Citigroup is a big bank (or financial services institution). They have published a second report in this series ENERGY DARWINISM II Compares financials of business as usual and moving more aggressively into renewable E. Their earlier report, 2013 October, looked at historical energy transitions (wood -> coal, etc.). These are definitely long reads (100 and 132 pages), but some folks here may find them of interest,
I do not know kind of risky to quote Thomas Edison at the outset...you know what Tom said about batteries...
No, what did he say? He was wrong about AC vs. DC, but on the whole I think his work is not over rated.
Oh I am a huge Edison fan too... He said: "The storage battery is, in my opinion, a catchpenny, a sensation, a mechanism for swindling the public by stock companies. The storage battery is one of those peculiar things which appeals to the imagination, and no more perfect thing could be desired by stock swindlers than that very selfsame thing. ... Just as soon as a man gets working on the secondary battery it brings out his latent capacity for lying. ... Scientifically, storage is all right, but, commercially, as absolute a failure as one can imagine."
Im not about to read 130 pages of BS.But I love when someone thinks it legitimizes AGW science because "look the 1% support it" Enron started this entire BS AGW self enrichment model .Then Morgan Stanley and Goldman.Now Citibank. Woohoo! Any fool wouldnt trust them .But Tohatchitu does . Lets see how the banks leave the economy in taters in a few decades. I can see it now. Push AGW science and investment and simultaneously make credit default swap bets against AGW. Anyone savvy knows Earths temps will decline for the next 30+ years. If you arent clear on this watch the video I posted yesterday. "Making it Happen: Funding a Low Carbon Future 105 Highlights 105 Introduction 106 Historic Investment Levels 106 Financing Renewable Energy Investment 109 Financing Energy Efficiency Investment 110 Regulatory Considerations 112 Financial Instruments 113 Green Bonds 113 Yieldco’s 115 Covered Bonds 116 Other Financial Instruments 116 Research and Development 117 The G reen Climate Fund"
When I post links, it is to inform readers that something has appeared that may be of interest to PC readers. So I say enough about the thing to start your decision-making process. Maybe different for mojo. Content in links he posts, he believes entirely and can't imagine why someone else would not. Can't imagine that anyone else posts for reasons other than indoctrination. This difference means a lot to me. I am 'stuck on science' which means examine all evidence as best you can. The 2013 report above is quite a careful look at energy transitions in the past. Very long, but informative and not controversial I think. The newer report is controversial in the sense that they examine future climates based on IPCC-summarized models. Climate may not go quite that way of course. But without NIPCC or anyone one else presenting distinct science-based scenarios, what is the alternative? Citigroup is dispatching a few of their economists to examine climate scenarios in terms of $$$. Presumably it is intended to enrich their clients. This won't satisfy all of course, and some may invest instead in Coal Inc. Fine with me, but won't you please also bet against me on the Coming Ice Age? Risk some money you haven't lost to coal?
Ok, I'm printing it out even though I have some issues: early chart says "50%" chance of reaching 2C - uh no, that appears to be already locked in. paper by economists - they don't have a good track record projecting into the future. They are better at documenting what happened but I can't remember a good 'stock tip' from an economist. credit card company paper - Huh? Interest rates of 18% while the prime rate is ~2%. Still, I'll read it although it is taking time away from my sea level study. Bob Wilson
My biggest take-away from the paper was the log-scale "learning curve" of solar and wind power, pp 47. Combined with Figure 41 on the next page, we've reached the point where renewables are displacing fossil fuels as the more cost-effective energy source. In effect, simply moving away from fossil fuels has led to cases were marginal fossil fuels are too expensive to extract. Exhibit 1, keystone pipeline. The collapse of oil has made or is making the tar sands too expensive to extract and process. Bob Wilson
