Energy Intelligence is far more important than energy security.
And as it turns out Real Intelligence [RI] means to be able to hold in mind several conflicting thoughts simultaneously.
Hold conflict within and serenely be able to make correct judgements regardless of ideology, risk, fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Judgements that will lead you to take just decisions that will materially change the future for your future, for your life, your treasure and most importantly for the people’s commonwealth benefit.
In essence to be able to create your own future. That’s RI for you.
Climate Change and Energy are integrally linked. So much so that the conflicting evidence can all be constructive – albeit even when expressing seemingly contradictory and vastly differing points of view.
Exhibit No 1 and prime case in point: Hold that thought….
The announcement of Exxon/Mobil about it’s projected rise of CO2 and other Greenhouse gases by 25% by the year 2030 is just a point of view of a company spewing out garbage and supporting it’s own self serving world view. And it is a tunnel view – similar to Hitler’s land to grow argument – and that alone is a sign of Realpolitik and economic shortsightedness [as expected] from the dimmer lightbulbs in the box.
This isn’t Energy Intelligence but it surely is Psychological warfare against You.
Because when you have to sell pollution, and still want to increase your irresponsibility, one way is that you claim everyone else is doing it too. So they communicate to governments and people and the Climate Change fighters, the pessimism already pervasive in climate activist circles. Basically they are psyching you up for failure.
Their disaster message is loud and clear: Don’t bother placing any limits on CO2 in your country. It’s futile. Cover up and crawl under your duvet and never come out again…
According to the company’s annual Outlook for Energy report – due to be published next week – demand for power will increase by nearly 40% in the next 20 years, lifting emissions by around 0.9% a year at least until 2030.
Beyond 2030, Exxon says, any progress on cuts will require “more aggressive gains in energy efficiency as well as the use of less carbon-intensive fuels. New technologies will by then be essential.”
“It is a significant rise in emissions, but it is substantially slower because of [expected] improved efficiency and a shift towards lower carbon fuels,” says the report, previewed at the current World Future Energy conference in Abu Dhabi. A meeting of Greenwashing polluters, oil jockeys and their camel drivers – the global oil benefiting banker wankers – in an unsustainable dessert outing in the most unsustainable mirage city on this earth. A place where the consumption of fossil fuels per capita is far higher than anywhere else… on this planet. That gives you the picture completely. Ah and you must add to that the onslaught of tax evaders, or tax emigres from America and Brittain and the requisite Russian and other ex-soviet blonde hookers… with their pimps and assorted corpulent, checkered cloth heads, serious camel jockeys, emirs and various arab sheikhs. Throw in a bunch of Cadillacs and now you’ve got the complete picture.
Still the Exxon/Mobile company does not say what it expects the global oil output to be in 2030 – that being a secret – but suggests that US demand will be roughly at 1960 levels, suggesting that the US will have reduced its dependency on foreign oil considerably.
Instead, it says that growth in CO2 emissions in the future will be dominated by China, India and other developing, or non-OECD countries.
The projections by Exxon scientists are gloomier than anything publicly expressed by governments and scientists, who maintain that global emissions can be reduced significantly and catastrophic climate change be averted if action is taken for them to reach their “peak” in the next 10 years.
But Exxon, which until 10 years ago was sceptical that climate change could be even caused by man-made emissions, said emissions will continue to rise significantly with very little reduction in fossil fuel use.
Now they change tack. They are fearful of becoming irrelevant. THerefore the new Propaganda is more focused on the futility of defense against their evil actions. action nature. And this very change signifies that the Exxon/Mobile crowd of oil-monkeys, feels scared. Because they go on to say: “In 2030, fossil fuels remain the predominant energy source, accounting for nearly 80% of demand. Oil still leads, but natural gas moves into second place on very strong growth of 1.8% a year on average, particularly because of its position as a favoured fuel for power generation. Other energy types – particularly nuclear, wind, solar and biofuels – will grow sharply, albeit from a smaller base. Nuclear and renewable fuels will see strong growth, particularly in the power-generation sector. By 2030, about 40% of the world’s electricity will be generated by nuclear and renewable fuels.”
Yet here is what we know to be true: Because the Non-OECD countries’ emissions surpassed OECD emissions in 2004; by 2030, non-OECD countries will account for two-thirds of the global total. Meanwhile, OECD emissions will decline by about 15% on today’s figure, but by 2030 will be down to 1980 levels or less
The other conflicting piece of intelligence you need to hold in your brain is this diametrically opposing news:
A proper physical scientific study concluded that One hundred percent of humanity’s energy needs can be met through Renewable Energy sources by the same year 2030….
Achieving 100 percent renewable energy would mean the building of about four million 5 MW wind turbines, 1.7 billion 3 kW roof-mounted solar photovoltaic systems, and around 90,000 300 MW solar power plants.
Mark Delucchi, one of the authors of the report, which was published in the journal Energy Policy, said the researchers had aimed to show enough renewable energy is available and could be harnessed to meet demand indefinitely by 2030.
Delucchi and colleague Mark Jacobson left all fossil fuel sources of energy out of their calculations and concentrated only on wind, solar, waves and geothermal sources. Fossil fuels currently provide over 80 percent of the world’s energy supply. They also left out biomass, currently the most widely used renewable energy source, because of concerns about pollution and land-use issues. Their calculations also left out nuclear power generation, which currently supplies around six percent of the world’s electricity.
To make their vision possible, a great deal of building would need to occur. The wind turbines needed, for example, are two to three times the capacity of most of today’s wind turbines, but 5 MW offshore turbines were built in Germany in 2006, and China built its first in 2010. The solar power plants needed would be a mix of photovoltaic panel plants and concentrated solar plants that concentrate solar energy to boil water to drive generators. At present only a few dozen such utility-scale solar plants exist. Energy would also be obtained from photovoltaic panels mounted on most homes and buildings.
Jacobson said the major challenge would be in the interconnection of variable supplies such as wind and solar to enable the different renewable sources to work together to match supply with demands. The more consistent renewable sources of wave and tidal power and geothermal systems would supply less of the energy but their consistency would make the whole system more reliable.
Delucchi is from the Institute for Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, while Jacobson belongs to Stanford University’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. They first began to study the feasibility and affordability of converting the world to 100 percent renewable energy sources in a Scientific American article published before the Copenhagen climate talks in 2009.
The pair say all the major resources needed are available, with the only material bottleneck being supplies of rare earth materials such as neodymium, which is often used in the manufacture of magnets. This bottleneck could be overcome if mining were increased by a factor of five and if recycling were introduced, or if technologies avoiding rare earth were developed, but the political bottlenecks may be insurmountable.
And there are more conflicting pieces of news and scientific insights we could gather from…
But these two above are so disparate that your intelligence need not be tested too hard before you can decide what’s good for you and what action you and your government must take.
Be warned :
This isn’t a multiple choice answer.
It’s pretty much a zero sum game.
One method of Energy will have to die and be phased out for the other one to win.
Yours,
Pano
Now that we know what the fuck the Oilers are up to, we have a choice.
Do what is possible to pull ourselves up from the bootstraps – or hide under the duvet.
Because according to the UK Met Office, if emissions rises can be stopped by 2020 and then be made to reduce by 1-2% a year, the planet could be expected to warm 2.1C to 3.7C this century, with the rise continuing even higher after 2100.
The test of real Intelligence is to do what’s right for the Species long term.
And for the humans in total short term.
That includes our adaptive intelligence…
It can all be expressed simply thus:
RI + ES + S = EI
I leave it up to You to figure out what’s what.
