At 65, my patience for entire books has waned. It has to really grab me. I’ve been more focused on the irrationality of people and groups (so, Markets and its evil twin Politics 🤣). Highly recommend Kahneman “Thinking Fast and Slow”. And Cialdini “Persuasion”.
Decades ago, my future older partner gave me a copy of Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Also superb.
Thanks for the lovely note about the book, Arjun. One thing you and I agree wholeheartedly on is that there's no way to solve for carbon, without solving for secure, reliable, affordable energy.
Can't find the link at the moment, but read that there is discussion of bringing retired nuclear plants back on line to provide "clean" energy to AI data centers. Also, Energy Transfer is getting into NG power generation in a limited way, and it would seem like a great idea to start building NG powered DC's around the WAHA hub since it's way easier to run new fiber optic cables than new pipes for NG egress.
GHE theory fails because of two erroneous assumptions: 1. near Earth space is cold & w/o GHE would become 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice & 2. radiating as a 16 C BB the surface produces “extra” GHE energy aka radiative forcing (nee caloric).
Both
Are
Just
Flat
Wrong
!!!
Without the atmosphere, water vapor and its 30% albedo Earth would become much like the Moon, a barren rock, hot^3 400 K on the lit side, cold^3 100 K on the dark.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance graphic & its legion of clones uses bad math and badder physics. 63 W/m^2 appears twice (once from Sun & second from a BB calculation) violating both LoT 1 and GAAP. 396 W/m^2 upwelling is a BB calc for a 16 C surface for denominator of the emissivity ratio, 63/396=0.16, “extra” & not real. 333 W/m^2 “back” radiating from cold to warm violates LoT 1 & 2. Remove 396/333/63 GHE loop from the graphic and the solar balance still works.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules (60%) render a terrestrial BB (requires 100%) impossible as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Since both GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
Saying European oil companies embrace of the energy transition is because of “European elites” is rather disingenuous. There remains popular support for net zero and action on climate change in the EU and UK. Looking at the impact of the changing climate - heat waves, wildfires, floods - this seems understandable.
I am skeptical there is popular support for any specific form of energy supply. The vast bulk of humanity, excluding those involved in the energy and climate sectors, care that energy is available and affordable. I don't even think they care about geopolitical security. I always find it odd that there is the argument that there is popular support for "climate action". I do agree that in Germany, the population seems broadly against nuclear power. Beyond that, no one wants to pay more for energy or sacrifice reliabilty.
Great article! I think what is missing from most energy transition advocates is the best source of clean energy; nuclear power. EVs might have a place in short run local delivery fleets if the power generation is clean - hydro or nuclear. Otherwise it makes no sense from an emissions perspective. The other renewables are still Rube Goldberg machines (wind and solar). Maybe that’s going to change soon, but it’s been promised for a couple of decades and not delivered. The power sector is a big mess, it seems to me. Having to buy and accommodate renewables makes the grid less stable and more expensive, and the RTOs operate under a complex regulatory framework that almost nobody understands.
Very convincing argument that we are in a period of energy diversification rather than energy transition. Even the generally rah-rah World Energy Council's 2024 Trilemma Index implicitly recognizes that fact, confessing that "Multiple energy transition pathways are emerging in all regions of the world,” with no "one-size-fits-all net-zero pathway.” And they warn that the EU-style approach, with its “green only policies, risks loss of competitiveness, rising input costs, and loss of technological advantage potentially leading to deindustrialization.” Can't imagine how zettajoules of heat were generated in fighting over the wording of those sentences... https://www.worldenergy.org/publications/entry/world-energy-trilemma-report-2024
25 books a year is pretty darn good! My problem is that I read true crime and stuff like that; I should probably read more about investing and stuff that will help me make more money 💰 💵
Larry Fink's Blackrock and Vangard almost changed the course of $XOM 3 years ago. Both firms have at least moderated their views on energy transition. In the case of Mr. Fink, he did a nearly 180 degrees turn from 3 years ago in this video.
Agree 100% with the commentary this week and I hope more government leaders move away from arbitrary target dates like 2030, 2040, etc without fully understanding the complicated world in which we live.
Thanks for the book recommendations. I too try to read a few books a month.
I would be interested if one week you could spend some time on midstream companies like EPD, ET, and ENB as they are becoming more and more critical to the success of the US market and some companies like LNG should rise to become a larger player in the nat gas market as they invested well over the last decade.
“Under no scenario will demand for oil in 2040 fall below current levels”, Goldman Sachs this week. I finally read Gregory Zuckerman’s “The Man Who Solved The Market” about Jim Simons and quant investing. I really enjoyed it. Thanks Arjun. Enjoy your summer.
At 65, my patience for entire books has waned. It has to really grab me. I’ve been more focused on the irrationality of people and groups (so, Markets and its evil twin Politics 🤣). Highly recommend Kahneman “Thinking Fast and Slow”. And Cialdini “Persuasion”.
Decades ago, my future older partner gave me a copy of Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Also superb.
thanks for the recommendations!
The part less spoken in the mainstream. What now?
https://cedarowl.substack.com/p/coal-is-en-vogue-and-begging-for
Coal growth in EM has no obvious end to it.
Better to get ahead of that fact than to ignore it. Hopefully CCUS and downstream opportunities get their day.
Thanks for the lovely note about the book, Arjun. One thing you and I agree wholeheartedly on is that there's no way to solve for carbon, without solving for secure, reliable, affordable energy.
You're welcome Akshat and well deserved.
Can't find the link at the moment, but read that there is discussion of bringing retired nuclear plants back on line to provide "clean" energy to AI data centers. Also, Energy Transfer is getting into NG power generation in a limited way, and it would seem like a great idea to start building NG powered DC's around the WAHA hub since it's way easier to run new fiber optic cables than new pipes for NG egress.
Yes, I believe there will be a movement to restart some recently retired nukes. NG power definitely on track for a comeback.
GHE theory fails because of two erroneous assumptions: 1. near Earth space is cold & w/o GHE would become 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice & 2. radiating as a 16 C BB the surface produces “extra” GHE energy aka radiative forcing (nee caloric).
Both
Are
Just
Flat
Wrong
!!!
Without the atmosphere, water vapor and its 30% albedo Earth would become much like the Moon, a barren rock, hot^3 400 K on the lit side, cold^3 100 K on the dark.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance graphic & its legion of clones uses bad math and badder physics. 63 W/m^2 appears twice (once from Sun & second from a BB calculation) violating both LoT 1 and GAAP. 396 W/m^2 upwelling is a BB calc for a 16 C surface for denominator of the emissivity ratio, 63/396=0.16, “extra” & not real. 333 W/m^2 “back” radiating from cold to warm violates LoT 1 & 2. Remove 396/333/63 GHE loop from the graphic and the solar balance still works.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules (60%) render a terrestrial BB (requires 100%) impossible as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Since both GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
Saying European oil companies embrace of the energy transition is because of “European elites” is rather disingenuous. There remains popular support for net zero and action on climate change in the EU and UK. Looking at the impact of the changing climate - heat waves, wildfires, floods - this seems understandable.
Looking at the impact of the changing climate - heat waves, wildfires, floods - this seems understandable.
You need to follow Roger Pielke, The Honest Broker.
I am skeptical there is popular support for any specific form of energy supply. The vast bulk of humanity, excluding those involved in the energy and climate sectors, care that energy is available and affordable. I don't even think they care about geopolitical security. I always find it odd that there is the argument that there is popular support for "climate action". I do agree that in Germany, the population seems broadly against nuclear power. Beyond that, no one wants to pay more for energy or sacrifice reliabilty.
Green dreams and activism ends when “daddy takes the T-Bird away”🫣
LOL yes!
Great article! I think what is missing from most energy transition advocates is the best source of clean energy; nuclear power. EVs might have a place in short run local delivery fleets if the power generation is clean - hydro or nuclear. Otherwise it makes no sense from an emissions perspective. The other renewables are still Rube Goldberg machines (wind and solar). Maybe that’s going to change soon, but it’s been promised for a couple of decades and not delivered. The power sector is a big mess, it seems to me. Having to buy and accommodate renewables makes the grid less stable and more expensive, and the RTOs operate under a complex regulatory framework that almost nobody understands.
Thank you BigOinSeattle. 100% agree on nuclear being part of the solution.
Very convincing argument that we are in a period of energy diversification rather than energy transition. Even the generally rah-rah World Energy Council's 2024 Trilemma Index implicitly recognizes that fact, confessing that "Multiple energy transition pathways are emerging in all regions of the world,” with no "one-size-fits-all net-zero pathway.” And they warn that the EU-style approach, with its “green only policies, risks loss of competitiveness, rising input costs, and loss of technological advantage potentially leading to deindustrialization.” Can't imagine how zettajoules of heat were generated in fighting over the wording of those sentences... https://www.worldenergy.org/publications/entry/world-energy-trilemma-report-2024
Thank you Andrew
“overwhelming quantity of short-form content”….I am guilty as charged on this. Last time I read a real book? Too embarrassed to answer.
everyone is guilty! even 25 books a year is paltry. I do wonder if I'd be better off skipping even more short form content.
25 books a year is pretty darn good! My problem is that I read true crime and stuff like that; I should probably read more about investing and stuff that will help me make more money 💰 💵
any book reading is good! if you like true crime, then that is an excellent use of your time.
Larry Fink's Blackrock and Vangard almost changed the course of $XOM 3 years ago. Both firms have at least moderated their views on energy transition. In the case of Mr. Fink, he did a nearly 180 degrees turn from 3 years ago in this video.
https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/1796502112492540376
The world is moving back toward pragmatism. But I don't underestimate the climate-industrial complex. Subsidy harvesting.
Arjun,
Agree 100% with the commentary this week and I hope more government leaders move away from arbitrary target dates like 2030, 2040, etc without fully understanding the complicated world in which we live.
Thanks for the book recommendations. I too try to read a few books a month.
I would be interested if one week you could spend some time on midstream companies like EPD, ET, and ENB as they are becoming more and more critical to the success of the US market and some companies like LNG should rise to become a larger player in the nat gas market as they invested well over the last decade.
Have a good weekend.
Steve
Thank you Steve! I have been spending a bunch of time in midstream. Super interesting space.
Appreciate the book recommendations. Money Men is a good read.
thank you. and yes, was really good.
“Under no scenario will demand for oil in 2040 fall below current levels”, Goldman Sachs this week. I finally read Gregory Zuckerman’s “The Man Who Solved The Market” about Jim Simons and quant investing. I really enjoyed it. Thanks Arjun. Enjoy your summer.
thanks for the book rec!
GS is roughly in line with all other major forecasters https://www.eiu.com/n/fossil-fuel-demand-to-continue-expanding-this-decade/