electric cars destroy Germany's car industry...
Following a 3.1% drop in 2022, the 3.2% year-on-year decline in EU demand in 2023 meant that it dropped to levels last seen two decades ago. As in 2022, weaker consumption in the industrial sector was the main factor that reduced electricity demand, as energy prices came down but remained above prepandemic levels.
In 2023, there were also signs of some permanent demand destruction, especially in the energy-intensive chemical and primary metal production sectors. These segments will remain vulnerable to energy price shocks over our outlook period.
If I were asked whether I would prefer to live in a country with heavy industry (these days) or perhaps not, my answer is rather not. The massive investment, the heavy reliance on high technology at a time when there is such a severe shortage of skilled labour. Hard to say whose strategy will win in the end. I have two engineering degrees and understand the technology for the most part
Well, this is akin what has happen to the United States. Many if not all of our heavy industry left our shore in drovers began in 70s. The only heavy industry left in is oil refinery & this is only because the grandfather clause as our refineries or over 50 years old. A lot of EU industries are under some protectionism scheme which is why they were still in the EU-not to say we don't have this in America, because we do. The EU and America both share a lot of structure disadvantages: high labor cost, demographics, high taxes, excess regulation, inflation, & debt! The MAIN difference between the two is America vast natural resources-specifically oil & gas while The EU has none-aside Norway, Russia, Netherlands, & the U.K. Now given the shut down of the Groningen gas field in the Netherlands, the "sanctions" on Russia & declining fields in U.K. Norths Sea compared to the United States swimming-pun intended-in oil & natural gas-we are the largest producer and have some of the largest reverse.
So what separates us is energy. The U.S. has access to low cost energy vs The Eu which does not & has to import the majority of their primary use energy. The EU has no way of meeting it's In 2022, approximately 18.7 million barrels of oil daily domestically. Which by all measure America is able to given us an advantage that most countries and not compete with. Which is way manufacture-and the economy in general-in America is stable and growing-war time dividend-& heavy industry in The EU is now leaving, because energy is to expensive & easily influence by to many factors forcing prices higher for everyone.
Robert, Good article and addressing the canary in the coal mine for the US.
I would also like to have you take note of the Opinion in the 2-13-24 WSJ, "Climateers Neuter an Energy Watchdog". The IEA is now an advocacy organization under Fatah Birol and needs to have their new and misunderstood role exposed to the wider public. Hopefully you help in this need.
That happened years ago. Anyone who didn't realize that the IEA has been a "renewables" advocacy agency for the last ~ten years hasn't been paying attention.
On the other hand, when Faith Birol started as head of IEA he seemed to be doing a pretty honest job. It took a year or two for him to embrace "The Narrative" and only "The Narrative". I think there must be an interesting story there of exactly what his actual desires/beliefs were and how pressure was applied.
This article is just an excuse to bash renewables and say "told you so" as a shill for the fossils. It's hard to believe people still aren't waking up to the destruction wrought by the petro-industrial complex.
What is shown here is a set of correlations and no thoughtful explanations of causes and effects, multiple degrees of freedom involved, the role of policy, and the role of the petro complex itself. It also assumes that everyone is better off with continued industrial expansion - it unquestioningly asserts that if "industrialization" (are the metrics used the optimal or most desirable?) is "decreasing" then That Is Bad For The World.
Show me peer-reviewed models that discuss the issue in an intelligent way. Think deeper than a few years' worth of aluminum and steel production numbers.
Mr. Brightburn, a peer-reviewed model is not necessary.
Instead, simple math demonstrates the impossibilities of the renewable dream. In 2022, the US consumed 95.9 exajoules (ej) of energy, of which 76 ej were derived from fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal). Between today (February 12, 2024) and December 31, 2050, there are 9,819 days. That means, in simple arithmetic, the US must replace 0.0078 ej of fossil energy with renewable sources EVERY DAY to reach net-zero by 2050. Converted to watt-hours, that energy is equivalent to 2.16 terawatt-hours (TWH). A 3-MW wind turbine will produce on average 9,000 MWH per year (0.009 TWH). That means 240 new 3-MW wind turbines must be installed EVERY DAY between now and 2050 (assumes a capacity factor of 34.2 percent, per US EIA). Can you show me where that will happen tomorrow, or the next day?
These new wind turbines will require over 80,000 metric tonnes of steel EVERY DAY dedicated to wind turbine construction. The US produces just over 80,000,000 MT annually, or (again, simple arithmetic) about 240,000 MT daily. To meet the requirement for wind tower construction, fully one-third of US steel production would be needed. What do you think that will do to prices for steel needed in new hospitals or bridges or highways?
Those new wind turbines will also require about 700 square kilometers of land for efficient operation. Annually, that is equivalent to dedicating the entire state of Wyoming to the production of wind energy in year, then adding Colorado in year two, then adding Oregon in year three, and so forth. Wind can support some multiple land use, but only non-irrigated agriculture. Wind turbines in subdivisions is a no-no.
If you prefer solar to wind, up to three times the amount of steel is needed per megawatt of production, though the land requirements are less. But then, so is the power density, meaning more MW of solar are necessary to replace an equivalent amount of fossil fuel. And, with solar, please come prepared to deal with the toxic waste not present with wind farms. Special waste disposal facilities are needed, adding more land to the equation as well as much higher cost.
The specific power for wind is about 2.1 watts per square meter. For natural gas, that value is 374 W/m2. In simple arithmetic, that means that far more natural resources are needed to extract an equivalent amount of wind energy compared to natural gas. That also means that wind production results in far more waste than gas. Nuclear is twice as efficient as gas, having a specific power of 765 W/m2.
You suggested we look beyond a few years of aluminum or steel production. That logic fails at first blush simply because of the amount is so staggering. Do you suggest that thin ice will support you indefinitely?
Peer-reviewed literature states quite clearly that a “physical event only becomes a hazard when it comes into contact with vulnerable populations.” In this paradigm, you would suggest that the “physical event,” which I assume is climate change, can be altered by substituting renewable energy for fossil fuels. I have shown above clearly the daunting nature of such a task. I further point out that since climate change is as much a natural occurrence, any attempt to “fight it” will be met with certain defeat.
Climate models are filled with bias, uncertainty, and, as Freeman Dyson said, “do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.” Given this uncertainty, combined with the staggering costs and resources required, doesn’t it make more sense to reduce the vulnerability of populations? If energy is needed for growth, prosperity, and human flourishing, where is the wisdom in committing to an energy source that is totally dependent on weather to produce electricity.
I apologize for the length of this response. You certainly must understand that no method of producing energy is without risk. It is not a question of "bashing renewables;" rather, the question is asking for an informed assessment of risks and benefits of a chosen course of action. That assessment does not exist.
Spot on. But there are other factors, equally disfavoring wind turbines. The infrastructure needed (Cabling being aluminium or copper, transformers, frequency aligners, transmission losses, noise, killing of birds, insects). In Germany, an estimated 2000 tons of insects are killed annually by the 30.000 wind turbines in that country. Add batteries for wind lull periods, the list is endless. Nuclear is the ONLY way forward. Fission for now, fusion later, if ever.
There are no many, if any real advantages to wind. It did a wonderful job pumping water to the prairie for cattle and grains, and did OK in Holland in the 10th century. Consider the devastation to bat populations.
Mills and Bryce have written extensively about the mineral shortcomings from wind.
"wind power?" Are you old enough to remember the Edsel? "It acts the way it looks, but it doesn't cost that much." Supposed to be the greatest thing in cars since canned beer.
Someone should write a history of every generation's "pet rock." Wind turbines are little better than Gen f(x) folly, a passing fancy. The world's least efficient energy convertor, a propellor, harvesting energy from the world's flimsiest fluid!
I don't know how fiberglass decomposes in the environment, if it does. Blade waste is almost entirely fiberglass, and it is too expensive to recycle. They have a relatively short design life (roughly 20 years), so they increase the pressure on city and county landfills for expansion.
"Butt ugly" is a good expression. "Lipstick on a pig" is another. Whatever cliche you use, they are a blight on the landscape.
They'll break down under exposure to UV, IIRC. But the process is not graceful. Fibers and splinters calve off, blow with the wind and try to find skin they can puncture.
Thanks. I didn't think it was anything graceful. Landfills typically sit close to or at the surface. As the blades break down, the fiber glass particles could migrate and get into water supplies. That could get nasty! Sounds like a good thesis research project, "migration of wind turbine blade waste to groundwater supplies."
> What is shown here is a set of correlations and no thoughtful explanations of causes and effects, multiple degrees of freedom involved, the role of policy, and the role of the petro complex itself.
Europe shut down its energy production and suddenly energy prices are rising, must be a complete coincidence.
Everything you write makes sense to me until "the real mistake of Germany cosying up with the US". The exact opposite mistake ie cosying up with the Russia and China would incur the wrath of the US. Which it did. The rest is is history.
I think they want us to believe two Latvian guys with a small sail boat and a scuba tank blew up the pipeline. Compared to some of the other lies, it is quite believable
This is a major geopolitical risk that most policymakers are sleeping on. All the signs of deindustrialization are right in front of our faces. And the new industries Europe hopes to create...are already dominated by China! You can't make this up. The level of stupidity, arrogance, and utter incompetence by Western elites is breathtaking. Two things will happen: 1) voters will wake up and vote for new leaders who will right the ship before its too late; or 2) it will end disastrously for the West and hopefully it can be rebuilt stronger. This path we have taken to date is so unnecessary.
What needs to be is less fossil fuels and more green industries!
Thank you Robert. You do an outstanding job of capturing facts and presenting them in short concise articles. Energy and Economic prosperity go together. Here are some thoughts I posted on my blog last year on China and U.S. energy policy Comparisons of Energy use: http://dickstormprobizblog.org/2023/01/18/comparison-of-china-energy-electricity-generation-with-u-s-a/
EIA discussing EU electricity, permanent demand destruction and this is before Chinese electric cars destroy Germany's car industry...
Following a 3.1% drop in 2022, the 3.2% year-on-year decline in EU demand in 2023 meant that it dropped to levels last seen two decades ago. As in 2022, weaker consumption in the industrial sector was the main factor that reduced electricity demand, as energy prices came down but remained above prepandemic levels.
In 2023, there were also signs of some permanent demand destruction, especially in the energy-intensive chemical and primary metal production sectors. These segments will remain vulnerable to energy price shocks over our outlook period.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-climate/2024/02/21/california-dreams-of-cheap-renewables-regular-folks-dont-00142562?nname=california-climate&nid=00000189-315c-d8dd-a1ed-797dc9f10000&nrid=0000014e-f0ef-dd93-ad7f-f8ef32cb0001&nlid=2745178
Finally, good news!
If I were asked whether I would prefer to live in a country with heavy industry (these days) or perhaps not, my answer is rather not. The massive investment, the heavy reliance on high technology at a time when there is such a severe shortage of skilled labour. Hard to say whose strategy will win in the end. I have two engineering degrees and understand the technology for the most part
Well, this is akin what has happen to the United States. Many if not all of our heavy industry left our shore in drovers began in 70s. The only heavy industry left in is oil refinery & this is only because the grandfather clause as our refineries or over 50 years old. A lot of EU industries are under some protectionism scheme which is why they were still in the EU-not to say we don't have this in America, because we do. The EU and America both share a lot of structure disadvantages: high labor cost, demographics, high taxes, excess regulation, inflation, & debt! The MAIN difference between the two is America vast natural resources-specifically oil & gas while The EU has none-aside Norway, Russia, Netherlands, & the U.K. Now given the shut down of the Groningen gas field in the Netherlands, the "sanctions" on Russia & declining fields in U.K. Norths Sea compared to the United States swimming-pun intended-in oil & natural gas-we are the largest producer and have some of the largest reverse.
So what separates us is energy. The U.S. has access to low cost energy vs The Eu which does not & has to import the majority of their primary use energy. The EU has no way of meeting it's In 2022, approximately 18.7 million barrels of oil daily domestically. Which by all measure America is able to given us an advantage that most countries and not compete with. Which is way manufacture-and the economy in general-in America is stable and growing-war time dividend-& heavy industry in The EU is now leaving, because energy is to expensive & easily influence by to many factors forcing prices higher for everyone.
Hard to like this post as the subject matter is pretty damn grim. I really hope the can see that things need to turn around…
Robert, Good article and addressing the canary in the coal mine for the US.
I would also like to have you take note of the Opinion in the 2-13-24 WSJ, "Climateers Neuter an Energy Watchdog". The IEA is now an advocacy organization under Fatah Birol and needs to have their new and misunderstood role exposed to the wider public. Hopefully you help in this need.
That happened years ago. Anyone who didn't realize that the IEA has been a "renewables" advocacy agency for the last ~ten years hasn't been paying attention.
On the other hand, when Faith Birol started as head of IEA he seemed to be doing a pretty honest job. It took a year or two for him to embrace "The Narrative" and only "The Narrative". I think there must be an interesting story there of exactly what his actual desires/beliefs were and how pressure was applied.
Tata Steel are closing the blast furnaces yes, but they are building an EAF in its place.
Any chance the keynote speech on Feb 26th will be recorded??
Where are all those newly arrived cultural enhancers going to find a job?
Companies in the US ought to try to figure out joint partnerships with EU companies and import them to the US, lock, stock & barrel.
This article is just an excuse to bash renewables and say "told you so" as a shill for the fossils. It's hard to believe people still aren't waking up to the destruction wrought by the petro-industrial complex.
What is shown here is a set of correlations and no thoughtful explanations of causes and effects, multiple degrees of freedom involved, the role of policy, and the role of the petro complex itself. It also assumes that everyone is better off with continued industrial expansion - it unquestioningly asserts that if "industrialization" (are the metrics used the optimal or most desirable?) is "decreasing" then That Is Bad For The World.
Show me peer-reviewed models that discuss the issue in an intelligent way. Think deeper than a few years' worth of aluminum and steel production numbers.
Mr. Brightburn, a peer-reviewed model is not necessary.
Instead, simple math demonstrates the impossibilities of the renewable dream. In 2022, the US consumed 95.9 exajoules (ej) of energy, of which 76 ej were derived from fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal). Between today (February 12, 2024) and December 31, 2050, there are 9,819 days. That means, in simple arithmetic, the US must replace 0.0078 ej of fossil energy with renewable sources EVERY DAY to reach net-zero by 2050. Converted to watt-hours, that energy is equivalent to 2.16 terawatt-hours (TWH). A 3-MW wind turbine will produce on average 9,000 MWH per year (0.009 TWH). That means 240 new 3-MW wind turbines must be installed EVERY DAY between now and 2050 (assumes a capacity factor of 34.2 percent, per US EIA). Can you show me where that will happen tomorrow, or the next day?
These new wind turbines will require over 80,000 metric tonnes of steel EVERY DAY dedicated to wind turbine construction. The US produces just over 80,000,000 MT annually, or (again, simple arithmetic) about 240,000 MT daily. To meet the requirement for wind tower construction, fully one-third of US steel production would be needed. What do you think that will do to prices for steel needed in new hospitals or bridges or highways?
Those new wind turbines will also require about 700 square kilometers of land for efficient operation. Annually, that is equivalent to dedicating the entire state of Wyoming to the production of wind energy in year, then adding Colorado in year two, then adding Oregon in year three, and so forth. Wind can support some multiple land use, but only non-irrigated agriculture. Wind turbines in subdivisions is a no-no.
If you prefer solar to wind, up to three times the amount of steel is needed per megawatt of production, though the land requirements are less. But then, so is the power density, meaning more MW of solar are necessary to replace an equivalent amount of fossil fuel. And, with solar, please come prepared to deal with the toxic waste not present with wind farms. Special waste disposal facilities are needed, adding more land to the equation as well as much higher cost.
The specific power for wind is about 2.1 watts per square meter. For natural gas, that value is 374 W/m2. In simple arithmetic, that means that far more natural resources are needed to extract an equivalent amount of wind energy compared to natural gas. That also means that wind production results in far more waste than gas. Nuclear is twice as efficient as gas, having a specific power of 765 W/m2.
You suggested we look beyond a few years of aluminum or steel production. That logic fails at first blush simply because of the amount is so staggering. Do you suggest that thin ice will support you indefinitely?
Peer-reviewed literature states quite clearly that a “physical event only becomes a hazard when it comes into contact with vulnerable populations.” In this paradigm, you would suggest that the “physical event,” which I assume is climate change, can be altered by substituting renewable energy for fossil fuels. I have shown above clearly the daunting nature of such a task. I further point out that since climate change is as much a natural occurrence, any attempt to “fight it” will be met with certain defeat.
Climate models are filled with bias, uncertainty, and, as Freeman Dyson said, “do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.” Given this uncertainty, combined with the staggering costs and resources required, doesn’t it make more sense to reduce the vulnerability of populations? If energy is needed for growth, prosperity, and human flourishing, where is the wisdom in committing to an energy source that is totally dependent on weather to produce electricity.
I apologize for the length of this response. You certainly must understand that no method of producing energy is without risk. It is not a question of "bashing renewables;" rather, the question is asking for an informed assessment of risks and benefits of a chosen course of action. That assessment does not exist.
I would welcome your comments.
Spot on. But there are other factors, equally disfavoring wind turbines. The infrastructure needed (Cabling being aluminium or copper, transformers, frequency aligners, transmission losses, noise, killing of birds, insects). In Germany, an estimated 2000 tons of insects are killed annually by the 30.000 wind turbines in that country. Add batteries for wind lull periods, the list is endless. Nuclear is the ONLY way forward. Fission for now, fusion later, if ever.
There are no many, if any real advantages to wind. It did a wonderful job pumping water to the prairie for cattle and grains, and did OK in Holland in the 10th century. Consider the devastation to bat populations.
Mills and Bryce have written extensively about the mineral shortcomings from wind.
"wind power?" Are you old enough to remember the Edsel? "It acts the way it looks, but it doesn't cost that much." Supposed to be the greatest thing in cars since canned beer.
Someone should write a history of every generation's "pet rock." Wind turbines are little better than Gen f(x) folly, a passing fancy. The world's least efficient energy convertor, a propellor, harvesting energy from the world's flimsiest fluid!
The waste created by wind farms is staggering. They do no last for ever. The bones of windmill blades pile up.
Plus, they are butt ugly spread out over the landscape. No more "amber waves of grain" or "purple mountain majesty".
People pushing windmills should be strapped to the blades and spent spinning.
I don't know how fiberglass decomposes in the environment, if it does. Blade waste is almost entirely fiberglass, and it is too expensive to recycle. They have a relatively short design life (roughly 20 years), so they increase the pressure on city and county landfills for expansion.
"Butt ugly" is a good expression. "Lipstick on a pig" is another. Whatever cliche you use, they are a blight on the landscape.
They'll break down under exposure to UV, IIRC. But the process is not graceful. Fibers and splinters calve off, blow with the wind and try to find skin they can puncture.
Thanks. I didn't think it was anything graceful. Landfills typically sit close to or at the surface. As the blades break down, the fiber glass particles could migrate and get into water supplies. That could get nasty! Sounds like a good thesis research project, "migration of wind turbine blade waste to groundwater supplies."
Thanks again.
Look, an envirotard!
> What is shown here is a set of correlations and no thoughtful explanations of causes and effects, multiple degrees of freedom involved, the role of policy, and the role of the petro complex itself.
Europe shut down its energy production and suddenly energy prices are rising, must be a complete coincidence.
And we've been telling them for 20 years that this would be the result. Surely we were wrong and the predicted result is all a fluke.
"Strategic mistake" of relying on Russian gas?
Oh, did the Russians suddenly turn off the gas? Suddenly jack up the price? No?
What's that - they blew up their own pipeline? So devious, those Russians.
Of course, Sy Hersch says we did it, but what does he know.
Of course, if he's right, then the real strategic mistake Germany made was getting too cozy with the US.
What's that saying...to be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend and ally can be fatal
Everything you write makes sense to me until "the real mistake of Germany cosying up with the US". The exact opposite mistake ie cosying up with the Russia and China would incur the wrath of the US. Which it did. The rest is is history.
I think they want us to believe two Latvian guys with a small sail boat and a scuba tank blew up the pipeline. Compared to some of the other lies, it is quite believable
This is a major geopolitical risk that most policymakers are sleeping on. All the signs of deindustrialization are right in front of our faces. And the new industries Europe hopes to create...are already dominated by China! You can't make this up. The level of stupidity, arrogance, and utter incompetence by Western elites is breathtaking. Two things will happen: 1) voters will wake up and vote for new leaders who will right the ship before its too late; or 2) it will end disastrously for the West and hopefully it can be rebuilt stronger. This path we have taken to date is so unnecessary.
Exactly. All planned to perfection, and we let them do it. They won't stop until we stop them.
Whether the masses believe it or not, our lives as we know them are over. Isn't going down swinging better than going out simpering in a boxcar?