Re: Pielke’s analysis, I compared the global results described here to New York State’s net zero transition (https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2026/07/12/comparing-the-new-york-energy-transition-against-the-world/) using the same parameters. New York placed second in the countries in the table of change in carbon intensity. New York had a reduction in carbon intensity of energy that I ascribe to fuel switching away from coal and oil to natural gas. However, to meet the NY net-zero mandate would require replacing the fossil energy used today and replacing it with electric generation means building the equivalent of about nine 1.75-gigawatt nuclear plant every five years from now until 2050 for a total of 48 facilities.
Measured in wind turbines instead, at 3 megawatts and a 0.30 capacity factor, that comes to over 3,000 turbines a year totaling over 83,000 turbines.
I love your description of the likelihood of this occurring:
We’ll be blunter. The chances that anyone reading this post will live to see a an actual “net zero” world in their lifetime are Slim and None. And Slim left town on the 4:30 p.m. Greyhound to El Paso.
The sentence "Natural gas consumption is still increasing in the U.S. and China. U.S. consumption doubled since 2015, but it did so at the expense of U.S. coal consumption (driving down U.S. CO2 emissions intensity in the process.)" does not reflect the graph it references.
China doubled. The US increased by 20.x%, far from doubling.
"Like it or not, hydrocarbons are still the Crown Joule of the world’s primary energy consumption."
Damn! Another reason to beat our breasts in self-flagellation, throw paint on museum displays, demand a return to the dark ages in sacrifice to mother gaia, all the while throwing our fast food wrappers and other trash on the ground for 'others' to clean up. What a wonderful culture!
All forms of energy ultimately end up as heat. This applies to electricity, it applies to transport of all kinds, it applies to all industrial and domestic processes. If the world generates 600 exajoules of energy per year, then 600 exajoules of heat wil ultimately be released into the environment, over and above that which the world receives from solar radiation. Small wonder that the world is heating up.
I forgot to mention that hydro and renewable energy ultimately come from solar radiation and should therefore be excluded from the list because they have already been counted. But fossil fuels and nuclear are all in the list of additional heating.
I've just done a rough calculation of the total radiant energy received at the Earth's surface from the sun on a yearly basis. I make it to be 4,500,000 exajoules, which is 7,500 times the 600 exajoule figure discussed above. Assuming my figures are correct, the 600 exajoules per year of man-made energy is quite insignificant. Should have done this calculation first!
Much of the "total energy received at the earth's surface" is radiated back into space. A more useful comparison rather than the total radiant energy received is what the annual EXCESS energy being absorbed by the earth is. This is what will increase the temperature. This is much less than 7,500 times human consumption. I can't recall the exact number and haven't bothered to do the calculation. I think it is in the range of 30-40x - still large.
From Wikipedia, “In organic chemistry, a hydrocarbon is an organic compound consisting entirely of hydrogen and carbon.”
Coal is primarily elemental carbon with small amounts of other elements including hydrogen. Some anthracite deposits contain pure carbon in the form of graphite. This why coal produces so much CO2 and relatively little water when it is burned.
Probably best to call coal a fossil fuel rather than a hydrocarbon.
I like how you added "(reportedly)" when mentioning China's flat coal generation.
2025 was China's biggest annual coal power build-out in in over a decade ~78GW and it's growing larger. It's utterly unbelievable to me that their renewables displaced coal in actual generation or that they are building but not using this coal capacity. It undermines all of the stats coming out of China and thus the whole Review given how large China's share is.
The green dreams remind me of the sign hanging in the bar at Up the Creek raw bar in Aplachicola FL. “Free Beer, Tomorrow”. It’s always going to be the savior, tomorrow. Reality is difficult to escape……. Just like physics. Good luck and enjoy the trip, the world will be here when you return 🙏🇺🇸
We love it. The Coastal Restaurant in Panacea used to offer eggs, smoked mullet and toast as their breakfast special! Weird name, great food. Enjoy the rivers.
The slide you're referring to was in the EI launch presentation deck that was sent to those who registered to attend. It's 33 pages. We were just summarizing its points (didn't intend to include it).
On way to WY. See if you can find it. If not, will be happy to email you when I return Tuesday.
Re: Pielke’s analysis, I compared the global results described here to New York State’s net zero transition (https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2026/07/12/comparing-the-new-york-energy-transition-against-the-world/) using the same parameters. New York placed second in the countries in the table of change in carbon intensity. New York had a reduction in carbon intensity of energy that I ascribe to fuel switching away from coal and oil to natural gas. However, to meet the NY net-zero mandate would require replacing the fossil energy used today and replacing it with electric generation means building the equivalent of about nine 1.75-gigawatt nuclear plant every five years from now until 2050 for a total of 48 facilities.
Measured in wind turbines instead, at 3 megawatts and a 0.30 capacity factor, that comes to over 3,000 turbines a year totaling over 83,000 turbines.
I love your description of the likelihood of this occurring:
We’ll be blunter. The chances that anyone reading this post will live to see a an actual “net zero” world in their lifetime are Slim and None. And Slim left town on the 4:30 p.m. Greyhound to El Paso.
The sentence "Natural gas consumption is still increasing in the U.S. and China. U.S. consumption doubled since 2015, but it did so at the expense of U.S. coal consumption (driving down U.S. CO2 emissions intensity in the process.)" does not reflect the graph it references.
China doubled. The US increased by 20.x%, far from doubling.
Thanks for this too @environMENTAL.
I think you have a typo "50 decades" waiting for fusion which is around telhe corner that's quite a long time
Maybe 5 decades instead?
"Like it or not, hydrocarbons are still the Crown Joule of the world’s primary energy consumption."
Damn! Another reason to beat our breasts in self-flagellation, throw paint on museum displays, demand a return to the dark ages in sacrifice to mother gaia, all the while throwing our fast food wrappers and other trash on the ground for 'others' to clean up. What a wonderful culture!
All forms of energy ultimately end up as heat. This applies to electricity, it applies to transport of all kinds, it applies to all industrial and domestic processes. If the world generates 600 exajoules of energy per year, then 600 exajoules of heat wil ultimately be released into the environment, over and above that which the world receives from solar radiation. Small wonder that the world is heating up.
I forgot to mention that hydro and renewable energy ultimately come from solar radiation and should therefore be excluded from the list because they have already been counted. But fossil fuels and nuclear are all in the list of additional heating.
I've just done a rough calculation of the total radiant energy received at the Earth's surface from the sun on a yearly basis. I make it to be 4,500,000 exajoules, which is 7,500 times the 600 exajoule figure discussed above. Assuming my figures are correct, the 600 exajoules per year of man-made energy is quite insignificant. Should have done this calculation first!
Much of the "total energy received at the earth's surface" is radiated back into space. A more useful comparison rather than the total radiant energy received is what the annual EXCESS energy being absorbed by the earth is. This is what will increase the temperature. This is much less than 7,500 times human consumption. I can't recall the exact number and haven't bothered to do the calculation. I think it is in the range of 30-40x - still large.
Coal is not a hydrocarbon.
Solid hydrocarbon.
From Wikipedia, “In organic chemistry, a hydrocarbon is an organic compound consisting entirely of hydrogen and carbon.”
Coal is primarily elemental carbon with small amounts of other elements including hydrogen. Some anthracite deposits contain pure carbon in the form of graphite. This why coal produces so much CO2 and relatively little water when it is burned.
Probably best to call coal a fossil fuel rather than a hydrocarbon.
Yeah. We struggle with how to clean up the combo of the two concisely.
I like how you added "(reportedly)" when mentioning China's flat coal generation.
2025 was China's biggest annual coal power build-out in in over a decade ~78GW and it's growing larger. It's utterly unbelievable to me that their renewables displaced coal in actual generation or that they are building but not using this coal capacity. It undermines all of the stats coming out of China and thus the whole Review given how large China's share is.
Oh you caught the drift did you??!?
😉
The green dreams remind me of the sign hanging in the bar at Up the Creek raw bar in Aplachicola FL. “Free Beer, Tomorrow”. It’s always going to be the savior, tomorrow. Reality is difficult to escape……. Just like physics. Good luck and enjoy the trip, the world will be here when you return 🙏🇺🇸
One of my old stomping grounds. Nobody would believe we eat smoked mullet.
We love it. The Coastal Restaurant in Panacea used to offer eggs, smoked mullet and toast as their breakfast special! Weird name, great food. Enjoy the rivers.
OK, Dave. Smoked mullet for breakfast is where we draw the line, brother. ;)
Thanks for this.
You have an unintended figure, showing the first "Hormuz" one twice. The first of those should be something else. It would be great to see what.
Oh, good catch. Thanks!
Removed.
The slide you're referring to was in the EI launch presentation deck that was sent to those who registered to attend. It's 33 pages. We were just summarizing its points (didn't intend to include it).
On way to WY. See if you can find it. If not, will be happy to email you when I return Tuesday.