With growth in clean energy 'unstoppable,' fossil fuels will peak by 2030, energy agency says

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Good lord no. About 30 percent is power generation, about 30 percent is transportation, and about 30 percent is industrial.  The rest is split up between residential and commercial applications.

Good lord yes!
 

 Power generation, transportation and “industrial” are all forms of burning fuel for energy. By your own methods that’s 90% right there before we even discuss “residential and commercial”  which is probably heating and therefore also burning fuel for energy. The non-energy uses are petrochemicals that are used to make plastics, lubricants, etc. and indeed are less than 3% of production, in the US anyway  

Also keep in mind NBs post was specifically about “petroleum based components” which as the chart below shows are less than 3% of US petroleum production  

 

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/use-of-oil.php#:~:text=Petroleum has historically been the,buildings%2C and to produce electricity.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Good lord yes!
 

 

Your own chart shows you're entirely wrong. 

No - transportation is not burning fuel for 'energy".  Nice try tho.  Every single source knows that 'energy' is power generation, not transportation.

I get you're not smart.  I think we all do.   But for FACKS sake - if you're going to post info don't post info that proves your wrong and then try to claim you're right. I'm embarrassed for you just reading it.

Your claim that 98 percent went to energy when your own graph shows 67 percent goes to transportation is moronic

Damn kid.  It's bad enough i make you look stupid so often, do you really need to do it yourself as well?

[BeaverFever]

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Your own chart shows you're entirely wrong. 

No - transportation is not burning fuel for 'energy".  Nice try tho.  Every single source knows that 'energy' is power generation, not transportation.

I get you're not smart.  I think we all do.   But for FACKS sake - if you're going to post info don't post info that proves your wrong and then try to claim you're right. I'm embarrassed for you just reading it.

Your claim that 98 percent went to energy when your own graph shows 67 percent goes to transportation is moronic

Damn kid.  It's bad enough i make you look stupid so often, do you really need to do it yourself as well?

Hey genius learn the difference between power generation and “energy”.  Burning fuel to make your car go is burning fuel for energy.
 

Also you fail to grasp that the column on the right is the economic sector using the petroleum product, not the type product or use, dummy.  Totally not even what we’re talking about. Once again you prove yourself to he the “not smart one”

 

Lets put it another way which will show how dull you are in reference to NBs statement how much fossil fuels donyou thin go to “petroleum based components” for electric vehicles Do you have a significantly different number?  No you don’t. Typical of the righties here you are slow to grasp bit quick to insult even on irrelevant points that would be totally irrelevant if they weren’t wrong. 

Edited October 25, 2023 by BeaverFever

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Right because six years is forever right?

No, the issue is 2030. How many years away is that? 

Link

I guess you are not aware.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Hey genius learn the difference between power generation and “energy”. 

I know the difference.

F*ck you're stupid,

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

No, the issue is 2030. How many years away is that? 

Six

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Six

Impressive - took your mittens off i take it?  

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What a useless statement.

As usual - no argument to be made, just make a dumb statement and run away.

The whole point is 6 years is no time at all - we're not going to convert our economies to 'oilless' ones in that time or even get to the point where we can stop burning more oil that we do now.

But noooo - lets not have a discussion, by all means just say something !diotic and pointless and flee like the leftie you are.

"The Warden" is simply being obtuse.  

[Moonbox]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I know the difference.

Then why did you say this?

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

No - transportation is not burning fuel for 'energy".  Nice try tho.  Every single source knows that 'energy' is power generation, not transportation.

Fixed this for you:

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

F*ck you're I'm incredibly stupid,

 

[Legato]

The last car I bought has this really good battery. The mechanic said it's called an ICE, works really well. All I have to do is top up the electrolyte now and then. There are many electrolyte stations. It's a win win.

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

I'm really sorry cdnfox - i shouldn't follow you around like this just because you make me look stupid most of the time

 

There - fixed it for you.

Oh loooook -   gee feels like just the other day when i was pointing out that you come here mostly to follow me around and just attack at random because of your self esteem issues   Can't help yourself can you

Someone who can't figure out how much is left when you take away 50 percent of something is probably not in a position to be questioning others   

 

24 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

"The Warden" is simply being obtuse.  

As is often the case.

Looks like the loonie bin is out in force today

[cougar]

On 10/24/2023 at 10:46 AM, CdnFox said:

Frankly it feels optimistic. 

It doesn't.  Seven more years of growing fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions when we are on the verge of collapse already is not optimistic, but predictable.

 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, cougar said:

It doesn't.  Seven more years of growing fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions when we are on the verge of collapse already is not optimistic, but predictable.

 

I think you misunderstand - i'm saying the idea that in 6 years we'll reach peak oil use and not increase our use beyond that seems optimistic.  So - if you're agreeing with me that we won't stop using more oil in 6 years then you agree that it IS optimistic that we will as the story suggests, right?

[cougar]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I think you misunderstand - i'm saying the idea that in 6 years we'll reach peak oil use and not increase our use beyond that seems optimistic.  So - if you're agreeing with me that we won't stop using more oil in 6 years then you agree that it IS optimistic that we will as the story suggests, right?

My take is, the demand is like a bell shaped curve.  We add 7 more years of increases to reach the peak, then possibly another 7 years of decreases to get to the fossil level usage of today and then it will be dropping down.  

I will not see any improvement to the climate in my lifetime , it will be only getting worse.

[WestCanMan]

I think one of the biggest problems for vehicles right now is energy storage. 

Hydrogen as a fuel is still a tough sell. Maybe it has the highest potential down the road when new technology emerges, but right now it's a pipe dream in Canada. Last I heard the closest to me would be one station that's supposed to open in Surrey. It's basically just the answer to a trivia question right now.

Lithium batteries are a toxic mess, both in construction and recycling/disposal. They are slow to recharge and not useful for Canadian winter conditions because they drain too fast when you have to run both the interior heater and headlights, plus batteries lack oomph when they get cold. Forget about driving from Edm to Wpg in the winter with an EV. 

Obviously gas is still the champion of energy density and quick refilling, but the crying and ballyhooing from the exhaust emissions is enough to make me wanna kill the planet myself. 

None of the above solutions is great, but I don't think there are any other contenders out there right now. 

Edited October 25, 2023 by WestCanMan

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Oh loooook -   gee feels like just the other day when i was pointing out that you come here mostly to follow me around and just attack at random 

It's wasn't random.  You were (yet again) demonstrating your unique talent for belligerent stupidity:

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No - transportation is not burning fuel for 'energy"

Which is retarded, and when it was pointed out, you responded with:

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I know the difference.

F*ck you're stupid,

When you just demonstrated you didn't.  Way to go!  ??

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There - fixed it for you.

You'd think this would be a topic that we could all mostly agree on, but for some reason leftards just gotta hate. 

[CdnFox]

37 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It's wasn't random.  You were (yet again) demonstrating your unique talent for belligerent stupidity:

Which is retarded, and when it was pointed out, you responded with:

When you just demonstrated you didn't.  Way to go!  ??

So you randomly show up and spend all your time attacking me because you're pissed off i made you look stupid

You do this every time. You wind up trying to make a point where you're wrong, you wind up looking stupid as hell because you can't admit when you're clearly wrong, and then for the next few weeks you just randomly attack me because your ego can't cope

As if it's my fault you can't figure out how much 100 percent minus 50 percent is  

I see the boc is again today pointing out that justin's spending is hurting their efforts with inflation, despite being careful to not call out the gov't for it's politics  

If you can't afford real therapy then i guess you gotta do what you gotta do  

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You'd think this would be a topic that we could all mostly agree on, but for some reason leftards just gotta hate. 

Yeah.  Well the left has become VERY tribal. And they become bitter and resentful every time theyr'e shown to be wrong.

Like i noted above - every time @Moonbox loses an argument for the next few weeks he follows me around just randomly attacking and picking fights hoping he can massage his ego and find something to be right about.  Like... who does that?

But - as you say it is what it is and haters gonna hate.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

My take is, the demand is like a bell shaped curve.  We add 7 more years of increases to reach the peak, then possibly another 7 years of decreases to get to the fossil level usage of today and then it will be dropping down.  

I will not see any improvement to the climate in my lifetime , it will be only getting worse.

But where is this decrease coming from? There's no new tech on the horizon that's going to be deployed that fast.  EV's still burn fossil fuels to get their electricity in most parts of the world. China is increasing its out put by canada's entire out put every year or two - i just don't see it capping off in 6 years.  Populatinos are growing, consumption is going to go up even if consumption "per person" goes down a little.

I just don't see where the 'turning point' comes from tech wise.

[WestCanMan]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah.  Well the left has become VERY tribal. And they become bitter and resentful every time theyr'e shown to be wrong.

Like i noted above - every time @Moonbox loses an argument for the next few weeks he follows me around just randomly attacking and picking fights hoping he can massage his ego and find something to be right about.  Like... who does that?

But - as you say it is what it is and haters gonna hate.

I have moonie on ignore, so I rarely see the posts with her self-portraits lol. 

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I have moonie on ignore, so I rarely see the posts with her self-portraits lol. 

He's a girl?  Actually that explains quite a bit.

[WestCanMan]

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

He's a girl?  Actually that explains quite a bit.

I dunno.

Moon is slang for butt, and box is crude slang for vagina, so it seems as if that person is advertising their butt as a vagina. I initially thought it would be a girl, but I guess it makes more sense if it's a guy. 

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I dunno.

Moon is slang for butt, and box is crude slang for vagina, so it seems as if that person is advertising their butt as a vagina. I initially thought it would be a girl, but I guess it makes more sense if it's a guy. 

Well i hope you realize you'll be staying up to talk to me when i can't sleep tonight now. 

[BeaverFever]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I know the difference.

F*ck you're stupid,

No.  Apparently you don’t.  
 

And your choice to once again put up an empty sore loser post containing insults and no substance shows that you know this to be true. I hope you don’t play poker because you have a really obvious tell.