I think it's safe to say we're in a full-blown energy crisis. But suffering, like wealth, will never be equally distributed. Who do you think will be the biggest losers, globally? And the biggest winners. Your turn.
Simplistically the winners will have excess energy and the losers will import. Russia read the tea leaves rather well. USA will be ok for a couple years but depletion will catch up and exacerbate the issues with countries that receive the current export - which will disappear. Europe is screwed.
There are now farmer protests in Italy as a result of diesel costs. European neoliberal leadership is seeing the effects of their insane decisions. Macron is effectively a lame duck without the legislature. Boris Johnson is out. The Dutch PM is facing massive protests and a surging opposition party representing the working-class. I'm sure there are more examples I'm missing.
Chile has a similar character and an upcoming vote on whether to accept or reject a new Constitution. Apparently the Venezuelans who fled to both countries were not persuasive enough to keep citizens of either country from voting in these loons.
Our superiors, the whole lot of them nincompoops, *truly* believe they will win, but what they're doing is sawing off the tree limb on the "inside" of the limb.
Read the book of Revelation from chapter 12 onwards. You'll get a sense of how bad the situation will get.
But there's good news ("gospel").
In essence, our superiors will fubar the situation so badly, that it will need God himself to RESCUE people from themselves.
I'm hoping the WEF will end up eating bugs, while the green "transition" implodes spectacularly this summer, and this winter.
National Oil Companies will eventually be winners. Eventually.
First the world will have to put up with intermittent energy, before ordinary people learn the hard way that wind and solar cannot replace oil & gas & coal & nuclear. Going to be a very hard lesson for many.
Full-blown? Nah...we haven't even seen the beginning yet. Lights are still on, A/Cs are still humming away, people are happily driving everywhere. True, everything is just a tad more expensive that was before. Like my gas bill that just came in 3x higher than last year (which was already higher than the year before).
Biggest losers: energy intensive industry. And people working there. They were already suffering and this summer, if the Russians close the taps, will simply decimate them.
Ultimately the biggest loser is high-minded Europe that needs to finance the COVID recovery, the energy transition, the renewable boom and support Ukraine all at the same time.
I was thinking about gas prices when I wrote full-blown, I have to admit. Never been so high, etc. But you're right, it is early days though a 3x higher gas bill is not just any old price increase.
The end of affordable cheap energy for the collective West! We will pay higher price for everything! perhaps eat less, travel less, turn down the A/C, heaters, less comfort, etc....less of everything for the common people while rich and elites will continue their lifestyle. The global domination provided cheap energy for collective West that was shared among all the European partners. It is clear during the last 130 days of war, the global power balance has shifted in favor of a multi-polar world whether we like it or not. Russia has been foolishly driven to the arms of China by the great Western leaders who have put their own people's lives in jeopardy. Global power sharing also means sharing of energy resources! It is either war or peace! Let us hope we will not have Nuclear war.
Here’s the situation in Bangladesh, probably not the biggest losers in the energy crisis, but they will suffer much more than the western nations.
The recent price hike in the LNG spot market from less than $10 to more than $35 per mmbtu (metric million British Thermal Unit) means that Bangladesh must bear added pressure on its economy and must survive on the price uncertainties of LNG in the international market.
After 2030 the energy supply and dependent economic growth will become even more precarious. Preventing economic decline will require a combination of new natural discoveries and reserve- growth in existing fields, or expansion of other reliable and resilient base-load energy sources such as carbon-intensive coal or development of carbon-free nuclear power.
1. Natural gas will remain as the prime energy feed of Bangladesh for near to medium term future.
2. Imported LNG covers the gas supply shortfall. High spot price of LNG is a challenge Bangladesh faces currently. It costs Bangladesh about $4.5 billion per year for LNG import (750 million cubic feet per day). This amount comprises about 25% of total supply of gas. The remaining 75% gas comes from local gas fields and that costs about $2 billion per year. This is an estimate given by Petrobangla. Bangladesh buys LNG @ $12/million Btu from Middle east under long term contract while it buys LNG @$25 to $35 per million Btu from spot market.
3. Present in-country energy crunch is due to not exploring and developing its own gas resources. International and national agencies testify very high potentials of gas remaining in the country. It very difficult for nations like Bangladesh to obtain funding for fossil fuel projects due to climate concern policies of international agencies.
4. Share of coal will increase in near term future in the backdrop of negligible carbon footprint ( <1% of total world emission) of Bangladesh.
5. Development of renewables takes place at much slower pace than the government targets. Scarcity of available land for large solar development is a major constraint due to the nation's high percentage (70.1 %) used for agriculture.
6. The Rooppur reactor (2.4 GWe) and infrastructure are being built by the Russian Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation. Meanwhile USAID Bangladesh has BADGE that advances activity to improve energy security and resilience through better access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy systems and transparent and efficient energy markets.
What are they paying for their Rooppur reactors, dual VVER-1200 I assume? I would suggest they partner up with Indonesia on the shipyard mass-produced Thorcon reactors. You could ramp up production quickly to replace most of Bangladesh energy needs with zero emission nuclear, partly thorium fueled:
Thank you for this detailed example, Thomas. Your third point is particularly telling about what is wrong with the energy world today. I can't believe a country that wants to develop its own natural resources cannot do so because of "climate concern policies". So instead of gas it would need to use more coal.
Losers: Europe, S Korea, Japan, Anglosphere sans US, US-aligned SEA nations
Winners: Russia & OPEC, India (not guaranteed, but they're not suicidal so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt)
The United States could go either way. Right now we're losing. Whenever I see inflation covered on otherwise good YouTube analysis channels, it's ALWAYS "MONEY PRINTING BRO THAT'S WHAT'S WRONG", which simply isn't true. It drives me nuts. The issue is energy. The money printing thesis totally discounts the existence of the Eurodollar system and the requisite "printing" of money to keep the juices flowing. Anyways...it's clear to me that Europe desperately wants Biden to shift up his domestic energy policy (as evidenced by Macron), but I think that's beyond reproach as the opportunity for such a change passed. It wouldn't have been very hard for Joe to launder domestic energy deregulation through the "fight Russia" narrative, but I guess he actually believes his own climate dogma. The worst part is that Midterms won't change much. Joe will continue the lunacy in spite of it destroying his party.
Apart from obvious BoP drivers, they emerged as diplomatic superpower being on good terms with most in the increasingly fragmented world. Capital and people inflows from everywhere, Dubai gaining importance as hub at the expense of Singapore/London.
Not much hope with politicians like EU commission head Ursula von der Leyen in charge. She is doubling down on the same failed energy policies, stating governments need to stay focused on “a massive investment in renewables”. “We have to make sure that we use this crisis to move forward and not to have a backsliding on the dirty fossil fuels"
Ursula Wake the Fuck Up: There is a linear price relationship between wind/solar grid penetration and price of electricity by Ken Gregory, P.Eng, graph Euro/kwh by country 2019: Conclusion: European Wind Plus Solar Cost 6 Times Other Electrical Sources
After over $4 trillion spent worldwide on wind & solar, combustion fuels remain @ 90% of World Primary energy, unchanged before that massive rampup done in the past 10yrs. The ESG scam artists tout efficiency but totally ignore that wind & solar are the epitome of an inefficient electricity supply. They ignore all the huge energy inefficiency losses that intermittent wind/solar cause i.e.: Curtailment? No. Overbuild? No. Cycling Inefficiencies? No. Economic forcing of low efficiency diesel & OCGT instead of high efficiency supercritical coal, CCGT & hydro? No. Long distance 3-10X oversized transmission? No. Extremely low EROI (energy return on invested). No. High materials inputs, >20X nuclear/gas/coal? No. Vast losses of productive land, >300X nuclear/gas/coal. No. Huge waste recycling energy cost? No. Creating 2 grids which must run in parallel? No. Vast embodied energy in battery storage. No. 70% energy losses of hydrogen backup/storage. No. And yet these same Grifters get paid huge credits for "Energy Efficiency" projects. What a Scam.
By all logic and reason nuclear would be the biggest winner but that's not what is happening. They are pushing everything into solar & wind even though they are far, far more the cause of this crisis than Russia & Ukraine.
It’s simple, the biggest losers are the people in third world countries that are being denied the right to even have access to electricity. South east Asia, India, South America, Africa. All because of the first world virtue signalling about the end of the world. . Well done Greta!!
There are no winners. People will freeze and starve this winter.
First of all, this is a complex and fluid question that I do not know the answer to. If you define "winner" in the greater sense of the geopolitical word then the winners will always be the nominally rich countries (aka "The West" or USA + Canada + Core EU + UK + Japan + Australia and New Zealand). Of course within "The West" you may come up with all sorts of interesting distributional hierarchies. Let's watch!
Disagree that the Core EU would be winners. I'd say they're the biggest losers as energy rationing and redistribution is already happening in these countries. Japan is screwed for reasons obvious to everyone. Canada desperately doesn't want to meet energy demand, but I won't say they're losers. UK is maybe even more screwed than Europe--but EU will pass the UK on that metric in the long-term. Australia and NZ are TBA as I don't have enough info at hand to make a determination. The US is definitely not a loser, but it's killing a trillion-dollar opportunity to gain global energy dominance.
Fair. Let's consider a thought experiment that might better align your temporal frame of reference and mine. Today at t=0, the proverbial shit hits the fan and a global energy and food crisis ensues. You must pick a group of countries in which you're committed to reside for the next 5-10 years. You will be randomly assigned to one of your chosen countries. Whichever countries you pick, those are the winners.
"The West" will outbid whoever for food and energy because it can, "The West" will invade whoever it needs to invade and intervene wherever it needs to intervene because it can. Africans and South East Asians will die of thirst, hunger and air conditioning-free heat waves before any German does. You might not like the way in which "The West" wins, you might not like the path dependency but that doesn't make "The West" any less of a winner.
We are all losers as we pay more.. for everything. Those less advantaged more so than anyone else, they didn't have much to start with. This is literally a war and I don't mean Ukraine ... it's big energy against climate change and ESG, guess what big energy will win. The losers are the already poor people of Eastern Europe, Africa, India, and Asia who didn't have much to start with. Their worry will be food not gas, many of them didn't have energy to worry about or a car to fill up or the money to buy stuff. Survival will be difficult if they can't get grain or water. Isn't population control the other part of ESG? Big winners, oil and gas, for now, hopefully, eventually all of us with nuclear energy. And hopefully all of us when energy sanity and security returns. Ever hopeful! - Glad I have a fireplace - I can burn some of that biomass... otherwise know as wood.
The populace always loses when Authoritarians dictate the rules of the game and control the lives of the populace. The policies of Authoritarians generate problems for which the Authoritarians establish more "solutions" which ultimately lead to more problems.
This CARBON AGENDA is not about the welfare of the populace nor the welfare of the planet.
It is about control.
It is about controlling the populace through Technocracy. Eventually, all aspects of an individual's life will be digitally monitored with their money tied to their digital ID. If the individual does not comply with the arbitrary ESG guidelines of the Authoritarians, then their money will be 'turned off'...just like China now...or in Canada earlier this year.
Episode 321 – Why Big Oil Conquered the World – 10/06/2017
Countries or continents that are resource rich will come out all right. I say that but some governments would cut their nose off to spite their face to go back to coal or build nuclear power plants. We the people will lose as long as we continue to puit up with technology that cannot provide energy 24/7 365 days a year. I will leave it at that. There is a reason the EU is now going back to coal, they are resource poor with the exception of coal and the EU must survive even if it means stalling their crazy green agenda for a while. Trump warned them and got laughed out of the conference.
The people who die from starvation are the losers. Hard to see anybody winning except the corporations that sell the renewables, but what will those stockholders do with all their dividends when everything cost 3x as much. They still lose.
In a global energy crisis, where every economic measure is impacted, are there ever winners? If the metric that indicates loss is a nation's GDP, then the biggest losers will be the ones that consume the most energy, and the smallest losers will be the ones that use the least amount of energy. G7 & G20 countries will lose relatively more than 3rd world countries. Among the biggest losers, the ones that will suffer the most will be those that rely on energy imports the most. Their trade deficits will increase. I see Japan, Ireland, S. Korea, etc. losing more than the USA, Canada, Australia, Norway, etc. The 3rd world nations will be marginally impacted by higher energy costs based on a GDP metric.
Poor and 3d and 4th world always losers. That's the Golden Rule. Huge winners? Who can create and deploy SMR's all over the place? I'd love to have a horse to bet on. Nucor? GE? CCP? Who knows. As George F. Will stated a long time ago, we have devolved from NIMBY to BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone), https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/small-modular-reactor-market-5001546.html
Losers: anyone who needs food, electricity, transportation
Winners: legacy manufacturers, energy/fuel generation, BRICS
UAE is the biggest winner.
Why the UAE in particular?
Simplistically the winners will have excess energy and the losers will import. Russia read the tea leaves rather well. USA will be ok for a couple years but depletion will catch up and exacerbate the issues with countries that receive the current export - which will disappear. Europe is screwed.
The petroleum companies will be the biggest winners. Exxon has a 30% stake in Rosneft.
And of course the working class will foot the bill.
But, look at the bright side, we have the illusion of being free and deciding our own future. (Voting)
There's always a silver lining.
Unstable path-dependent system.
Within Europe, depends on who caves into Russian demands. Join them or freeze.
Does German population rise up? Italy already paying in Rubles. “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face”.
Davos will fail. The sooner the better. Who they take with them unclear.
There are now farmer protests in Italy as a result of diesel costs. European neoliberal leadership is seeing the effects of their insane decisions. Macron is effectively a lame duck without the legislature. Boris Johnson is out. The Dutch PM is facing massive protests and a surging opposition party representing the working-class. I'm sure there are more examples I'm missing.
Heating up for sure. Not going to eliminate the WEF easily, though.
More large scale distractions incoming.
We need more parties representing the working class rather than what I'll call the post-modern left.
Another good example would be Argentina's PM. He's a WEF young leader FYI. Unsurprisingly, the country is in chaos.
Chile has a similar character and an upcoming vote on whether to accept or reject a new Constitution. Apparently the Venezuelans who fled to both countries were not persuasive enough to keep citizens of either country from voting in these loons.
Nobody will win.
Our superiors, the whole lot of them nincompoops, *truly* believe they will win, but what they're doing is sawing off the tree limb on the "inside" of the limb.
Read the book of Revelation from chapter 12 onwards. You'll get a sense of how bad the situation will get.
But there's good news ("gospel").
In essence, our superiors will fubar the situation so badly, that it will need God himself to RESCUE people from themselves.
I have also found the limb-sawing analogy quite fitting for the situation.
I'm hoping the WEF will end up eating bugs, while the green "transition" implodes spectacularly this summer, and this winter.
National Oil Companies will eventually be winners. Eventually.
First the world will have to put up with intermittent energy, before ordinary people learn the hard way that wind and solar cannot replace oil & gas & coal & nuclear. Going to be a very hard lesson for many.
Full-blown? Nah...we haven't even seen the beginning yet. Lights are still on, A/Cs are still humming away, people are happily driving everywhere. True, everything is just a tad more expensive that was before. Like my gas bill that just came in 3x higher than last year (which was already higher than the year before).
Biggest losers: energy intensive industry. And people working there. They were already suffering and this summer, if the Russians close the taps, will simply decimate them.
Ultimately the biggest loser is high-minded Europe that needs to finance the COVID recovery, the energy transition, the renewable boom and support Ukraine all at the same time.
I was thinking about gas prices when I wrote full-blown, I have to admit. Never been so high, etc. But you're right, it is early days though a 3x higher gas bill is not just any old price increase.
The end of affordable cheap energy for the collective West! We will pay higher price for everything! perhaps eat less, travel less, turn down the A/C, heaters, less comfort, etc....less of everything for the common people while rich and elites will continue their lifestyle. The global domination provided cheap energy for collective West that was shared among all the European partners. It is clear during the last 130 days of war, the global power balance has shifted in favor of a multi-polar world whether we like it or not. Russia has been foolishly driven to the arms of China by the great Western leaders who have put their own people's lives in jeopardy. Global power sharing also means sharing of energy resources! It is either war or peace! Let us hope we will not have Nuclear war.
Here’s the situation in Bangladesh, probably not the biggest losers in the energy crisis, but they will suffer much more than the western nations.
The recent price hike in the LNG spot market from less than $10 to more than $35 per mmbtu (metric million British Thermal Unit) means that Bangladesh must bear added pressure on its economy and must survive on the price uncertainties of LNG in the international market.
After 2030 the energy supply and dependent economic growth will become even more precarious. Preventing economic decline will require a combination of new natural discoveries and reserve- growth in existing fields, or expansion of other reliable and resilient base-load energy sources such as carbon-intensive coal or development of carbon-free nuclear power.
https://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2021/12/natural-gas-underexplored-in-bangladesh
1. Natural gas will remain as the prime energy feed of Bangladesh for near to medium term future.
2. Imported LNG covers the gas supply shortfall. High spot price of LNG is a challenge Bangladesh faces currently. It costs Bangladesh about $4.5 billion per year for LNG import (750 million cubic feet per day). This amount comprises about 25% of total supply of gas. The remaining 75% gas comes from local gas fields and that costs about $2 billion per year. This is an estimate given by Petrobangla. Bangladesh buys LNG @ $12/million Btu from Middle east under long term contract while it buys LNG @$25 to $35 per million Btu from spot market.
3. Present in-country energy crunch is due to not exploring and developing its own gas resources. International and national agencies testify very high potentials of gas remaining in the country. It very difficult for nations like Bangladesh to obtain funding for fossil fuel projects due to climate concern policies of international agencies.
4. Share of coal will increase in near term future in the backdrop of negligible carbon footprint ( <1% of total world emission) of Bangladesh.
5. Development of renewables takes place at much slower pace than the government targets. Scarcity of available land for large solar development is a major constraint due to the nation's high percentage (70.1 %) used for agriculture.
6. The Rooppur reactor (2.4 GWe) and infrastructure are being built by the Russian Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation. Meanwhile USAID Bangladesh has BADGE that advances activity to improve energy security and resilience through better access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy systems and transparent and efficient energy markets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp8v6gtWGDM&t=208shttps://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2021/12/natural-gas-underexplored-in-bangladesh
Thomas L. Davis PhD
California Professional Geologist #4171
Ventura, CA 93001
USA
www.thomasldavisgeologist.com
What are they paying for their Rooppur reactors, dual VVER-1200 I assume? I would suggest they partner up with Indonesia on the shipyard mass-produced Thorcon reactors. You could ramp up production quickly to replace most of Bangladesh energy needs with zero emission nuclear, partly thorium fueled:
https://thorconpower.com/project/
Thank you for this detailed example, Thomas. Your third point is particularly telling about what is wrong with the energy world today. I can't believe a country that wants to develop its own natural resources cannot do so because of "climate concern policies". So instead of gas it would need to use more coal.
Losers: Europe, S Korea, Japan, Anglosphere sans US, US-aligned SEA nations
Winners: Russia & OPEC, India (not guaranteed, but they're not suicidal so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt)
The United States could go either way. Right now we're losing. Whenever I see inflation covered on otherwise good YouTube analysis channels, it's ALWAYS "MONEY PRINTING BRO THAT'S WHAT'S WRONG", which simply isn't true. It drives me nuts. The issue is energy. The money printing thesis totally discounts the existence of the Eurodollar system and the requisite "printing" of money to keep the juices flowing. Anyways...it's clear to me that Europe desperately wants Biden to shift up his domestic energy policy (as evidenced by Macron), but I think that's beyond reproach as the opportunity for such a change passed. It wouldn't have been very hard for Joe to launder domestic energy deregulation through the "fight Russia" narrative, but I guess he actually believes his own climate dogma. The worst part is that Midterms won't change much. Joe will continue the lunacy in spite of it destroying his party.
Apart from obvious BoP drivers, they emerged as diplomatic superpower being on good terms with most in the increasingly fragmented world. Capital and people inflows from everywhere, Dubai gaining importance as hub at the expense of Singapore/London.
Good point, about the diplomatic superpower. And they don't rely on their oil 100%, that's true. Thanks!
Not much hope with politicians like EU commission head Ursula von der Leyen in charge. She is doubling down on the same failed energy policies, stating governments need to stay focused on “a massive investment in renewables”. “We have to make sure that we use this crisis to move forward and not to have a backsliding on the dirty fossil fuels"
Ursula Wake the Fuck Up: There is a linear price relationship between wind/solar grid penetration and price of electricity by Ken Gregory, P.Eng, graph Euro/kwh by country 2019: Conclusion: European Wind Plus Solar Cost 6 Times Other Electrical Sources
friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=2550
After over $4 trillion spent worldwide on wind & solar, combustion fuels remain @ 90% of World Primary energy, unchanged before that massive rampup done in the past 10yrs. The ESG scam artists tout efficiency but totally ignore that wind & solar are the epitome of an inefficient electricity supply. They ignore all the huge energy inefficiency losses that intermittent wind/solar cause i.e.: Curtailment? No. Overbuild? No. Cycling Inefficiencies? No. Economic forcing of low efficiency diesel & OCGT instead of high efficiency supercritical coal, CCGT & hydro? No. Long distance 3-10X oversized transmission? No. Extremely low EROI (energy return on invested). No. High materials inputs, >20X nuclear/gas/coal? No. Vast losses of productive land, >300X nuclear/gas/coal. No. Huge waste recycling energy cost? No. Creating 2 grids which must run in parallel? No. Vast embodied energy in battery storage. No. 70% energy losses of hydrogen backup/storage. No. And yet these same Grifters get paid huge credits for "Energy Efficiency" projects. What a Scam.
Hope Germany's winter is neither long nor cold or worse, long and cold. Green party forcing coal consumption is the definition of a Oxmoryon!!
If Germany's winter is neither cold nor long, they would have to thank... global warming, which is a bad thing. Talk about oxymorons.
Biggest winners: everything nuclear outside of Kazakhstan & Russia
Biggest losers: Ukrainian conscripts and the families they leave behind
By all logic and reason nuclear would be the biggest winner but that's not what is happening. They are pushing everything into solar & wind even though they are far, far more the cause of this crisis than Russia & Ukraine.
It’s simple, the biggest losers are the people in third world countries that are being denied the right to even have access to electricity. South east Asia, India, South America, Africa. All because of the first world virtue signalling about the end of the world. . Well done Greta!!
There are no winners. People will freeze and starve this winter.
Definitely the general populace not the ones in high seats, will be the biggest losers.
The biggest winners? The banks and the supply industry
First of all, this is a complex and fluid question that I do not know the answer to. If you define "winner" in the greater sense of the geopolitical word then the winners will always be the nominally rich countries (aka "The West" or USA + Canada + Core EU + UK + Japan + Australia and New Zealand). Of course within "The West" you may come up with all sorts of interesting distributional hierarchies. Let's watch!
Disagree that the Core EU would be winners. I'd say they're the biggest losers as energy rationing and redistribution is already happening in these countries. Japan is screwed for reasons obvious to everyone. Canada desperately doesn't want to meet energy demand, but I won't say they're losers. UK is maybe even more screwed than Europe--but EU will pass the UK on that metric in the long-term. Australia and NZ are TBA as I don't have enough info at hand to make a determination. The US is definitely not a loser, but it's killing a trillion-dollar opportunity to gain global energy dominance.
Fair. Let's consider a thought experiment that might better align your temporal frame of reference and mine. Today at t=0, the proverbial shit hits the fan and a global energy and food crisis ensues. You must pick a group of countries in which you're committed to reside for the next 5-10 years. You will be randomly assigned to one of your chosen countries. Whichever countries you pick, those are the winners.
"The West" will outbid whoever for food and energy because it can, "The West" will invade whoever it needs to invade and intervene wherever it needs to intervene because it can. Africans and South East Asians will die of thirst, hunger and air conditioning-free heat waves before any German does. You might not like the way in which "The West" wins, you might not like the path dependency but that doesn't make "The West" any less of a winner.
We are all losers as we pay more.. for everything. Those less advantaged more so than anyone else, they didn't have much to start with. This is literally a war and I don't mean Ukraine ... it's big energy against climate change and ESG, guess what big energy will win. The losers are the already poor people of Eastern Europe, Africa, India, and Asia who didn't have much to start with. Their worry will be food not gas, many of them didn't have energy to worry about or a car to fill up or the money to buy stuff. Survival will be difficult if they can't get grain or water. Isn't population control the other part of ESG? Big winners, oil and gas, for now, hopefully, eventually all of us with nuclear energy. And hopefully all of us when energy sanity and security returns. Ever hopeful! - Glad I have a fireplace - I can burn some of that biomass... otherwise know as wood.
The populace always loses when Authoritarians dictate the rules of the game and control the lives of the populace. The policies of Authoritarians generate problems for which the Authoritarians establish more "solutions" which ultimately lead to more problems.
This CARBON AGENDA is not about the welfare of the populace nor the welfare of the planet.
It is about control.
It is about controlling the populace through Technocracy. Eventually, all aspects of an individual's life will be digitally monitored with their money tied to their digital ID. If the individual does not comply with the arbitrary ESG guidelines of the Authoritarians, then their money will be 'turned off'...just like China now...or in Canada earlier this year.
Episode 321 – Why Big Oil Conquered the World – 10/06/2017
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-321-why-big-oil-conquered-the-world/
Authoritarians win.
People lose.
Countries or continents that are resource rich will come out all right. I say that but some governments would cut their nose off to spite their face to go back to coal or build nuclear power plants. We the people will lose as long as we continue to puit up with technology that cannot provide energy 24/7 365 days a year. I will leave it at that. There is a reason the EU is now going back to coal, they are resource poor with the exception of coal and the EU must survive even if it means stalling their crazy green agenda for a while. Trump warned them and got laughed out of the conference.
The people who die from starvation are the losers. Hard to see anybody winning except the corporations that sell the renewables, but what will those stockholders do with all their dividends when everything cost 3x as much. They still lose.
In a global energy crisis, where every economic measure is impacted, are there ever winners? If the metric that indicates loss is a nation's GDP, then the biggest losers will be the ones that consume the most energy, and the smallest losers will be the ones that use the least amount of energy. G7 & G20 countries will lose relatively more than 3rd world countries. Among the biggest losers, the ones that will suffer the most will be those that rely on energy imports the most. Their trade deficits will increase. I see Japan, Ireland, S. Korea, etc. losing more than the USA, Canada, Australia, Norway, etc. The 3rd world nations will be marginally impacted by higher energy costs based on a GDP metric.
Poor and 3d and 4th world always losers. That's the Golden Rule. Huge winners? Who can create and deploy SMR's all over the place? I'd love to have a horse to bet on. Nucor? GE? CCP? Who knows. As George F. Will stated a long time ago, we have devolved from NIMBY to BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone), https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/small-modular-reactor-market-5001546.html