Doomberg

the more intermittent energy generation is in a grid, the more balancing mechanisms, either storage or flexible generation, will be required. As both generation and consumption have to be balanced in real-time (at close to 100% reliability no less!), we have quite a challenge on our hands. There are hard limits in physics, geology and in regards to cost for grid-scale lithium-ion batteries (for detailed reasoning and the role hydrogen might play, please refer to this excellent talk from UC Davis: [3]), especially as the global roll-out of EVs is simultaneously under way. Long story short: more solar & wind is bad news for coal but great news for natural gas (especially in regions like the coastal US and Germany where a phase out of nuclear is ongoing).

In the western world, we can eventually shift away from burning fossil fuels (low population growth and off shoring of energy intense manufacturing helps), but globally the demand for fossil fuels is still growing quickly. It's hard to overstate just how much of a revolution LNG (liquefied natural gas) has been and is - for the longest time you could only use natural gas directly if you were connected to a source via pipeline. Western Europe was almost entirely dependent on Russia for example. Now, a global market has evolved. Nigerian gas can be shipped to Brazil when a drought limits Hydropower capacity, gas from Trinidad-Tobago is burned in Massachusetts to compensate for limitations imposed by the Jones Act and lacking…

As both a Python developer and Energy (oil and gas) engineer, I am a regular reader of Hacker News and enjoy the quality of discussions in the comments on the HN Top articles.
This thread however disappoints me.
The news of any producers potentially reducing their CO2 targets in any form is upsetting. However, painting them as bad guys vs good guys or using the tobacco industry analogy is too simplistic in my opinion.
Doomberg is a great newsletter to start with to have a more educated discussion around these topics. The articles below, give great background to mature this discussion and moving it passed Oil company boss wants to be rich, they shut down all the other alternative rubbish.
1. https://doomberg.substack.com/p/where-stuff-comes-from (if you time to read only one of these, make it this one)
2. https://doomberg.substack.com/p/got-milk
3. https://doomberg.substack.com/p/tour-de-farce

Article below is an example of challenges facing rolling out renewables. They are not all Oil and Gas related as generally perceived:
https://archive.md/udhVH

There are also couple of really good books on the topic, which I am happy to share if the interest is there.

To push back on the push back, being in Quebec, I always thought we were safe because of the Hydro (we're at 98% Hydro power - really this and the abundant supply of water are why I still stay here), but it looks like we're hitting the limit and will have trouble meeting demand in 10 years time [0], especially considering exports to New York and other northeast states.

Also, dams are expensive. You're looking at $2B per project, at least here, and you need to flood an immense amount of land.

Really, we should get over our paranoia and lift the artificial hurdles on nuclear so the plants can be built faster and cheaper. Or, at least in the states, bite the bullet and leverage your extensive gas fields to develop a solar industry [1]

[0] https://www.electricityforum.com/news/canada-energy-shortage

[1] https://doomberg.substack.com/p/a-serious-proposal-on-us-energy

Here's an example from this week:

https://doomberg.substack.com/p/railroaded

"Even though this, and all information quoted in this piece, is readily available to any reporter with access to Google, countless references to the dangers presented by phosgene are giving the public anxiety over the decision to execute the controlled burn. To pick one example from many dozens, a Newsweek story, titled Did Control Burn of Toxic Chemicals Make Ohio Train Derailment Worse?, includes the following sentence: “Phosgene is a deadly gas that was used in chemical warfare during World War I.” The report goes on to quote – and we kid you not – a TikTok video from an “entrepreneur” for more insight.

Sigh."

On a related note, I've been getting increasingly worried that we're imminently and blindly walking into a human catastrophe due to our current energy policies. I'd be interested to hear about holes that anyone here might be able to poke in any of the red flags being raised by people like Anas-Alhajji[1], the Doomberg team[2] and Wil VanLoh[3].

1. https://www.macrovoices.com/1087-macrovoices-328-dr-anas-alhajji-there-is-no-escaping-the-coming-energy-crisis

2. https://doomberg.substack.com/

3. https://www.realvision.com/shows/the-kyle-bass-interviews/videos/if-we-dont-get-it-right-the-consequences-are-dire-X85d

Definitely one of the stranger sources of economic doomporn I've seen, but at least the whole vibe seems a bit more self-aware than most.

I hope a bunch of screenshots of indices at 5-year highs with conveniently short time frames (excluding the last major economic shock only ten years ago) isn't considered "pretty deep analysis" now.

I guess when your newsletter is titled "Doomberg" and you brag about prepping to IRL friends [1] the lack of context outside of the carefully selected graphs and time periods seems less surprising.

1: https://doomberg.substack.com/p/reflections-from-the-gas-pump