Shell's Flawed Report: The 2025 Energy Security Scenarios
A quick critique
This is my off-the-cuff reaction to Shell's 2025 Energy Security Scenarios report, which was just released.
In my opinion, some of the assumptions are deeply flawed. As a result, this report paints an overly optimistic picture of the future.
Just my fast opinion. Feel free to disagree.
What they say: Fossil fuels as a share of primary energy demand is in decline
What I say: First of all, this chart paints an overly rosy picture by using relative measurements. In reality, total fossil fuel demand is likely to continue rising. While its true that other energy sources are taking an increasing share, the pace of growth has mainly been additive to total energy usage. Moreover, governments are preaching "drill baby drill" while withdrawing support for non-fossil fuel energy sources. As a result, I believe Shell's estimate for fossil fuel share of primary energy demand is way off.
What they say: Solar and wind capacity will continue growing rapidly
What I say: It will to a point. The limiting factors include resource availability and incentives. Building solar and windmills requires both fossil fuels, cement and numerous metals. It is a resource intensive process, which currently cannot be met by today's mining capabilities. I don't think we can achieve what this chart suggests unless we strip-mine half the planet. Also, as previously noted, some governments are turning away from solar/wind, cutting subsidies that previously encouraged growth.
What they say: We are near peak emissions and they will begin to drop rapidly.
What I say: I see no indication that emissions are peaking. The charts I look at show 2024 CO2 emissions as greater than 2023 emissions. In fact, atmospheric CO2 - which of course includes all sources, not just anthropogenic - is rising faster than ever (see soon to be extinct NOAA's chart below). Shell's fantastical chart fails to account for rising fossil fuel use and limits to solar/wind substitutes. It also incorporates another major hail Mary assumption...(see next point).
What they say: Carbon capture is the missing link. It's the plug variable that makes all these formulae work.
What I say: Yes, and magical fairies soon will give me the ability to fly. We're betting our future on a problematic technology. The forecast that emissions will rapidly decline not only requires us to strip mine the planet for resources that might not exist, it also relies on a technology that has so far failed.
What they say: The global temperature rise will be limited to about 2.2 degrees at worst.
What I say: Unfortunately, we've already broken through 1.5 degrees and it's only 2025. Remove assumptions about solar/wind and carbon capture technology and it's plain to see this chart underestimates the projected temperature rise. Worse, if you zoom in on the most recent observations in this chart, the divergence between reality and fantasy is already apparent. If recent trends continue, this chart will need to be compressed to end in 2035.
On another note, I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to my efforts by subscribing, commenting and sharing. Knowing I have an audience that cares about the same things as me is what keeps me going. Your comments educate, encourage and entertain me, and I read every one.
I'd also like to thank those who have made a financial contribution, either via premium subscription or one-off donation. This helps with overhead costs and keeps the site free of advertising clutter and marketing nonsense. Thank you.
Off the cuff? Don't be so modest.
For roughly 60 years the fossil fuels companies have known about the impact of fossil fuels on the environment based on their own studies and predictions, kept it hidden, did nothing to mitigate the predictions, and now we are supposed to believe a new study that they did? And we have an utter fool in the "stable genius" POTUS who fully supports them and doesn't believe in climate change.
The scenario(s) and solutions they propose in the study will necessarily require a a major increase in fossil fuels usage over the next 20 years to achieve, and in the end will never work. It seems we have scientists and engineers who have somehow forgotten basic fundamentals of engineering or are willfully ignoring them. Lying is the best way to a promotion and raise. Or at least job security. Truth is an automatic Pink slip.
Carbon capture is like nuclear fusion, only 20 years away (for the last 60 years). Do these researchers actually believe that the entire atmosphere of the planet can be sucked through a device that will remove the carbon and then somehow store it out of harms way?
"Fixing Climate" was written in 2008 and proposed this as a solution. It could have been written by "The Onion" as a satire. Wouldn't even make it as a good sci Fi novel. Dune was better.
Then the "end solution" is to convert to an all electric society. The current electric grid is already teetering on the brink of failure due to a failing infrastructure from lack of upgrades and increasing demand. Optimistically, correcting this will take a trillion dollars and 10 to 20 years. The entire grid will need to be redesigned to accommodate green energy. Then the storage requirements (batteries) will need to be replaced every 5 to 10 years (optimistically). The manpower alone to replace batteries, transport and recycle them staggers the imagination. The "end solution" is a complete joke from start to finish.
The final question is what is the real plan? Are these people fools enough to believe what they are saying? "Experts agree. Everything is fine. " Could they be misleading the population? Somehow the predictions of "collapse" all end in the convenient year of 2100. It's a nice number. 25 years away. If it were adjusted to 2035 people might actually get excited about it. As long as it's kept to where most people won't live long enough to see, what's the worry? "75 years in the future? - I'm worried about eating tomorrow." The collapse will begin much sooner than the end of the century. It's already begun.
It's rather obvious (at least to me) how much our "leadership" regards the people they are leading. At best slaves, at worst animals to use and discard at will.
Another manufacturing revolution started in the 80s with the advent of computer tech. It has eliminated vast numbers of jobs, decreased wages and increased profits and productivity which has resulted in the situation we now find ourselves in. Ecocide, poverty increased fossil fuels usage, meaningless non thinking
Jobs, lack of employment and the destruction of the world in short. We were promised a paradise of 20 hour workweek, and an abundance of our desires. Instead we have poverty wages, homelessness, reliance on the welfare state and increased work hours. With the introduction of artificial "intelligence" (read theft of human endeavors) we are being promised more of the same. Workers are already little more than robots.
Robots are now capable of taking over most work from humans and begining to replace them. Is the next technical revolution to eliminate humans?
What is the real purpose of AI? It's certainly not to do a quick search on Google or your homework in third grade. The construction of the number of AI facilities alone will expand peak electricity usage decades into the future.
Hitler didn't have the option of robots for a society of a 'master race". If the mundane task humans now do are replaced with robots and humans are eliminated would that result in the CO2 reduction necessary for preventing climate change?
A sustainable world population without advanced technology is approximately 1 to 2 billion people. We are currently 4 to 8 times over that and it's still increasing exponentially. It cannot continue. A societal collapse is inevitable. War, famine, disease were enough to maintain a stable population before technology but no more. The population explosion problem was known in 1960 and it has now far exceeded the capacity of the planet.
You only need ask one fundamental question - would the master race be happy controlling robots or do they need humans to torture physically and mentally for their sadistic pleasure?
The graphic depictions are truly “artful.” In addition to the fantasy about peak fossil fuel use that you have well documented, the global mean surface temperature graph ignores completely the “anomalous” data from 2023 (and does it include 2024? I don’t think so) drawing lines for their temperature increases scenarios starting from some sort of “average,” well below these measurements to smooth away these 2 years from their curve. So we are NOT having acceleration of global warming after all. They must have proven the most recent report of James Hansen, et al, as entirely wrong!