So much for Net Zero by 2050
Simon P. Michaux calls it “Minerals Blindness” — the inability to see that there are just not enough metals to get to Net Zero.
He is an Australian working for the Geological Survey of Finland. He’s an Associate Professor of Mineral Processing and Geometallurgy, and has added up the tonnage required to convert the first generation of the fleet needed (theoretically) to get to Net Zero. So that’s just 25 years worth of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries.
And then we need to do it all again?
Michaux estimates that we need 944 million tons of lithium alone to go Net Zero (the first time). But at the moment every year we dig up about 100,000 tons a year, or 0.01% of what we need to reach the Net Zero target. Current total known reserves of lithium throughout the world in 2022 are just 26 million tons. Total known (best guess) resources are 98 million tons).* Obviously as the price of lithium rises, we will find a lot more. We haven’t been looking for lithium very long so we may even find ten times as much. But at our current rate of production it will take 10,000 years to dig up enough lithium — a figure that ought to light a barge of fireworks over the reality of the 2050 targets. Politicians and Green magic wish fairies may not realize what kind of galactic upscaling is required.
And of course, we need so much more than just lithium — there’s copper, nickel, cobalt, vanadium and germanium too. And we’ve been mining copper in a big way for a century and the deposits found now are deeper and lower grade than before. Copper discoveries have been declining for the last couple of decades but we’re hoping to dig up five times the entire known global reserve and speed up production from 190 years to just 30? (And remember, we’re using that current copper production for other things, which we still need as well.) Prices are set to go through the roof, and all the forecasts of “affordable” clean energy are just so much flying faerie lore.
Western society has taken one hundred fifty years of progress to achieve a fantastically complex energy system using the dense source of cheap hydrocarbon energy, the master resource. Yet the net zero devotees believe that the complex energy system can be dismantled with minimal disruption and replaced with a low-density renewable energy grid that is intermittent and non-scalable, in less than thirty years. — Robert Bishop
Consider the minerals required just for transport…
h/t to Notalotofpeopleknowthat
EV’s use six times more minerals than conventional vehicles
We are supposedly going to convert 1.5 billion vehicles to electric motors and batteries?
Simon P. Michaux | Click to Enlarge
Known reserves of metals:
Click on the tables to enlarge them.
… Click to Enlarge
Production of metals in 2019
…… Click to Enlarge
…
The price of lithium has risen by a factor of 8 since 2020. Total known global reserves have risen by 30% in the same period. Obviously we are just getting started in discovery and production increases. But all those estimates of car battery costs in 2035 need to forecast the price of lithium, which involves guessing how much we’ll find and how much it will cost, and how many crazy nations will force their unwilling citizens to buy a car they don’t want in an era where electricity prices are on fire.
How high will the fever pitch prices go, or will reality bomb the market as EV sales decline, the economy crumbles, and it dawns on everyone that no amount of mandates will blink cars into existence or produce megatons of minerals?
*Reserves are rocks in the ground that we are sure (in a legal sense) we can mine economically. Resources are the rocks we think are there, but they’re either not economic to dig up, or not worth drilling enough holes to know for sure just at the moment.
A PowerPoint summary of his thousand-page study can be downloaded here. Delivered as a seminar last year in Queensland:
Lithium image by Tomihahndorf at Wikipedia
And for what? To lower Carbon Dioxide? Only 3% of CO2 is from fossil fuel. The rest is from the ocean and turns over constantly, more than the world’s fossil fuel output every 4 weeks. CO2 levels are natural and nothing we do has any impact on CO2 levels and all we have observed is vastly beneficial, a new greening of desert areas the size of Brazil. So what’s the problem being solved here? There is no global warming!
China produces more CO2 than all other countries combined and growing every year by more than all of Australia’s output. So why aren’t Greta Thunberg and her Climate Extinction friends outside the Chinese embassy? Why isn’t the UN admonishing China for destroying the planet? And who created and release the Wuhan flu? Why build electric cars, ban fertilizer, tell us to eat insects and now banning fossil fuels but not in China? Besides, they already eat bugs and there are specialist restaurants for eating giant snails.
It’s very worrying that this is all a creation of the UN, the same people who are doing nothing in Ukraine while world leaders are talking nuclear war and now of marching on Moscow with German tanks.
723
The obvious worry is that the UN must know this, yet remains committed to unattainable Net Zero.
What is the real agenda?
570
With zero warming in a decade, why are we doing so much to harm ourselves? Global cooling is well underway.
And why only Western Christian democracies? Try the accusations of racism or slavery for example in China, Africa, India, Japan. Nothing is said. Why are we the enemy and we alone the villains according to the UN and the world press?
Nett zero is a fantasy of bad accounting. China outputs more CO2 with 1.4 billion people just breathing than all of Australia. Why should we pay the price they demand. Australia produces only 2% of world CO2, so 98% of our CO2 increase is from overseas. Why isn’t China paying carbon taxes to us and the rest of the world?
450
And as for carbon credits from growing trees, trees grow themselves. You cannot grow trees without CO2. 14% more CO2 since 1988 and according to NASA, 14% more trees. Growing trees does not reduce CO2 at all because the trees do not control CO2. The ocean does.
So industries like Steel(Bluescope), Agriculture, Oil refining and distribution(Ampol) are being asked to reduce their sales/CO2 by 30% by 2030. Of course they cannot, so they have to buy ‘carbon credits’ for the growing of trees. Fake facts, fake science, lies and greed. All orchestrated by the UN, 40,000 full time people looking for more money.
550
Depopulation! Net Zero is possible but we have to Kill 99.99% of the people to do it.
140
Not 99.99%. But depopulation is their plan. And that could start at short notice with a famine. Famines then go to wars.
How many crops were planted and harvested in Ukraine and Russia last year?
How much fertiliser was used for bombs instead of crops?
60
Much of the potash we use is manufactured in Ukraine and Russia. Plibersek banned a urea plant in WA. There is a war which explains one but the other is caused by an own goal kicked by a complete no hoper.
40
Fundamentally, they wish to collapse the world economic/ social system so a few billion will starve or slaughter each other in order to save the planet. Malthusian grand plan. Gee,am I a conspiracy theorist?
260
Yes, but you are right.
50
Whilst there are no doubt hidden agendas in play among the powerful and super-rich, I believe the majority of all this net zero nonsense is driven solely by greed. Enormous sums of money have been wasted on various programs and schemes, and this will continue, but of course even though it has been ‘wasted’, in has nevertheless ended up in somebody’s pockets. All those failed green schemes represent fortunes made, beach houses bought, Ferraris and Lambourghinis parked in front of massive yachts and private planes leased.
The sheer amount of money funneled through this deception is such that I simply won’t accept that it has fueled massive corruption, and that corruption in turn keeps the money taps open.
120
*hasn’t*
30
Thst’s better.
But the primary driver is Marxist theory.
30
How is 3% man made co2 calculated?
31
You’re asking the wrong person.
07
Doesn’t matter David since the warm forcing addition at the 430 ppm level is negligible (Most of it was in the first 100 ppm) and there is NO indication of a climate crisis development which is promoted by a barrage of lies and propaganda from warmist/alarmists and media.
No Lower Tropospheric Hot spot after 32 years of looking.
Warming RATE in decline since 1994.
No sea level acceleration.
Arctic summer ice level decline stopped after 2007.
No increase in severe weather events.
No increase in Tropical storm energy or frequency and no increase in Hurricanes either.
250
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the 3-4% was determined by the IPCC as the additional CO2 generated by man since the start of the Industrial Age. However, this assumption doesn’t take into account the additional natural emissions of CO2 since that time, including increased ocean degassing due to the higher temperatures. And it assumes that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a very long time, but this has already been disproven by the measurements after the atomic atmospheric tests.
150
And according to Ian Plimer the figure doesn’t take into account the huge amount of CO2 released from underwater volcanoes, way in excess of those on land, which could mean the 3-4% is actually only 1%.
140
My understanding is that is done via the isotopes of oxygen. Apparently the ancient isotopes in coal, oil and gas are different from those in CO2 from modern “natural” sources. However, according to Prof Ian Plimer, a significant proportion of the CO2 released from the oceans as they warm slightly over the last 200 years or so comes from volcanic vents deep in the ocean floors. The O2 isotopes from these ancient emissions are the same as those from carboniferous fuels, so they could well be obscuring and augmenting the levels produced by mankind.
I’d be glad to be corrected by anyone with more knowledge than me.
150
By the UN and their incorrect Excel Spreadsheets. Trouble is, if you have the incorrect assumptions, you end up with an incorrect conclusion. Welcome to the Corrupt UN. So follow the money as usual.
100
Ok thanks all
30
My Greenhouse and the plants therein just love the extra CO2 that I pump in…………lol
100
Just consider all the environmental damage all these lithium mines will cause.
Even the far Left oriented New York Times and Wired admit this.
210
The moral of the story is that if there isnt enough lithium, copper, cobalt etc for most of us, then most of us will do without. Thats not a bug, its a feature. You will own nothing and be happy. Or maybe not.
510
I hope people realise that the Left/Elites only pretend to intend to provide continuous, “cheap”, “renewable” power via lithium battery banks and personal transport via lithium battery EVs. They have no intention of doing so, and it’s impossible anyway as Jo points out. It’s all a smokescreen.
They have no intention of allowing you to have inexpensive power, or much of it.
You will be “privileged” to have enough power for a few light bulbs for night time lighting, a bit of power for an Internet connected TV with camera (Telescreen of “1984”) to receive government propaganda and to keep you surveilled, and a bit of power to warm your insect meal or gruel.
And they have no intention of allowing you to have significant personal mobility with a car. Hence the “15 minute city” concept.
And did you wonder why there is a push to electrify cars, home heating, hot water heating and cars etc. especially in the fanatical UN and WEF following countries like Australia?
Because electrified appliances are far more amenable to remote control than fossil fuel appliances. They will control the temperature of your heating (if you are allowed any at all) and might decide your showers are too hot, and want the ability to turn off your EV if you try to escape and exceed the limits of your 15 min city.
500
Nailed it! And you wil need a digital ID to log in.
210
I’m thinking David that the whole electrical market will be user pays as in the wealthy will have 24/7 365 power.The less wealthy will have usage restrictions and fines or shutdowns if exceeded.The poorest and the elderly etc will have prescribed days of the week and certain hrs of the day usage!As for EVs the push is already on for uber autonomous vehicles that will be pre-booked for our out of zone travell.
60
The premise here is that we expect a decent standard of living under net zero. I do not believe that is their plan. All the talk of how we will generate power and drive electric vehicles is the lie to make us acquiesce to their greater plan for us. The big players in this want niether prosperity or mobility for us.
400
Quite the opposite, in fact.
The scale of commitment to an impossible objective will lead to global economic collapse.
The UN’s rhetoric about safeguarding the future of global food production is also a lie. The plan must be to eliminate modern agriculture.
200
Thanks again Jo and Mark Mills has been trying to explain these energy problems for years, but still the loonies refuse to listen and the MSM still bombard us with their BS and FRAUD on a daily basis.
Here’s a recent 5 minute video from Mark Mills trying to wake us up to the enormous INCREASE in energy we will require next decade and then forever.
The TOXIC S & W and EVs etc are a disaster and will bankrupt any country stupid enough to pursue this lunacy.
BUT most importantly this will ensure that China and Russia etc will be more likely to start a war against the much weaker OECD countries in the near future.
https://www.prageru.com/video/how-much-energy-will-the-world-need
191
Thanks Neville. There are so many good presentations there none of which will cross Chris Bowen’s small mind unfortunately. He still believes that error filled report from the CSIRO that nuclear is the dearest form of energy. The CSIRO is just another left wing outfit that is no longer fit for purpose and should be shut down.
31
The Michaux paper has been around for several years now. I’ve supplied the link for it here several times.
Here is another expose along the same lines of aquiring sufficient (?) resource and reserve for Net Zero through galactic bursts of mining:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgOEGKDVvsg
About 45 minutes long but well worth the effort.
It may have occurred to some by now that the requirements for Net Zero in 30 years are simply impossible. Such an increase in mining activities (even if the amounts of various ores actually exist – which we don’t know) will force an “environmental” backlash to throttle it.
This has led to the view that rationing will be the likely outcome – petrol, food (especially meat, dairy, bread), electricity and gas.
260
Indeed
Mark Mills presentation “The energy transition delusion: inescapable mineral realities” at last months SKAGEN Funds New Years Conference 2023. The message to the conference attendees- don’t expect recent investment market performance to match future performance.
90
It is excellent.
30
This also means that a “solution” to the nonproblem is not nuclear replacing fossil fuels either. It doesn’t matter how big your supply of electrons are if you can’t build enough of the things which would consume those electrons.
But this is about the return of feudalism.
240
This seems to be about an insane plan for global genocide on an unprecedented scale and the return of feudalism to support the surviving elites.
160
Leo G you are so accurate with “the return of feudalism to support the surviving elites”.
The Common Cormorant or shag
Lays eggs inside a paper bag.
The reason you will see no doubt
It is to keep the lightning out.
But what these unobservant birds
Have never noticed is that herds
Of wandering bears may come with buns
And steal the bags to hold the crumbs.
– Christopher Isherwood
What our ignorant elites do not realise is that with impoverished serfs unwilling and unable to protect them, the elites’ paper bags will soon be stolen by the CCP.
150
A system designed by the lefty scientist, what could go wrong?
Except the scientists of the left have degrees in Political Science and Gender Studies….
180
And of course, we need to stop mining too. Don’t think I need a sarc tag for that.
140
Jo,
I tried to open the Powerpoint but get a “Sorry, Powerpoint can’t read ….” message. I have Home and Business 2019.
It’s probably my PC, but I thought I’d let you know.
Thanks
Pat
50
Ideally, PowerPoint presentations should be converted to PDF format to make them readable by everybody.
50
And it’s not a PowerPoint presentations, it’s a YT video.
30
Pat, The link works for me in Firefox, but not in Brave. Perhaps try another browser? It is an odd .ashx?
https://ieo.imf.org/-/media/IEO/Files/Seminars/michaux-ppt.ashx
30
Putin has Lithium on the brain and there is method in his madness.
‘Geologists call it the Ukrainian shield. That land in the middle which starts from the northern border with Belarus up to the shores of the Azov Sea, in the south of Donbass.
‘According to the studies of the Ukrainian geological service, in the ancient rocks of this shield are hidden lithium deposits with great potential. Findings that have been identified mainly around the area of Mariupol, the port city of Donbass torn apart by Russian bombing.’ (Renewable matter)
101
Are you suggesting that Putin’s real aim is to remove all civilian infrastructure in preparation for mining? /s
60
Very rare earth in a renewable world.
60
“Lithium on the Brain”- mood stabilising. I would love Putin and Zelensky to settle the conflict in man to man combat. That I could back.
30
That won’t happen, but I hear a Joe Biden/Putin bout is on the horizon.
20
It has already been shown by many Miners, Geologists and others that it will be physically impossible to extract all of the minerals (lithium, copper, cobalt, etc.) and rare earths required for the batteries, solar panels and windmills and whatever else to somehow reach net zero (or just zero) by 2050. In any event, it has already been shown by Des Forbes and others that Australia is already better than zero and is in fact a CO2 sink which is a positive when the Australian land mass vegetation and continental waters are taken into account. So ‘Pollies’ and other Climate Alarmists, please take note and change tack before disaster strikes.
230
Unfortunately, “Des Forbes and others”. either have not read , did not understand, or chose to ignor,..the UNs actual statement and definition of Net Zero,..
…..which refers specifically to Human produced CO2 .
..such that all those natural CO2 sinks that Australia is blessed with, do not count in the calculations.
We know we are not the real issue for emmissions, but there is no point in trying to argue a false claim.
120
You’re dead right Chad – nobody actually knows what Net Zero means.
70
Give Net Zero a Voice and we will understand.
Dear readers, the underlying essence of communist preparations involve deliberate open-ended ill defined irrational concepts, designed to weed out the people who resist communism. In ordinary relations, this is known as a “SH!T TEST”. Our Governments are not passing the test!
90
I disagree and as usual the UN is wrong. They have never got anything right as they are far too LEFT.
30
I don’t think that our politicians have grasped that the laws of physics are different from the laws they are used to. They seem to believe that they simply need to declare that something will happen, throw bucketloads of taxpayers’ money at it, and somehow it will happen. They are in for a rude awakening
160
I wonder if they will decide to tax everything more?
Fossil fueled vehicles…that’s guaranteed to happen.
Fossil fueled electricity generation…already happening.
Cows…look at New Zealand.
What next – a tax on everybody for merely breathing?
I can now relate a lot better with the reasons for The French Revolution.
110
Ah, politics and the laws of physics. 1897, here we come again.
When big government tried to change the value of pi to 3.2 to make maths easier.
80
“You will won nothing, but you will be happy” isn’t a prediction.
It’s a command.
70
I have always won nothing. And that never made me happy but so what. In Life, just be grateful and that is what makes me happy………
20
Apart from the fact that there is not enough lithium, and apart from the fact that the Left/Elites don’t want you to have personal mobility anyway (one of the most powerful expressions of personal freedom) there is not enough, and soon there won’t be any, coal and gas power stations to recharge EVs if everyone had them (and nuclear in proper countries, not Australia where, bizarrely, it’s actually illegal).
Of course, there WILL be enough electricity to power the EVs of the Elites. Or fossil fuels for cars of the Elites. At the last WEF meeting at Davos EVs were available for the Elites but most preferred ICE vehicles (just as they preferred private jets).
Video: A non-sycophant reporter from Japan interviews a WEF/Elite chauffeur at Davos who says he is not allowed to use EVs for Elites.
https://youtu.be/ujzCzxHPQzc
I would be disappointed if I ever found a Left/Elite who wasn’t an extreme hypocrite.
120
It has been my belief for quite some time that by 2028 or so the EV market will have totally collapsed leaving a lot of duck squeezers and ecoNAZIs with a very costly pile of useless technology sitting in their garages that they won’t even be able to give away. We are already seeing EV manufacturers starting to back away from plans to abandon production of ICE cars in favour of EVs. And that will accelerate exponentially as the figures shown in this article become more well known.
The EV market will be the biggest collapse since the Twin Towers.
170
The collapse will not be confined to the electric vehicle market.
The SKAGEN Funds Conference mentioned above was for fund managers. It was not aimed at averting the collapse but at advising wealthy investors how to profit from rising resource markets, anticipate the turning points and profit from the collapse.
110
I see a demand for Greenie Cremations- Like a Viking ship, the defunct EV will be charged then ignited. Burning for days. What a spectacular exit!
110
Which is what nearly happened to Richard Hammond from Top Gear. His EV supercar was nearly his grave when it crashed.
70
Get woke, go broke.
50
What are you refering to , Rick ?
10
I’m working from memory here (always risky 😬), but as I recall, worldwide production of copper alone is insufficient for EV’s in the UK alone, never mind everywhere else.
90
Worldwide production of copper barely meets current needs for normal things. Have you seen the price of electrical cable lately?
80
Oh, yes. The price of copper has been high for a while now, necessitating securing it at places where a lot is stored, like construction sites. The EV genius move is only going to compound the problem, for sure.
60
“Energy transition” is as non-sensical and as impossible as that other beloved Leftist concept, “gender transition”.
But under the philosophy of the modern Left, post-modernism, there is no such thing as objective reality. If you “believe” it, it must be true (for you).
110
I think we are acting like abused spouses at this point.
We keep thinking we can save the relationship if we can just get through to the abuser.
They don’t care if it won’t work.
They don’t care how many suffer in the cleansing, the cleansing must be.
Our very existence is the sin.
190
Yes.
We must apply appropriate pressure to the “cleaners” to the point that we change their actions to restore our freedom.
That’s the minimum target, then some punition to discourage others.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be sexist; must include “punitionne” as well.
70
So are the Greens a miner’s best friend?
70
Kind of similar to their blindness when they started a war in Ukraine and now realise that they do not have the needed supply lines of men or weapons. Our leaders are thieves and sychophants. Apparently only today’s narrative matters, tomorrow’s reality will look after itself, or mostly not.
60
My point about trees not reducing CO2 is perhaps less obvious. As CO2 like the other gas H2O is continually evaporating from the surface of the oceans which cover over 70% of the planet. Look at a globe. From a point above the middle of the pacific roughly over Tahiti, you cannot see land. Sunlight is absorbed into the ocean and the only way out for energy is evaporation. So CO2 and H2O boil off according to Henry’s Law. H2O can also fall as rain and we humans see H2O as a liquid, but it is the third biggest gas in the atmophere.
I do not deny that trees are made almost entirely from H2O and CO2. So are humans. Carbohydrate, the product of photosynthesis which powers all life is hydrated carbon dioxide. So if you grow a 50 tonne tree, you take 25 tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere. That is true. But the missing CO2 is noticed and the oceans simply release enough to compensate. Nett zero is a fact of life enforced by the oceans, no matter how many trees you grow or millions of barrels of oil you burn.
CO2 balance is always nett zero, no matter what we do. The level of CO2 is set by Henry’s Law.
However if the ocean surface warms by increased solar activity via the De Vries cycle or the PDO/AMO 60 years cycle, the surface is warmer and CO2 increases. Which is happening. And completely explains the temperatures of the last 200 years as seen in the analysis of Prof Carl Otto Weiss at 12.22.
We do not need to do a thing to achieve nett zero. The planet looks after the trees. We can output as much CO2 as we like. Whether the planet warms or cools is completely outside our control, despite the fact that since 1988 the UN has told us that Governments control temperature on a planetary scale. Pull the other leg.
150
You need to read comment 13.1 above. The IPCC/UN are only concerned with human CO2 emissions because they have believed for 30 years that human CO2 emissions are the temperature control knob of the planet. The term” Net Zero” was just a way of sexing up this incorrect religious belief, almost like the successful Coke Zero ad campaign from years ago.
160
“The IPCC/UN are only concerned with human CO2 emissions”. Sure, but why? They are a tiny fraction of the world’s CO2 ’emissions’. And balancing CO2 output in rapid equilibrium is the CO2 absorption by the oceans. The entirety of human emissions is of no consequence.
Why are the IPCC/UN not trying to reduce actual CO2? Because they cannot. It is not within the power of any government to control CO2 levels and they know it. So they pretend you can control CO2 by reducing CO2 emissions. It’s a science farce. A world wide gas is not controllable by tiny irrelevant humans.
90
Net Zero is the only game in which the goalposts can move faster than the ball.
In fact, ‘Net Zero’ means nothing ever hits the net.
70
My point is that to achieve nett zero you need to absorb CO2 somehow or stop breathing.
So the UN has concocted endless schemes including growing trees which turn into cash for sequestering CO2. But while trees do absorb CO2 they cannot reduce CO2. It is just replaced by the oceans because there is an overiding real Nett Zero equilibrium on a planetary basis. So growing trees for carbon credits is a scam. But there are hundreds of tree plantations in the UK alone which are being grown for cash on the principle that they reduce CO2.
70
And more on the UK scheme for Nett zero using trees.
60
Elon Musk is a large maker of EV’s but he’s a good guy because he supports free speech on Twitter and also has Starlink to directly deliver the Internet from space and bypass Leftist censorship.
I don’t think he believes that Teslas are anything but (mostly) toys for the Elites and if he can profit from the Elites, why not?
60
And where is this heading?
Serfdom.
Friedrich von Hayek predicted it in “The Road to Serfdom” in 1944.
From wiki:
And what was life like living as a serf?
71
Hi David,
You are not quite right about ploughing.
A furlong is 1 furrow long. 220 yards. 10 chain.
An acre is the area 1 man can plough with 1 horse in 1 day, which is 1 chain by 1 furlong.
70
If you look at the remaining ridge and furrow systems in the UK you see that they are usually curved at each end where the ploughing team started their turn about 20 yards before they reached the end of the furlong. Two horse ploughing teams could make a much sharper turn than where oxen were in teams of six or eight.
20
The latest report from katherine nt was 4 cars stolen and set fire after a supermarket ram raid – imagine what it will be like when someone does that with EVs… Politicians truly playing with fire.
80
On a recent visit to the local hospital, at the multi-storey car park there were 8 EV charging points adjacent to the entrance. In the case of an EV fire they would provide a nice bit of kindling for the rest of the cars in the car park. Maybe a better position for the chargers would be on the open parking area on the roof where a car could burn out without jeopardising the rest of the cars in the car park.
30
Underpinning all this nett zero scam is the argument by the IPCC that the world’s CO2 is not in rapid equilibrium between the oceans and the air. In the IPCC reports the average time for only half the CO2 to be absorbed is fixed at 80 years! So the IPCC alleged it piles up in the atmosphere.
This is insane. We use CO2 every day in beer, champagne, bread, cheese, lemonade, soda water. It is extremely soluble, 30x more soluble than even oxygen on which all fish rely. In fact so soluble 98% of it is in the ocean.
Remove this one IPCC ‘fact’ and the whole Nett zero argument collapses. The planet is already operating a massive world wide nett zero scheme on a scale which makes humans seem irrelevant on a planetary scale. So we do not have to do so. Our tiny CO2 is nothing.
Until the IPCC and 1988, the half life of atmospheric CO2 was well known in science to be 5 years, not 80. Until then there was no problem at all. And now there is no warming.
So what is the problem we are solving by crippling our society and some local nett zero scheme demanded by the Australian government?
The 80 year half life of CO2 is the lie on which the whole of the IPCC’s man made Global Warming is based. Whether it causes any warming is secondary. We do not and cannot control CO2 on this watery world.
120
The truth, repeated over and over.
Thanks for trying.
60
Thanks but what I do not understand is that this killer fact is unmentioned in the press and denied everywhere.
Consider this from Professor David Karoly in the Climate Commission as reported by Wikipedia..
“Karoly pointed out that one hundred years ago carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million whereas now it is 400 parts per million, an increase of 40% which he asserted was unquestionably caused by human activity.”
You will note the cute “which he asserted” which means without proof. Even Wikipedia is backing away from agreeing. That’s a surprise.
The proponents of man made CO2, man made Climate Change and Nett Zero are still getting away with not proving anything. Karoly has a PhD. He says it is true. Therefore it is true. Ergo quod Karoly. That is the only argument. And even many sceptics accept his statement as true, without question.
50
Rational science as imagined by Rene Decartes is a series of true statements each proven beyond doubt based on evidence. If even one of the sequential propositions fails, the whole structure tumbles down. The increase in CO2 is 90% natural and that should end Nett Zero, electric cars, giant batteries, Snowy II, carbon credits, forests grown for profit displacing farmland and such ripoffs as Australia’s Clean Energy Regulator.
50
There is one basic assumption in this article which, once seen, demonstrates just how wrong the analysis is. The assumption is … That demand in 2050 will be the same (more or less) as in 2020.
A brief glimpse of the World Economic Forum’s website and its Great Reset agenda shows clearly how the problem identified above will be easily resolved.
Firstly, “You will own nothing and be happy” By 2050 only a few of the elites will have cars and therefore the lithium requirements will be minimal
Secondly, The population will be much lower – another drop in the need for lithium
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-global-depopulation-agenda-is-an-absolute-reality-not-a-conspiracy-theory/
They are completely open about their agenda. You just need to take them as seriously as they do themselves.
60
Perhaps the “Be Happy” will be Lithium added to Nestle’s water (remember the Nestle CEO sees potable water as a commodity).
10
Imagine
ifwhen all of this becomes common knowledge.Politicians – Why didn’t anybody tell me? (Umm, why didn’t you find out for yourself?)
Journalists – Wait a minute. None of this is actually true.
Believers who comment at sites like this – Whew! Thank heavens I used a ‘screen name’.
The average member of the public – I never believed that $h1t anyway.
Tony.
150
I disagree Tony.
I think your average Joe and Jane Sixpack have absolutely no clue and are prepared to believe just about anything, at least anyone below about age 50 or so. This was the outcome of decades of the deliberate dumbing down of the education system.
90
TonyfromOz, the problem is whenever things fail the political hacks already have the excuses worked out and massaged. If (when) “Net Zero” fails it will be because the stock market crashed, the economy collapsed, the Russians invaded, or Trump and Fossil Fuel powers sabotaged it.
That’s why we have see this as The Information War that it is and prepare the ground. Only if we get the message out that Net Zero has no chance of happening and even attempting it is an existential threat — will people get the answer right when the time comes.
Shore up your lines of communication…
100
“… political hacks already have the excuses worked out and massaged …”
Won’t ChatGPT be taking over this activity very shortly – if it hasn’t already.
It may be a waste of time arguing with an AI?
And its basic training is the vast leftist propaganda that has been generated online over the last 10 years.
Sillycan Valley (or China) must be really working hard to suppress the AI’s logic with this lithium and resources shortfall.
It will be really funny when ChatGPT declares that Net Zero is impossible.
I guess they will then have to shut it down?
20
So why is their net ZERO emissions the greatest con and fraud in Human history.
1. We are living in the very best period EVER, just check the UN data since 1800 or 1900 or 1990 or …..
2. We can’t transition to net zero co2 emissions, because we haven’t got enough existing metals and future metals/ minerals to allow us to transition.
3. S & W are a TOXIC disaster and ditto their super expensive and impractical EVs.
4.Lomborg’s team have linked to the same UN projections for Human thriving by 2100 and found that they will 3.4 times richer than we are today. And with no CC mitigation.
5.Today co2 levels are about 0.0418% or 418 ppm of the atmosphere yet Dr Hansen and McKibben’s OK target is just 0.0350% or 350 ppm.
So their difference of just 0.0068% or 68 ppm will somehow make everything perfect again? Does anyone really BELIEVE any of this crap?
When will we WAKE UP to their BS and FRAUD? Anyway who wants to WASTE endless decades and endless TRILLIONs of $ for NOTHING?
IOW lets do NOTHING about their con trick and the future Humans in 2100 will STILL be 3.4 times RICHER than we are today.
100
Ah, but the woke corporations have firm plans to rediscover the lost lands of Atlantis and Lemuria, not to mention Zimiamvia, Gondal and Gormenghast. They might even negotiate with the Glugs of Gosh. Since these places are as imaginary as the square root of -1, there can be no limit to the mineral riches they contain.
90
Voice will uncover Wakanda
30
Please no more, David.
On the very first day of my engineering degree over half a century ago, the very first subject was maths and the topic was the square root of minus one. It still makes me feel inadequate recalling that day.
50
Clarification required on Resources and Reserves.
A Resource is a geological domain of payable ore that has been structural mapped and had engineering and economic modelling applied to demonstrate the potential for economic and legal extraction (note – not the official definition). Resources have various levels of certainty categories applied to them based primarily on the quality and quantity of drilling and sampling. A Measured Resource is all but in the bank. Resources are estimated by geologists.
A Reserve is a Resource that has had modifying factors applied to it in the form of engineering constraints, and with more detailed economic and feasibility analyses applied. A Proved mining reserve will almost certainly be extracted, and is the highest level of confidence in estimating the true extent and value of an orebody. Reserves are estimated by engineers.
70
Uber, forgive my casual summary. Over at Goldnerds we’ve been recording all the different levels of precious metal resources for longer than I’ve been blogging. I didn’t want non-mining readers to get too lost in the details of the JORC code…
40
Close but no cigar! Refer to the JORC Code for current definitions of Resource and Reserves.
20
I know of an untouched source of minable copper in pure form.
Wind turbines.
Wind turbines require 3 to 5 tonnes of copper per MW of nameplate, not counting wires to connect to the grid.
A proper coal generator uses 1 tonne of copper per MW.
Also an ICE car uses 20kg of copper. A typical EV uses 80kg of copper.
And this comes from a warmist-oriented article.
https://www.miningnewsnorth.com/story/2018/04/01/opinion-and-guest-columns/ambler-copper-part-of-the-problem-or-part-of-the-green-energy-solution/5128.html
Why not mine wind turbines and EV for copper and put it to work for a useful purpose?
90
All good and true, David, but wasteful. Get rid of the blades, lower the nacelle to ground level, and you have a very efficient generator. Hook it up to a supply of steam to drive it and you have a source of baseload power. Heat to generate steam can come from just about any source – coal, gas, wood, even peat.
I’ll grant not very efficient, and generate enough CO2 to make a greenie swoon, but once modern society has collapsed – which it will – who will care?
80
That was the mean residence of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere. There is an interchange of CO2 between ocean and atmosphere. The notion of a half life of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not reality.
If we assume (without good evidence) that the sources and sinks of CO2 would be in equilibrium if not for the perturbation by human activity, then we could use a notional half life of the anthropogenic component of atmospheric CO2 (estimated to be about 25 years).
But that “equilibrium” is illusory. The temperature profile of the Earth’s atmosphere is not regulated by a simple system in thermodynamic equilibrium but which is readily destabilised by a change in concentration of a minor component. Rather it is a complex resilient system.
10
Not sure where you’re going with that Leo.
Wouldn’t half life involve a trace species of CO2 that was introduced to the atmospheric CO2 at a specific time?
20
There is a two-way exchange of CO2 between ocean and atmosphere where the net direction of flow varies by time of day and influenced by sea surface temperature. There is also an oceanic well-mixed layer, the depth of which depends on a diurnal pattern of thermal instability, latitude, season, and cloud conditions.
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the mole fraction of CO2 at the ocean surface are both the immediate determinants of the rate of exchange, but CO2 mole fraction is controlled by insolation and the complex thermodynamic response to that insolation over different time frames.
So, in reality it’s not the concentration of CO2 that controls the rate of sequestration of CO2 into the ocean, but other factors in the system that control the equilibrium, factors associated with insolation and geothermal heating of the ocean.
20
Yes, but can that help us work out how long a “human origin molecule of CO2” will remain in the atmosphere before it is taken into the sea?
20
The estimate will depend on model assumptions.
For instance, I could assume that each year’s increase in atmospheric CO2 was caused solely by anthropogenic emissions.
Then assume that the the contribution of that year’s emissions to the total anthropogenic CO2 at a future year will attenuate through natural sequestration by an amount that depends on further assumptions (the simplest being an attenuation that is a constant fraction of the remainder for each successive year).
A time series sum of each year-of-emissions discounted contribution will allow the calculation of the value of the attenuation factor.
10
Leo, you need to look at TdeF’s work, what you’re outlining is a guesstimate.
10
Think atomic bomb testing.
10
Carbon occurs naturally in three isotopes: carbon 12, which has 6 neutrons (plus 6 protons equals 12), carbon 13, which has 7 neutrons, and carbon 14, which has 8 neutrons
10
Nuclear weapons testing brought about a reaction that simulated atmospheric production of carbon 14 in unnatural quantities.
This extra was seen to be reduced over time heading towards the initial ratio present before testing began.
00
Brownout Bowen was here in the Blue Mountains last week spruking his first “community battery” for the Mountains. Apparently the plan is that all those solar panels in some of the Mountain villages are producing power during the (scarce) sunny days that is going to waste! So the plan is to dump all those wonderful electrons into this community battery, so that when the lights inevitably go out as our NSW coal generators close down, we will all be able to bask in the power from our own little battery.
I noted that in the article in our local paper no one asked him how long the community electrons would last in the case of a Blue Mountains Blackout. I would reckon about 40 seconds.
70
To Net Zero most people are blind,
As to what the elites have in mind,
And they know what they’re doin’,
An agenda to ruin,
The future of all of mankind.
110
And Toyota have made the decision to not make 100% electric vehicles.
I wonder what they know?
50
Maybe Toyota know their market better than the green dreamers !
70
For one thing they recently released some details of a new ICE engine they have developed.
Four stroke but only two cylinders, just 1600 cc capacity, unheard of meagre fuel consumption, but develops around 240 bhp in standard form and up to 340 bhp tweaked (so far), and cheap as chips to manufacture. Expected to be in production cars within three years.
60
Often wondered what happened to the Commer engine- 3 cyls, 6 pistons, 2 crankshafts, two-stroke petrol. Distinctive exhaust burble, hear their trucks coming for miles.
40
That Commer “knocker” TS3 was actually a diesel and supercharged too !
There was even a 4 cylinder , 8 piston, version developed.
That engine was the sound of my childhood in the ‘60s when we lived beside a main highway !
Very distinctive sound ( i can sstill recall it )
https://bringatrailer.com/2017/05/14/six-pistons-three-cylinders-one-crank-1968-commer-ts3-knocker/
10
Japanese manufacturers have generally been very good at developing realistic 10 and 20 year scenarios, so they probably have predicted the futility of EVS.
20
While there’s no doubt that a transition to net-zero energy systems is going to be incredibly metals intensive, I don’t see how those figures for Nickel and Cobalt can be realistic. An order of magnitude or more high, unless he’s assuming that most grid storage of all forms, as well as EV storage is going to come from NMC Lion batteries (which is very unlikely, since grid storage isn’t weight sensitive). Also, that End-of-Life recycling won’t really be a thing for metals as relatively easy to recover and valuable as Nickel and Cobalt (Lithium is another matter)
The big Nickel and Cobalt user is going to be EV batteries, and for in Cobalt in particular, the high demand period for that is likely to be very short lived indeed under any realistic scenario (see figure 4 of this report for comparison).
10
Hi Jo,
Well done in highlighting this aspect of the use of the non-“renewables”.
In addition, what is not specifically, clearly, stated is that the process of the winning, the refining, the manufacturing, of all these exotic metals so as to substitute for our present “dirty”, “nasty”, fossil-fuelled power stations, will burn far more fossil fuels, thereby producing far more CO2 emissions, in fact by at least several orders of magnitude, than if we were to just use the fossil fuels directly in those so-called dirty, nasty, fossil-fuelled power stations.
But of course, Bowen and his ilk hope that they can keep this particular fact hidden.
Regards,
Paul Miskelly
30
Net Zero.
Well hell,let us give that phrase some meaning.
By stealing it.
And creating Net Zero Gang Green.
A fine social goal.
Take our abundant population of parasites and freeloader from todays dangerously high numbers..to Net Zero.
We can incorporate another meaningless popular phrase,Climate Change,currently as meaningful as water wet and make it mean something beneficial to civil society.
Climate Change can be used to describe the current change in mass hysteria,as we recognize the incompetence and malice of our “Professional Helpers”.
And that change in climate is from one where we treat Gang Green and the Parasitic Overload,as decent human beings, to a climate of judgement,where we hold them responsible for the results of their actions,not their pretty words.
With me so far?
Net Zero Gang Green by 2025 and no tolerance for professional liars and thieves,a Climate Change every productive human can embrace and benefit from.
For we are faced with perpetual liars,they are all lying..so the words mean nothing,empty catch phrases and buzz words..
But their actions have resulted in us all becoming poorer and less free.
Forget their words,for they lie.
Reward the result of their action.
Net Zero works for me.
There was a Kiwi band back in the 80’s that had a chorus:
“Gonn’a be an axe that will set you free”.
Which would be my tool of choice.
I fully recommend a climate change and net zero by 2025
50
Like it.
20
Not to mention that EV battery life is 5-7 years, and current battery recycle rate is less than 5%. The shills say that theoretically 90% is recoverable, but reality is that recovery process requires electrolysis and consumes massive amounts of electricity. Will never be viable.
40
Can I point out that approx. 75% of human emissions of CO2 come from countries that have no intention of reducing or hindering output as that would make it impossible to lift the standard of living of the inhabitants in their countries.
Despite claims that politicians are ignorant, most have worked out that being popular is the safest way. Otherwise you have to run a dictatorial system and that ends in collapse, so countries in “The West” will run into economic collapse fairly soon. Those politicians who advocate Net Zero had better have somewhere to go to in a hurry, but as most of them don’t realise the inevitable consequences of their actions they will pay the price.
50
The late Peter Walsh, Bob Hawkes finance minister, once quipped that the Greens were those who “believed in fairies at the bottom of the garden”.
Seems we can now extend that to Labour and the LNP as both have enthusiastically climbed aboard the fantasy express of Net Zero.
50
Simon Michaux’s presentation should be compulsory viewing for every politician and every beaurocrat involved in pushing for hydrogen, solar and wind, as well as anyone involved in land rehabilitation.
If the deluded realised that with impossible mining and processing expectations their utopia is in reality a grim powerless future, perhaps they might start to reconsider where they are going.
But perhaps I ask to much of them.
40
Let me give you a tip – coming from someone very close to the mining industry.
Even to double production from any given mine is no small step or endeavor – the majority of times it is impossible from an economic standpoint.
To try to increase production of any given mineral commodity by 10, 20, 30 or 40 times as easily slips off the tongue’s of the market analysists – well, it’s plain insanity.
30
Western societies are committing suicide with this policy and the absurd demands to ban ICE cars by 2035 or 2040 etc.
10