Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?
- Thread starter svetz
- Start date
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Solar with Energy Storage now only $7/MWh more than Gas Combined Cycle
Next year with low-cost Sodium batteries it could very well be under and the economics finally push fossil fuels into history as it has with coal.
Although with a price difference of $0.007/kWh, any proposal for a new fossil fuel project should be rejected.
The price of renewable + ESS is well under Peaker plants, so hopefully no more of them are built again; this type of energy generation is what causes incredibly high rates that are unfair to consumers.
There's also been a lot of progress on fusion in the last year, for example, Helion's non-traditional low-cost direct generation is going to build a 50 MW unit for Microsoft by 2028. Helion's estimated electricity production costs are $10/MWh and have the benefits of being safe, clean, a small footprint, and easily attainable low-cost fuel (deuterium).
I haven't seen much progress for nuclear, the small portable/inexpensive units that were being developed ran into snags and all seem to have had massive price hikes.
Last edited:
Who on here has denied climate change?
If nothing else most ppl openly admit it is a natural process and most say influenced-made worse by ppl. The major debate seems to be over what can REALLY be done and to what Degree for a game change vs cost. A “Degree” - Pun intended since it was stated our best effort for climate change would only be ~1 degree.
The Skeptical Science website you linked to tells ppl to “dismiss politics unless it supports the climate change agenda”. I doubt that is possible.
“Again who on this forum is a climate change denier?”
The SKEPTICAL SCIENCE website you linked was not made up of scientist at its inception. It was made up of a cartoonist then other circled co-founders. Need to ask what are Dr. Cook credentials? “ He obtained his PhD at the University of Western Australia, studying the cognitive psychology of climate science denial‘’
holy crap so in a balanced educational system are there studies to counter this Dr Cook’s education? Again as he listed, “ He obtained his PhD at the University of Western Australia, studying the cognitive psychology of climate science denial” WTF would it be called….for an education in opposition?
I think you dismissed the ppl in the post from NASA based on their back grounds of not being climate scientist. Are any ppl on other side from your view considered climate scientist? You support this claimed - granted USA Non-Profit group as real - and as the reliable deal “Skeptical Science”. You linked to them at least several times. None of them on staff are real climate scientist at Skeptical Science. Yet again there was a dismissing statement about those NASA scientist and engineers. “Science is evolving and should always be challenged” according to groups of scientist.
What’s more there are websites like this and the comments section at this link is also revealing about Cook. Did he - Dr Cook really photoshop himself as a Nazi?
www.populartechnology.net
Do you play the “Cranky Uncle Game” as a phone app from Skeptical Science?
crankyuncle.com
I’d say the game inventor has Uncle issues - does the proceeds from it fall under non-profit too. Are their proceeds or just tax deductible proceeds - donations. ????
If I were making a propaganda team would head it with a person - with a psychology Phd. Sound about right? From the CHILDISH game description - training aid on Apple Apps website.
””We all have a cranky uncle who thinks he knows better than the world's scientists. But how do vou make sense of his arguments and conspiracy theories? The way to understand our cranky uncle is to become a cranky uncle! If you're going to spot someone cheating at cards, first you have to learn how to cheat at cards
In this game, Cranky Uncle teaches you the rhetorical techniques and logical fallacies he uses to deny science. Climate change, evolution, vaccination, a round Earth - he's never met a science he wouldn't deny! The deeper you get into the game, the more resilient you become against misinformation””
I would put the NASA ppl up against their team at skeptical science any day even if you backed them up with these volunteers. Is this the peer group?
?
I do deny that if we spend trillions of dollars it will make a significant difference. 1 degree That is my opinion and belief based on everything have seen or read is wasteful. BESIDES We as a Country do not have the money. I have stated this over and over. We had to print the money that was used for Covid emergency ~$5 trillion dollars so all existing monies were devalued and diluted. Any new monies always dilute existing monies and cause inflation. That is why we had massive inflation following covid. I have always spent responsibly - all my life and stayed within my means….. my retirement savings have now been devalued greatly. My private retirement benefits that I paid so much into are also being threatened into non-existence. Social security for others is being threatened.
I find it interesting that ppl that want to spend all this Climate Change money and claim to know so much can not understand basic math for the simple economic impact from covid …… much less any more expenditures. If “WE” are broke then ”WE” are broke. Stop printing new money and devaluing the old money. Figure out how to get investment monies and pay dividends in return. The elite always make money no matter what. They control the game.
Are you shocked that common ppl are resisting and complaining that their saved and earned monies are being planned - stolen and destined to be used for climate changers. During covid the World Elite that never seem to get targeted are reported to have (stolen) earned $1.5 trillion dollars collectively as a small group. No doubt paid from the previous newly printed - made $5 trillion dollars handed out during covid. At some point a stick of chewing gum will cost $1 million dollars.
I have repeatedly stated: figure out how to make legit changes and ppl might be willing to invest. Just making up schemes to illegally take ppl’s monies is criminal. For those that don’t understand: If ppl want to live on Mars get a job, make money, pay to build your rocket ship, and fly away. These ppl need to go be with Elon Musk on your journey. Bye. End of story.
We really need to come up with a permanent separation - solution. Them moving to Mars sounds good to me. At this point I would even chip in some shekels to get a distant separation.….
If nothing else most ppl openly admit it is a natural process and most say influenced-made worse by ppl. The major debate seems to be over what can REALLY be done and to what Degree for a game change vs cost. A “Degree” - Pun intended since it was stated our best effort for climate change would only be ~1 degree.
The Skeptical Science website you linked to tells ppl to “dismiss politics unless it supports the climate change agenda”. I doubt that is possible.
“Again who on this forum is a climate change denier?”
The SKEPTICAL SCIENCE website you linked was not made up of scientist at its inception. It was made up of a cartoonist then other circled co-founders. Need to ask what are Dr. Cook credentials? “ He obtained his PhD at the University of Western Australia, studying the cognitive psychology of climate science denial‘’
About Skeptical Science
Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.
web.archive.org
holy crap so in a balanced educational system are there studies to counter this Dr Cook’s education? Again as he listed, “ He obtained his PhD at the University of Western Australia, studying the cognitive psychology of climate science denial” WTF would it be called….for an education in opposition?
I think you dismissed the ppl in the post from NASA based on their back grounds of not being climate scientist. Are any ppl on other side from your view considered climate scientist? You support this claimed - granted USA Non-Profit group as real - and as the reliable deal “Skeptical Science”. You linked to them at least several times. None of them on staff are real climate scientist at Skeptical Science. Yet again there was a dismissing statement about those NASA scientist and engineers. “Science is evolving and should always be challenged” according to groups of scientist.
What’s more there are websites like this and the comments section at this link is also revealing about Cook. Did he - Dr Cook really photoshop himself as a Nazi?
The Truth about Skeptical Science
Source: Skeptical Science Forums Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist , John Cook (who ...
Do you play the “Cranky Uncle Game” as a phone app from Skeptical Science?
Homepage - Cranky Uncle
The Cranky Uncle game uses cartoons and critical thinking to fight misinformation. The game was developed by University of Melbourne scientist John Cook, in collaboration with creative agency Goodbeast. The game is now available for free on iPhone and Android. … Continued
crankyuncle.com
I’d say the game inventor has Uncle issues - does the proceeds from it fall under non-profit too. Are their proceeds or just tax deductible proceeds - donations. ????
If I were making a propaganda team would head it with a person - with a psychology Phd. Sound about right? From the CHILDISH game description - training aid on Apple Apps website.
””We all have a cranky uncle who thinks he knows better than the world's scientists. But how do vou make sense of his arguments and conspiracy theories? The way to understand our cranky uncle is to become a cranky uncle! If you're going to spot someone cheating at cards, first you have to learn how to cheat at cards
In this game, Cranky Uncle teaches you the rhetorical techniques and logical fallacies he uses to deny science. Climate change, evolution, vaccination, a round Earth - he's never met a science he wouldn't deny! The deeper you get into the game, the more resilient you become against misinformation””
I would put the NASA ppl up against their team at skeptical science any day even if you backed them up with these volunteers. Is this the peer group?
The Skeptical Science Team
Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.
skepticalscience.com
?
I do deny that if we spend trillions of dollars it will make a significant difference. 1 degree That is my opinion and belief based on everything have seen or read is wasteful. BESIDES We as a Country do not have the money. I have stated this over and over. We had to print the money that was used for Covid emergency ~$5 trillion dollars so all existing monies were devalued and diluted. Any new monies always dilute existing monies and cause inflation. That is why we had massive inflation following covid. I have always spent responsibly - all my life and stayed within my means….. my retirement savings have now been devalued greatly. My private retirement benefits that I paid so much into are also being threatened into non-existence. Social security for others is being threatened.
I find it interesting that ppl that want to spend all this Climate Change money and claim to know so much can not understand basic math for the simple economic impact from covid …… much less any more expenditures. If “WE” are broke then ”WE” are broke. Stop printing new money and devaluing the old money. Figure out how to get investment monies and pay dividends in return. The elite always make money no matter what. They control the game.
Are you shocked that common ppl are resisting and complaining that their saved and earned monies are being planned - stolen and destined to be used for climate changers. During covid the World Elite that never seem to get targeted are reported to have (stolen) earned $1.5 trillion dollars collectively as a small group. No doubt paid from the previous newly printed - made $5 trillion dollars handed out during covid. At some point a stick of chewing gum will cost $1 million dollars.
I have repeatedly stated: figure out how to make legit changes and ppl might be willing to invest. Just making up schemes to illegally take ppl’s monies is criminal. For those that don’t understand: If ppl want to live on Mars get a job, make money, pay to build your rocket ship, and fly away. These ppl need to go be with Elon Musk on your journey. Bye. End of story.
We really need to come up with a permanent separation - solution. Them moving to Mars sounds good to me. At this point I would even chip in some shekels to get a distant separation.….
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
You must have them on ignore. It's a good idea really.
I agree. There are a lot of approaches and it's doubtful there's one that fits all.
I dismissed the lawyers and PR people. I made fun of the mathematician for his poor math and logic and the engineer for cheery picking data and stating wrong facts that were easily verifiable. But yes, they're also not climate scientists and there were no climate scientists there as far as I could tell.
What you're really getting to is the question about why is your reference any better than my reference?
But hopefully, it's obvious. Bad sites make up data and don't provide references to actual peer-reviewed published data. Good sites do. For example, Skeptical Science has excerpts and videos from real climate scientists and commentary. The responses are evolutionary and have grown as more information is ascertained and there is more feedback from scientists. I like that site because it is concise, cites scientific references, and is focused on countering misinformation.
A fact check on them says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science#cite_note-Yale-3
The fact check on the conference you mentioned was nowhere near so flattering:
Conference Sponsor: Heartland Institute
I've never seen any data in error from the Skeptical Science site and no one has ever contested any of the facts on it so far in this thread. If you see something technical regarding global warming that you believe is wrong, by all means, let's discuss facts rather than innuendo.
No, not dismissive. In #1,840 I reviewed at length documenting and timestamping where they said what, and then explained why it was correct or incorrect or provided a URL as to where it had already been debunked by others. If you believe I'm in error on any point, then please let us discuss that point rather than cast vague doubts.
I would too.
But, it so happens the people at NASA agree that climate change is real and a lot of the data on the Skeptical Science page points back to NASA pages.
It's only the one ex-NASA guy paid to attend conferences put together by PR organizations paid to sow doubt with facts fairly easy to disprove that I don't credit.
Take money totally out of the equation, all it does is confuse people as to what the right thing to do is.
Consider we add GHGs into the atmosphere faster than nature can remove them, that GHGs cause warming, that warming causes climate change.
Can't let go of the costs eh? What if I told you we could do it and save Trillions of Dollars? Well, I already have told you about it ...see #1,855 and #1,852.
We don't have money to go to war either, so what would we do if Russia invaded? Roll over because we can't afford it?
Fox and other outlets try to make the solutions sound scary and expensive so people feel helpless.
Let's take those trillions you keep talking about that. You know that's the estimate for the world to get to carbon zero by 2050.
So, if we spread it out over 27 years (assuming net-zero by 2050) across the world that comes to about $40/person/year.
And you know what, you were going to pay more than that anyway in terms of replacement and repair for existing facilities. That costs trillions too. The idea is mainly to replace existing fossil plants as they hit end-of-life with renewables. It is money we were always going to spend on fossil fuels, that is if you take what we were going to spend minus what we'd spend for renewables it's only a little more expensive today and a lot cheaper in a few years.
Even worse, you're already paying more than that just for the increase in weather-related incidents (see #1,840), and since we're not yet talking about bringing GHGs down (it's only about not adding anymore), those costs might be with us until people and cities have adapted to the "new" climate. Cities need to stop being reactive and spend to adapt to change.
What should scare us about those trillion of dollars is that they won't be spent wisely. But it's the government we're talking about. What could possibly go wrong? ; -)
It's not all gloom and doom by any means.
Last edited:
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
An Article from 1912 suggests climate change could be a problem in the next century. refThe article has an interesting timeline of what we knew when. One of the suggested solutions for the Fermi paradox is global warming, but given how early we knew that seems unlikely, it means their politicians would have to be more corrupt/stupid than ours. | 
|
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 5,058
People in third-world countries have always been at the mercy of the weather.
grizzzman
Photon Vampire
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 2,857
You stated this.
"Fox and other outlets try to make the solutions sound scary and expensive so people feel helpless.
Let's take those trillions you keep talking about that. You know that's the estimate for the world to get to carbon zero by 2050.
So, if we spread it out over 27 years (assuming net-zero by 2050) across the world that comes to about $40/person/year."
I think your figures are a bit off. One of the reasons is the current debt and it's associated entrust.
How much is the US in debt for each person?
$95,043
Current. * As of June 5, 2023, the U.S. Treasury's official figure for the debt of the federal government is $31.8 trillion, or more precisely, $31,825,678,823,229. [9] This equates to: $95,043 for every person living in the U.S.[10]
"Fox and other outlets try to make the solutions sound scary and expensive so people feel helpless.
Let's take those trillions you keep talking about that. You know that's the estimate for the world to get to carbon zero by 2050.
So, if we spread it out over 27 years (assuming net-zero by 2050) across the world that comes to about $40/person/year."
I think your figures are a bit off. One of the reasons is the current debt and it's associated entrust.
How much is the US in debt for each person?
$95,043
Current. * As of June 5, 2023, the U.S. Treasury's official figure for the debt of the federal government is $31.8 trillion, or more precisely, $31,825,678,823,229. [9] This equates to: $95,043 for every person living in the U.S.[10]
LeoThomson
Solar Addict
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2022
- Messages
- 3,469
That is self inflicted. In 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected and promised to cut the top marginal tax rate. This he did, and the top marginal tax rate was lowered over his 8 years in office from 73% to 28% on incomes over just $29,750 - the lowest this rate had been since 1925.
Reagan tax cuts - Wikipedia
National Debt To Surpass $78 Trillion By 2028: What It Means For Americans
The National Debt has risen over 3,370% since President Jimmy Carter took office. Here's what it means for Americans.
www.forbes.com
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Well let's see.... $10 Trillion x (1000 Billion / trillion) / 27 years / 8 billion people = $46.30 / year / person
Yep! You were right! Good eye!
So with the additional $46, that's $95,089... a 0.04% increase if it was new money.
But honestly, if anything, the debt/deficit argument is a reason why we should switch since eliminating fossil fuels saves us money. Confused? Well...
Gas turbines don't last forever, moving parts and burning fuels at high temperatures induces a lot of fatigue. Those plants need constant maintenance and only last 25 to 30 years [ref]. That means each one in existence today will be at its end of life before 2050 and need to be replaced. That costs money.
The $10 trillion to electrify isn't new money we have to borrow. That money was always going to be spent to replace the existing aging infrastructure. By replacing it with a lower LCOE technology (that is, renewables) we SAVE money.
LeoThomson
Solar Addict
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2022
- Messages
- 3,469
And that is why I am not worried (and have not been worried for over a decade) about fossil fuels, the trend is clear.
What is going to be interesting is where manufacturing is going to take place, right now China seems to leading on renewable energy. Will Republicans come to their senses?
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Not likely. But, just as lower natural gas prices pretty much killed coal, you can bet the lower cost of renewables will kill natural gas. Peaker plants are already on the way out. It'll be interesting to see if high TOU rates disappear with them.
| For example, the new 190MW peaker power plant being built for Texas in Caldwell County has 4 Wärtsilä 50SG (four-stroke, spark-ignited gas engine generating set that runs on natural gas, biogas, synthetic methanol, and is capable of hydrogen blending ref). They sure covered their bases for renewable fuels. But, obviously 4x19 = 76 MW, where's the other 114 MW? See image right... and of course batteries: So, it is happening because it's a lot lower cost (Peaker plants have high LCOEs). Hopefully, I didn't munge up the facts, I'm not familiar with the project, it was just the first peaker plant I googled. |  |
What we need is better education to investors piling money into dead-end projects like pipeline/drilling locations and for the government to stop providing inducements. Those investments should be considered high-risk so when they go belly-up there's no expectation of a bailout. Incentives have been offered to investors in the past because we needed oil, but any exploration/building of today won't see the project finished for over a decade, and by then it'll all be on the downturn.
Don't worry though, I'm sure in the end any GHG reductions that do occur the politicians will take credit for it.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
NOAA Forecast
Ran across this today, NOAA generates experimental forecasts based on their models out to a year. Below are monthly snapshots:
Considering California isn't showing a "wetter" than normal year, suspect the model isn't taking El Niño into account, so early days.
Still, pretty cool.
There's a whole spate of graphs here. This one was particularly disturbing, suspect it means very bad things for the 2024 hurricane season (Man, that's a lot of nuclear bomb equivalents (63e12 joules/Littleboy).
There are also sites now combining historical data with projected data such as Climate Explorer:
I like that Climate Explorer shows the range of uncertainty, beware of websites that don't as they're probably more on the hysterical or denier side. But, they are nice ways to see what the RCPs say about where you live. Other countries may have similar sites, if you know of one please post it.
Investing in America: $2.6 Billion Proposed to protect coastal communities
Not a lot, but it's a start at adaptation.Possibly the insurance companies will come back with sufficient adaptation? Even for our "government" insurance we have inspectors for some things. Basically, they're the same as building inspectors. If you want insurance or a discount you have to pay to get inspected to prove you have sufficient mitigation (e.g., hurricane ties, hurricane windows for a break on wind insurance).
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Held v. Montana
Yesterday was the first day of the case, OMG the DRAMA! It'll be interesting to see what happens. If they win, it'll make a great movie.
If we look back at all the cigarette lawsuits:
You'd think it would be an easy case, but it won't be. The problem is it's not about if climate change is real or not, it's about if Montanna fossil fuel activities are harmful to Montanna; so what's happening worldwide isn't important:
Why they will most likely lose
So, Why didn't the judge dismiss the case:
Many see this as giving "the kids their day in court".
Who's who
Witnesses for the defense:
Looked into some of them, very impressive. But it's not really climate change that's on trial, it's about a vague violation of something that was repealed. So, Whitlock may well be the most important witness. Susteren will probably go over similar to the cigarette cases.
- Dr. Steve Running - U of Montana, team member of NASA MODIS, standing Committee for Earth Studies of the National Research Council and on the federal Interagency Carbon Cycle Science Committee. He has served as a Co-Chair of the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate System Model Land Working Group, a Member of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program Executive Committee, and the World Climate Research Program, Global Terrestrial Observing System. He currently serves on the advisory NASA Earth Science Subcommittee, and the NOAA Science Advisory Board Climate Working Group. Dr. Running contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
- Dr. Cathy Whitlock - Fellow, Montana Institute on Ecosystems, Director, MSU Paleoecology Lab. Has done research and published papers on the climate changes in Montana, including the Montana Climate Assessment.
- Michael Durglo - Head of the CSKT’s Tribal Historic Department, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes
- Dr. Lise Van Susteren - a general and forensic psychiatrist in Washington, DC, and expert on the physical and mental health effects of climate disruption.
Plaintiff Attornies - Roger Sullivan, 35 years career focused on securing justice for Montana’s workers and advocating for Montanans’ constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. Nathan Bellinger, of Our Children's Trust.
Attorney General Michael Russell
Last edited:
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Watch The Lost Century: And How to Reclaim It online – Prime Video
Dr. Steven Greer presents
www.primevideo.com
Watched this movie other night and thought it was interesting. Basically the guy states everything you and we are proposing is a wash. He claims we already have free energy devices now. Sorta of what Tesla talked about but was marked as crazy. He states if it were released then everything as we know it would crash. To which if you think about it would be true. Something just to think about. I have read time and time again that Tesla wanted to solve world problems with free energy but was suppressed by powers that be to capitalize from all of us. Conspiracy theory or truth. Was Tesla crazy like they claim. The govt wasted no time scooping up everything Tesla developed or wrote down when he died. Strange but like most gifted inventors Tesla died mostly broke and all alone. Wealthy ppl govt laid claim. Conspiracy. He says UFO are us ?????
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Sounds like a "nut" case, the laws of thermodynamics show there's no such thing at a classical level.
In a non-closed-cycle approach, there are many energy sources such as sunlight or geothermal that appear "free". But, you still have to manufacture/buy the panel, or maintain the grid, so still not free.
The fed estimates that the average household income spent on electricity is under 5%. So, to the average person, it wouldn't have a major impact. Countries dependent on oil exports to fund their programs/government on the other hand would be in trouble and those heavily vested in fossil fuels and other technology would probably lose a lot of money - so not disruption free by any means to the rich.
Even aside from electricity, fossil fuels have a lot of uses (e.g., plastics), so they would still be around.
It would also take a lot of time to transition, for example to convert all the vehicles that move goods. So it would probably be an immediate stock crash on fuels, followed by a rally of more sensible investors. Similarly, countries would have time to change, but most politicians would probably waste it arguing than coming up with a viable plan.
Last edited:
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Back to where it all started:
While capitalism will naturally take care of electrification at this point (e.g., electricity & ground transport), is that enough? Or does that still leave too many GHGs being added to the atmosphere?
So, electrification get's us down quite a bit, but looks like we'd still need another 22% reduction. See anything I missed?
While capitalism will naturally take care of electrification at this point (e.g., electricity & ground transport), is that enough? Or does that still leave too many GHGs being added to the atmosphere?
| Ignoring water vapor and ozone (ignored as they are both antiGHGs and GHGs depending on atmospheric location) the main GHGs are:
and from Transportation 26% x (1.0 - 1.9% - 3%) = 54.7%. That still leaves us with 45.3% to eliminate. Residential & Commercial is primarily heating and cooking, with electrification let's assume we can recover all but 1%. That brings us down to 34.3% with only 30% left to look at. | 
|
| Agriculture From the agricultural breakdown below 15% is energy use that could be recovered via electrification, but that's only 1.35%. The rest is going to be trickier. 34.3% - 1.35% = 32.95%. 
| Industrial The image below is California-specific, but if representative then a lot of the GHGs produced are from refineries, which electrification would greatly reduce. Pipelines and refineries would still be needed as fossil fuels are very important to many products like plastics. But roughly it looks like electrification would cut at least half of that sector's GHGs, which brings us down to 32.95 - 11% = 22%.  |
So, electrification get's us down quite a bit, but looks like we'd still need another 22% reduction. See anything I missed?
Last edited:
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Here's another analysis, very similar to the one above. From theirs, it looks like 26.8% still remains to be dealt with after electrification. Well, more than that as the "red" section includes leaky gas piplelines, aviation, and "other industry". Hmmm, it also includes 7.8% "Unallocated fuel combustion" which I suspect is fuel burned to make fuel. So, possibly the numbers match up better than expected. Data is 7 years old too.
Similar threads
