Unfortunately the article is not about laser rifles and plasma cannons, but the concept of using control of energy sources as a tactic and our rising vulnerability to it. Kind of lackluster, overlong article. Times and situations change, and this is a time of change. It was never a terrible idea in general to use this type of coercion–it just didn’t fit the situation. Now we are MUCH more connected and MUCH more reliant on that steady flow of juice than ever before. But I think a lot of that is connected to the internet and even LLMs now.
Imagine if the stock exchange were offline for a day. I did not deign to finish this thing, but it would be wise to have a backup plan–a generator if you will–in the event of widespread blackouts for lack of a better term. Surely all nations with widespread wifi have that covered…right?
keanwood on
I would object to calling renewables a “double edged sword”. Are there supply risks for solar and batteries? Yes of course there are. But if you are a country that doesn’t produce coal/gas and doesn’t produce solar panels, you are strictly better off having more renewables on the grid than less. The supply risk for oil/gas/coal is always higher than the supply risk from solar/wind/batteries. Where is the double edge?
The 2025 IEA WEO report comes out soon. It will be interesting if it has a notable departure from the 2024 report. The 24 report had all fossil fuels peaking before 2030. The article claims it has seen draft version of the 25 report which will show oil demand increasing till 2050. I am pretty skeptical that demand will continue to rise for the next 25 years. China has already peaked its oil (transportation) usage and is likely in terminal decline. They are still seeing oil (chemical feedstock) usage grow, but even that will likely peak before 2030.
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
2 Kommentare
White queen is on the wrong square…No SS.
Unfortunately the article is not about laser rifles and plasma cannons, but the concept of using control of energy sources as a tactic and our rising vulnerability to it. Kind of lackluster, overlong article. Times and situations change, and this is a time of change. It was never a terrible idea in general to use this type of coercion–it just didn’t fit the situation. Now we are MUCH more connected and MUCH more reliant on that steady flow of juice than ever before. But I think a lot of that is connected to the internet and even LLMs now.
Imagine if the stock exchange were offline for a day. I did not deign to finish this thing, but it would be wise to have a backup plan–a generator if you will–in the event of widespread blackouts for lack of a better term. Surely all nations with widespread wifi have that covered…right?
I would object to calling renewables a “double edged sword”. Are there supply risks for solar and batteries? Yes of course there are. But if you are a country that doesn’t produce coal/gas and doesn’t produce solar panels, you are strictly better off having more renewables on the grid than less. The supply risk for oil/gas/coal is always higher than the supply risk from solar/wind/batteries. Where is the double edge?
The 2025 IEA WEO report comes out soon. It will be interesting if it has a notable departure from the 2024 report. The 24 report had all fossil fuels peaking before 2030. The article claims it has seen draft version of the 25 report which will show oil demand increasing till 2050. I am pretty skeptical that demand will continue to rise for the next 25 years. China has already peaked its oil (transportation) usage and is likely in terminal decline. They are still seeing oil (chemical feedstock) usage grow, but even that will likely peak before 2030.