World Energy

[desy]

http://www.scitizen.com/storie...gy-Optimist-s-Lexicon/

"When it comes to the debate over the world's energy future, those arguing for continued abundance are sometimes ignorant of the full implications of the terms they use and sometimes just intellectually dishonest.

To help readers sort through the thicket of loaded terms often used by the energy optimists, I've constructed a short list of the most pernicious words and phrases that are often used to fool audiences rather than inform them"

I love this article because it dismantles all of the terms people try to gloss over the impending energy crisis with.

It isn't conspiracy, it isn't the fault of any one country, industry organization, commodity traders.
It is a huge systemic problem filled with complications on every scale. The sooner we step up to face it the easier the brunt of it to bear will be

 

[daniel49]

meh;
a waste of valuable rescorces . He offers no solutions, only critique.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: daniel49
meh;
a waste of valuable rescorces . He offers no solutions, only critique.

So what? The point of the article is to debunk "energy optimists".... and energy optimism is a real problem. A lot of people are dumb enough to believe the bunko handed out to them

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: daniel49
meh;
a waste of valuable rescorces . He offers no solutions, only critique.

So what? The point of the article is to debunk "energy optimists".... and energy optimism is a real problem. A lot of people are dumb enough to believe the bunko handed out to them

yeah, I hate them durn optimists. Always so happy and positive.
give me a depressed pesimist anyday of the week.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: desy
http://www.scitizen.com/storie...gy-Optimist-s-Lexicon/

"When it comes to the debate over the world's energy future, those arguing for continued abundance are sometimes ignorant of the full implications of the terms they use and sometimes just intellectually dishonest.

To help readers sort through the thicket of loaded terms often used by the energy optimists, I've constructed a short list of the most pernicious words and phrases that are often used to fool audiences rather than inform them"

I love this article because it dismantles all of the terms people try to gloss over the impending energy crisis with.

It isn't conspiracy, it isn't the fault of any one country, industry organization, commodity traders.
It is a huge systemic problem filled with complications on every scale. The sooner we step up to face it the easier the brunt of it to bear will be

I like how some people try to view my use of energy as a disease, similar to alchoholism.
I am sure I could find a similar lexicon among those types. Of course, though, I am just being intellectually dishonest, because of my disease.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello. My name is Ozoned, and I have an energy consumption problem.

 

[desy]

Never said current use of energy is a problem, its just unsustainable.
Just like fishing off the Grand banks. eventually it collapsed and now they don't fish there anymore.
Pretending you can pull as much Cod out from there as you always could only exacerbated the overfishing.
So like it or not society will have to change how we consume energy, how we go about change is what I'm interested in

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I've always been under the impression that the so called "energy optimists" don't claim that there's continued abundance. I believe their argument is that it's not as bad as the energy pessimists would lead people to believe. Considering the continual failure over the years of those same pessimists to predict peak oil, and the failure of their dire predictions about the world running out of fossil fuels real soon now, this article seems very knee jerk and sophomoric. It brings nothing of value to the table except a bunch of weak arguments that are based on some loosely imagined strawmen about the those evil, apathetic optimists holding us back from a sea change and alternatve energy revolution.

If the pessimists want to make real change then how about they provide some real, unbiased data about the evntuality of fossil fuels instead of allowing eco-nuttism to drive their agenda? They need to stop crying wolf and provide something concrete. Pretending that the people who have to constantly smack down their premature prognostications of doom & gloom are the problem is pure horseshit.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Stick a pipe down Obama's throat, lots of hot air coming out of there we can harness.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Stick a pipe down Obama's throat, lots of hot air coming out of there we can harness.

i know how to do it friends

i can do it friends

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I've always been under the impression that the so called "energy optimists" don't claim that there's continued abundance. I believe their argument is that it's not as bad as the energy pessimists would lead people to believe. Considering the continual failure over the years of those same pessimists to predict peak oil, and the failure of their dire predictions about the world running out of fossil fuels real soon now, this article seems very knee jerk and sophomoric. It brings nothing of value to the table except a bunch of weak arguments that are based on some loosely imagined strawmen about the those evil, apathetic optimists holding us back from a sea change and alternatve energy revolution.

If the pessimists want to make real change then how about they provide some real, unbiased data about the evntuality of fossil fuels instead of allowing eco-nuttism to drive their agenda? They need to stop crying wolf and provide something concrete. Pretending that the people who have to constantly smack down their premature prognostications of doom & gloom are the problem is pure horseshit.

this.

 

[BoberFett]

Are eco-nuts trying to make "optimism" a bad word now?

 

[desy]

This guy isn't a eco nut , if you bother to read this is a science website.
Peak oil hasn't failed, its right on track
Fist stab was the 70's when US production went into permanent decline.
Second stab is about now when world production is on the cusp of decline. Any peak oil article will tell you, the actual point is a murky thing best seen in hindsight it won't be glaringly obvious

You know nuts jobs like the IEA saying we need to find several suadi arabias to offset procution delines and consumptive demand in the next few decades.
Glossing over is only setting up mankind for larger failure
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=1032

poor sad nutjobs I mean just look at the credentials of these lunatics!

Who are these guys? Wells has a Ph.D. in geology and three decades of experience in the global oil industry. He has worked extensively in the Middle East, Russia, West Africa, and Europe, and is an expert on the oil politics and geology of Iran and Iraq. He spent 12 years with Shell International, 4 with BP, and 6 with LASMO, the British oil and gas independent, where he led the company?s business development efforts in the Mideast, including Iran. In 2001, he helped start Neftex, a British oil consulting firm. Since 2005, he has been a consultant to Toyota, developing world oil supply and price forecasting models. I have known Wells since 2005 and heard him speak several times. His presentation on September 23 during a ?sustainable mobility? seminar sponsored by Toyota in Portland, Oregon motivated me to write this piece.

Maxwell has been in the oil business for more than 50 years, beginning with a stint at Mobil Oil in 1957. In 1968 he began working as an energy securities analyst. Since 1999, he has been a senior energy analyst at Weeden & Co., a brokerage in Greenwich, Connecticut. Now 76 and showing no signs of slowing down, Maxwell has become one of the most quoted analysts in the business. In the September 8 issue of Barron?s, Maxwell predicted that due to ongoing demand growth, and lackluster supply additions that include the new Saudi fields at Khurais, Shaybah, and Nuayyim, the price of oil will reach about $300 per barrel by 2015. I have heard Maxwell speak several times since 2002, and talked to him at length on September 25, when he summarized his view of the future by saying, ?We have gone on an unsustainable energy course.?

 

[BoberFett]

I was talking about you, fruitcake.

 

[desy]

Sadly living in suburbia with my manicured lawn, minivan's cars and kids I'm exactly the kind econuts hate.

 

[Eeezee]

Geothermal, nuclear, solar, and wind. These are the energy future. Coal is sustainable for a long time, but that shit is disgusting.

There's nothing wrong with modern suburbia, it's our modes of energy production that are wrong. Consumable fuels will eventually run out, and we need to remember that.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: desy
This guy isn't a eco nut , if you bother to read this is a science website.
Peak oil hasn't failed, its right on track
Fist stab was the 70's when US production went into permanent decline.
Second stab is about now when world production is on the cusp of decline. Any peak oil article will tell you, the actual point is a murky thing best seen in hindsight it won't be glaringly obvious

You know nuts jobs like the IEA saying we need to find several suadi arabias to offset procution delines and consumptive demand in the next few decades.
Glossing over is only setting up mankind for larger failure
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=1032

poor sad nutjobs I mean just look at the credentials of these lunatics!

Who are these guys? Wells has a Ph.D. in geology and three decades of experience in the global oil industry. He has worked extensively in the Middle East, Russia, West Africa, and Europe, and is an expert on the oil politics and geology of Iran and Iraq. He spent 12 years with Shell International, 4 with BP, and 6 with LASMO, the British oil and gas independent, where he led the company?s business development efforts in the Mideast, including Iran. In 2001, he helped start Neftex, a British oil consulting firm. Since 2005, he has been a consultant to Toyota, developing world oil supply and price forecasting models. I have known Wells since 2005 and heard him speak several times. His presentation on September 23 during a ?sustainable mobility? seminar sponsored by Toyota in Portland, Oregon motivated me to write this piece.

Maxwell has been in the oil business for more than 50 years, beginning with a stint at Mobil Oil in 1957. In 1968 he began working as an energy securities analyst. Since 1999, he has been a senior energy analyst at Weeden & Co., a brokerage in Greenwich, Connecticut. Now 76 and showing no signs of slowing down, Maxwell has become one of the most quoted analysts in the business. In the September 8 issue of Barron?s, Maxwell predicted that due to ongoing demand growth, and lackluster supply additions that include the new Saudi fields at Khurais, Shaybah, and Nuayyim, the price of oil will reach about $300 per barrel by 2015. I have heard Maxwell speak several times since 2002, and talked to him at length on September 25, when he summarized his view of the future by saying, ?We have gone on an unsustainable energy course.?

Credentials don't prevent someone from going overboard on an issue. There are many instances of perfectly credentialed and highly intelligent people that believe in the craziest things. Besides that, there are highly credentialed people on the other side of the peak oil argument as well.

We really aren't talking about Wells though. It's about the guy who wrote the op-ed cited in your OP. Who is he?

http://www.blogger.com/profile/05330759091950742285

About Me
Kurt Cobb is a freelance writer who speaks and writes frequently on energy and the environment. He is a columnist for the Paris-based science news site Scitizen (pronounced like ?citizen?) and his work has also been featured on Energy Bulletin, 321energy, Le Monde Diplomatique, EV World, The Wall Street Journal Online and many other sites. Kurt is a founding member of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas?USA .

He's a journalist with an agenda. Scitizen.com has an agenda as well, so trying to pass it off as a "science" website is really reaching. They discuss science related to issues like peak oil, going green, electric vehicles, and so on.

I don't necessarily believe people like Cobb to be crazy either. They are just a bit overzealous and impatient about their beliefs.

I'm pretty confident that any sane person is aware that fossil fuels are a dead end and that finding alternatives is absolutely mandatory for mankind to continue to move forward. Right now though fossil fuels are the cheapest enrgy available. Alternatives are there and ready for implementation, solar, geothermal, wind, etc. Some of those have already been implemented to a greater or lesser degree in certain niches. But until those alternative methods become economically feasible over the cost of fossil fuels, it won't happen on a large scale. That day is not today or tomorrow because we will seek out fossil fuel solutions until we nearly bleed it dry. That's just how humans are.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I've always been under the impression that the so called "energy optimists" don't claim that there's continued abundance. I believe their argument is that it's not as bad as the energy pessimists would lead people to believe. Considering the continual failure over the years of those same pessimists to predict peak oil, and the failure of their dire predictions about the world running out of fossil fuels real soon now, this article seems very knee jerk and sophomoric. It brings nothing of value to the table except a bunch of weak arguments that are based on some loosely imagined strawmen about the those evil, apathetic optimists holding us back from a sea change and alternatve energy revolution.

If the pessimists want to make real change then how about they provide some real, unbiased data about the evntuality of fossil fuels instead of allowing eco-nuttism to drive their agenda? They need to stop crying wolf and provide something concrete. Pretending that the people who have to constantly smack down their premature prognostications of doom & gloom are the problem is pure horseshit.

You're totally right, because I'm sure fossil fuels with last forever and never be subject to the kinds of market factors that result in low availability and/or high prices to the extent that they could cripple our economy. :roll:

Whether or not the energy crisis is going to happen tomorrow (and I'm of the opinion that it probably won't), the fact is that it IS going to happen, and coming up with some alternatives BEFORE we need them isn't a half bad idea. If you want, you and the "eco-nuts" can have a slap fight about whatever it is you're talking about, but that doesn't really help as much as you might imagine. In the end, it doesn't matter whether the green brigade is crying wolf or not, because even the unbiased optimists can see the writing on the wall. It's not a problem for tomorrow, but it's going to be a problem, and the scope of ANY solution we might be talking about is so huge that starting on it now isn't an unreasonable idea.

In other words, don't get so caught up in your pissing match with Al Gore that you forget that there ARE real concerns here. Proving him wrong in the short term might be satisfying, but it doesn't change anything in the long run.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I've always been under the impression that the so called "energy optimists" don't claim that there's continued abundance. I believe their argument is that it's not as bad as the energy pessimists would lead people to believe. Considering the continual failure over the years of those same pessimists to predict peak oil, and the failure of their dire predictions about the world running out of fossil fuels real soon now, this article seems very knee jerk and sophomoric. It brings nothing of value to the table except a bunch of weak arguments that are based on some loosely imagined strawmen about the those evil, apathetic optimists holding us back from a sea change and alternatve energy revolution.

If the pessimists want to make real change then how about they provide some real, unbiased data about the evntuality of fossil fuels instead of allowing eco-nuttism to drive their agenda? They need to stop crying wolf and provide something concrete. Pretending that the people who have to constantly smack down their premature prognostications of doom & gloom are the problem is pure horseshit.

You're totally right, because I'm sure fossil fuels with last forever and never be subject to the kinds of market factors that result in low availability and/or high prices to the extent that they could cripple our economy. :roll:

As has been shown recently they can temporarily cripple the economy but in the process they slice their own throat in the process. However, that's nothing new. We've seen it happen in the past and it has nothing to do with peak oil at this point.

Besides that, I've already stated that fossil fuels won't last forever. I consider you to be one of the more sane lefties in this forum so I don't really understand why you care to twist my position on the subject.

Whether or not the energy crisis is going to happen tomorrow (and I'm of the opinion that it probably won't), the fact is that it IS going to happen, and coming up with some alternatives BEFORE we need them isn't a half bad idea. If you want, you and the "eco-nuts" can have a slap fight about whatever it is you're talking about, but that doesn't really help as much as you might imagine. In the end, it doesn't matter whether the green brigade is crying wolf or not, because even the unbiased optimists can see the writing on the wall. It's not a problem for tomorrow, but it's going to be a problem, and the scope of ANY solution we might be talking about is so huge that starting on it now isn't an unreasonable idea.

In other words, don't get so caught up in your pissing match with Al Gore that you forget that there ARE real concerns here. Proving him wrong in the short term might be satisfying, but it doesn't change anything in the long run.

What pissing match? You're imagining things.

Sure it's going to happen in the LONG run. It's not going to be an abrupt process though. There will be a gradual decline that will force us to transition. Hopefully by then we'll have fusion power or another economically viable alternative within our grasp. As I metioned previously, we already have alternatives. If we have to we will employ those when they become more economically feasible. Until then we will bleed fossil fuels as dry as we can.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I've always been under the impression that the so called "energy optimists" don't claim that there's continued abundance. I believe their argument is that it's not as bad as the energy pessimists would lead people to believe. Considering the continual failure over the years of those same pessimists to predict peak oil, and the failure of their dire predictions about the world running out of fossil fuels real soon now, this article seems very knee jerk and sophomoric. It brings nothing of value to the table except a bunch of weak arguments that are based on some loosely imagined strawmen about the those evil, apathetic optimists holding us back from a sea change and alternatve energy revolution.

If the pessimists want to make real change then how about they provide some real, unbiased data about the evntuality of fossil fuels instead of allowing eco-nuttism to drive their agenda? They need to stop crying wolf and provide something concrete. Pretending that the people who have to constantly smack down their premature prognostications of doom & gloom are the problem is pure horseshit.

You're totally right, because I'm sure fossil fuels with last forever and never be subject to the kinds of market factors that result in low availability and/or high prices to the extent that they could cripple our economy. :roll:

As has been shown recently they can temporarily cripple the economy but in the process they slice their own throat in the process. However, that's nothing new. We've seen it happen in the past and it has nothing to do with peak oil at this point.

Besides that, I've already stated that fossil fuels won't last forever. I consider you to be one of the more sane lefties in this forum so I don't really understand why you care to twist my position on the subject.

Whether or not the energy crisis is going to happen tomorrow (and I'm of the opinion that it probably won't), the fact is that it IS going to happen, and coming up with some alternatives BEFORE we need them isn't a half bad idea. If you want, you and the "eco-nuts" can have a slap fight about whatever it is you're talking about, but that doesn't really help as much as you might imagine. In the end, it doesn't matter whether the green brigade is crying wolf or not, because even the unbiased optimists can see the writing on the wall. It's not a problem for tomorrow, but it's going to be a problem, and the scope of ANY solution we might be talking about is so huge that starting on it now isn't an unreasonable idea.

In other words, don't get so caught up in your pissing match with Al Gore that you forget that there ARE real concerns here. Proving him wrong in the short term might be satisfying, but it doesn't change anything in the long run.

What pissing match? You're imagining things.

Sure it's going to happen in the LONG run. It's not going to be an abrupt process though. There will be a gradual decline that will force us to transition. Hopefully by then we'll have fusion power or another economically viable alternative within our grasp. As I metioned previously, we already have alternatives. If we have to we will employ those when they become more economically feasible. Until then we will bleed fossil fuels as dry as we can.

I DON'T think you think oil will last forever, that was my point. You acknowledge there is a problem that will eventually need to be solved, in fact most people on all sides of the political spectrum do. Yet whenever energy discussions come up, it inevitably turns into the anti-enviro nuts getting into a shouting match with the enviro-nuts, both sides totally missing the point. The end result is that both sides have a self-fulfilling prophesy, since the whole debate becomes about the argument instead of about the solutions. When it's Bill O'Reilly shouting at Al Gore, it's hard to get any real work done. My comment directed at you was more to highlight that problem than to accuse you specifically of doing anything.

But I do somewhat disagree that the gradual decline of fossil fuels will force us into a transition. I think it's very possible that we won't approach the issue in a rational manner, for the reason I mentioned and other reasons, and unless we make sure we're dealing with the problem, we WON'T actually be dealing with it. I'm worried that the transition will be TOO gradual, and that we won't think of trying to DO anything until we've reached the point where it's difficult to do so. Reason suggests that won't happen, but reason might not be the driving force here. Whether it's eco-nuts opposing wind energy because they are worried about a few birds being killed, or other folks opposing wind energy because they don't like Al Gore style lecturing, the end result is the same.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I DON'T think you think oil will last forever, that was my point. You acknowledge there is a problem that will eventually need to be solved, in fact most people on all sides of the political spectrum do. Yet whenever energy discussions come up, it inevitably turns into the anti-enviro nuts getting into a shouting match with the enviro-nuts, both sides totally missing the point. The end result is that both sides have a self-fulfilling prophesy, since the whole debate becomes about the argument instead of about the solutions. When it's Bill O'Reilly shouting at Al Gore, it's hard to get any real work done. My comment directed at you was more to highlight that problem than to accuse you specifically of doing anything.

Isn't the entire OP about the argument though? It's one side's counter talking points and nothing more.

But I do somewhat disagree that the gradual decline of fossil fuels will force us into a transition. I think it's very possible that we won't approach the issue in a rational manner, for the reason I mentioned and other reasons, and unless we make sure we're dealing with the problem, we WON'T actually be dealing with it. I'm worried that the transition will be TOO gradual, and that we won't think of trying to DO anything until we've reached the point where it's difficult to do so. Reason suggests that won't happen, but reason might not be the driving force here. Whether it's eco-nuts opposing wind energy because they are worried about a few birds being killed, or other folks opposing wind energy because they don't like Al Gore style lecturing, the end result is the same.

It's not as if nothing is being done at all. We are already in a transition. It may not seem like it because it's the early stages, and it goes in fits and starts, but it's there. Wind farms are being built. Solar farms are being built. There have been cost and efficiency improvements for both solar and wind energy technologies. More people are buying efficient cars and hybrids now. The summer of lube that we just went through with the outrageous oil prices helped to hasten that transition somewhat and brought about more widespread awareness concerning what the future holds.

Let's not fool ourselves into imagining that we must make some sort of massive change right now and toss out our existing energy infrastructure. Doing so would be fiscal idiocy. The energy market and technological advances will determine when the time is right to rid ourselves of our dependence on fossil fuels. That time is getting closer but it's not here yet.

 

[tfcmasta97]

lol "substitution" and "technology" are "faith based economics"

No shit, so is spouting free-market ideals with the largest and most important markets being dominated by monopoly powers and private enterprises securing futures by infiltrating government policies, the lobbyists.

Yeah, let us assume world growth into a well perceived and predicted need will not bring on any new technologies and assume that our current research into other fields is null. Lets throw growth of alternatives out the window [potentially decreasing extraction costs] and assume the world will sit still with its thumb up its ass. Let us ignore the impact of those small-scaled nuclear power centers introduced now and assume that those technologies will only get worse, not improve.

Guess what, any conclusion requires some basis of assumptions, a reasonable person will look more at the assumptions put in place and means used to come to a conclusion rather than just judging conclusions.

So the author goes "I disagree with them so I'll throw all [even reasonable] assumptions out the window, and we have a problem."

 

[desy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
because the author knows the incredible difficulty of replacing oil and why substition is unlilkely to ever come on stream fast enough, as represented how much energy in one cubic mile of oil.

Allowing fifty years to develop each replacement, one cubic mile of oil could be replaced by any one of these developments:

* 4 Three Gorges Dams[7], developed each year for 50 years, or
* 52 nuclear power plants[8], developed each year for 50 years, or
* 104 coal-fired power plants[9], developed each year for 50 years, or
* 32,850 wind turbines, [10][11] developed each year for 50 years, or
* 91,250,000 rooftop solar photovoltaic panels[12] developed each year for 50 years

The energy produced is the power rating of the source multiplied by the duration it is operational. These comparisons take into account the variability of available power (solar panels work only during the day, turbines work only when the wind blows). To replace the current 3 CMO annual energy use would require three of these 50-year development projects.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: desy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
because the author knows the incredible difficulty of replacing oil and why substition is unlilkely to ever come on stream fast enough, as represented how much energy in one cubic mile of oil.

Allowing fifty years to develop each replacement, one cubic mile of oil could be replaced by any one of these developments:

* 4 Three Gorges Dams[7], developed each year for 50 years, or
* 52 nuclear power plants[8], developed each year for 50 years, or
* 104 coal-fired power plants[9], developed each year for 50 years, or
* 32,850 wind turbines, [10][11] developed each year for 50 years, or
* 91,250,000 rooftop solar photovoltaic panels[12] developed each year for 50 years

The energy produced is the power rating of the source multiplied by the duration it is operational. These comparisons take into account the variability of available power (solar panels work only during the day, turbines work only when the wind blows). To replace the current 3 CMO annual energy use would require three of these 50-year development projects.

That's all fine and well but the above assumes an all or nothing scenario and doesn't take the transitional aspect into consideration. We aren't going to have to replace a cubic mile of oil right in one fell swoop. It will be a gradual process where we will have to compensate for slowly dwindling oil output. His cost estimates also show that, when the need arises, we can transition into alternative forms of energy at a reasonable cost trade-off compared to oil. That doesn't even take the potential of technological breakthroughs/improvement and volume production into consideration which will reduce those costs from their current levels.

The alternative energy tech is already here. It's just waiting to become economically viable. When it is we'll spend our money on that instead.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: desy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
because the author knows the incredible difficulty of replacing oil and why substition is unlilkely to ever come on stream fast enough, as represented how much energy in one cubic mile of oil.

Allowing fifty years to develop each replacement, one cubic mile of oil could be replaced by any one of these developments:

* 4 Three Gorges Dams[7], developed each year for 50 years, or
* 52 nuclear power plants[8], developed each year for 50 years, or
* 104 coal-fired power plants[9], developed each year for 50 years, or
* 32,850 wind turbines, [10][11] developed each year for 50 years, or
* 91,250,000 rooftop solar photovoltaic panels[12] developed each year for 50 years

The energy produced is the power rating of the source multiplied by the duration it is operational. These comparisons take into account the variability of available power (solar panels work only during the day, turbines work only when the wind blows). To replace the current 3 CMO annual energy use would require three of these 50-year development projects.

I'm not 100% sure, but I feel like we are already building new generation at this pace worldwide. I'm not sure the exact numbers, but China is building that many power plants a year on their own let alone the rest of the world. Especially when you add all those together the world is building at least twice that much new generation each year.

 

[desy]

Thats 109 coal plants every yr for 50 yrs or 6000 coal plants is there enough coal for 6000 new coal plants?