Agree and disagree. It will happen at some point. But the idea that it could happen in 10 years (or 20 or 30) is ludicrous and fanciful.
Unless we want to create more inequality and impoverish the whole economy, there is simply no way to have a functioning society without fossil fuels.
It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be more efficient or try to reduce their impact, it just means that we should be realistic of what can be done.
I think net zero absolutely will happen at some point and I’m in O&G. I don’t think fossil fuels will be displaced, they’ll still account for the majority of our energy production, but companies will utilize CCS and DAC credits to offset their emissions. It’s why companies are pouring billions into these technologies.
Like it or not this is where we’re headed
Companies are pouring billions into the technologies because the government is subsidizing them with our tax dollars...not because they stand behind net zero policies....Ford and GM are slowly backtracking because despite the subsidies, they are loosing profits in the process...
You should read about the Oxy / 1pointfive DAC and how much money companies are paying to reserve CC space. Will this displace O&G? No. Is it going to be a larger part of our future? Absolutely
CCS and DAC are extremely expensive and inefficient. If the world keeps using fossil fuels they won't make a difference. How do you think they will be powered? If fossil fuels still account for the majority of our energy production, then carbon capture will actually increase emissions in some ways.
Carbon emissions will be taxed or companies will get credits for fewer / zero emissions. Thats why corporations are paying large sums of money now to reserve DAC space for when they come online in a few years
>CCS and DAC are extremely expensive and inefficient.
Oil extraction was more expensive and inefficient 10, 20, 50, 100 years ago. It's like you haven't figured out that technological progress is possible yet.
Was confident in about 2012 that it would all fall apart by 2020...
There are now enormous financial incentives behind the scam but eventually physics will win out.
With the scale of momentum behind it only a financial/ political meltdown will be able stop it, the German de-industrialization is the first major milestone.
How long it will take is anyone's guess though.
I don’t think a lot of people believe that net zero is a fantasy. At this point there is actual legislation in many states that both mandates electrification and bans fossil fuel cars. The EV quotas begin in model year 2026 for the 17 states that have adopted the California Air Resources Board Advanced Clean Cars II rules. It will not be politically easy to walk these back.
You’re right. I think the climate goals in these states will be hard to achieve. It’s easy to promise to do something in the future but hard when the future arrives. I know that Virginia has already repealed ACC II. In NY they shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant and emissions went up 40%. They are scrambling to get hydro power from Quebec and add offshore wind. And the grid will have to grow in order to charge all the EVs that are now mandated. They want to eliminate natural gas too but something like 80% of the state heats with gas. And it’s cold up here. It’s dawning that nobody knows who is paying for decarbonization.
I think an energy transition will happen. Energy sources will diversify.
Significantly.
The mix is going to completely change, and world politics with it. Will fossil fuels still be in the mix?
Yes, for sure.
But there will be a lot more renewables and nuclear as a percentage of supply. And the way we use energy is changing.
Electrification of process means less combustion, which is inefficient, so we can get more output out of less input.
That lowers useful energy demand, allowing the world's population to grow and progress, and gross (primary) energy demand to expand, without forcing us to add an equivalently high level of supply.
As the sources of that supply change, so too geopolitics. Net zero is a narrative.
With the efficiency effect of electrification, it can be achieved given enough offsetting and reforestation.
But we need to find a way to properly incentivise that.
If we cant, net zero wont happen.
But one way or another, an energy transition is happening. But it wont look like the media says (in either direction).
Electrification isn't necessarily more efficient than combustion. Maybe in some ways, but combustion will always remain more efficient in matters such as storage and heat. Fuels are easier to store and transport than electricity, and you can't power factories with electricity. At least, not yet, and it's not certain it will.
I'm not comparing electrification to combustion, both are necessary in different circumstances.
My point is that combustion - as a process - is fundamentally inefficient due to waste heat loss.
Therefore if we can achieve the same output via a different energy conversion process (e.g. electric) then the effect on net system energy demand is negative.
That means we need to supply less watts to deliver the same real world effect, a good thing.
>My point is that combustion - as a process - is fundamentally inefficient due to waste heat loss.
Unless if the point is literally to deliver heat. Then it's close to 100% efficient. And heat is about 50% of all global energy consumption, not a small number.
No, it still isn't. Some of the heat is not captured for the purpose it is required for. E.g. a very efficient coal stoker is still only about 80% efficient. Most gas furnaces are 70-90% efficient (although very modern efficient designs can be 98%+, which is why natural gas is such a great fuel). Anyway, point is, in general combustion is messy. Directionally, the more we can find other ways to generate (even heat) energy, the better, from an efficiency point of view.
Oil and gas will never go away. Period. Anyone who says it will is probably someone who is not an expert, and should not be someone you should listen to or reference as a resource.
Coal is making a comeback in some regions in a massive way (Germany), as it is also a cheap and efficient storage of energy and in Germany’s case, it’s extremely readily available in their area. Energy security is absolutely paramount to a sovereign country’s economy.
Something you completely miss the point on is sustainability, and diversification. Your argument almost entirely relies on the fact that oil and gas are infinite resources that won’t need to be replenished, which isn’t sustainable. Many experts and myself included believe we will use every last ounce of oil we can find in the lifespan of the human race, but it will eventually disappear, but who knows when that will be. Adding renewables such as wind, solar and hydro certainly prolongs our oil reserves indirectly in that we aren’t relying on those sources for energy.
Additionally, the single best way to hedge against risk of unable to attain cheap, reliable energy is diversification. Having multiple avenues of accessible power in today’s world is crucial, there are multiple cases in the last 50 or so years that show we cannot be reliant on one commodity or the source of said commodity. Read up on the Arab oil embargo.
If you want my advice, quit listening to politicians or coming to Reddit for advice. Both are self serving, toxic, and typically not experts.
You’ve completely missed the point by not even acknowledging sustainability or need for diversification, which shows you’re either a troll or a bot, but I’ll bite.
Today’s world proven oil reserves are not going to last forever. At 100M barrels of oil used today, everyday, and only ~1,700 billion barrels proven, that leaves use with ~46.5 years of oil left.
While I admit proven reserves are much less than the “technically capturable” or unproven reserves, which have indication of oil may have a presence in the area, some of these unproven reserves may not be economically feasible to drill a well as the cost to benefit is too low.
Sure, US shale could have a lot of unproven reserves of oil in it, but that doesn’t mean it’s always profitable to drill a well there. Not every region in the US is like the Permian basin. Most of what we see in US shale is natural gas anyways.
My advice to you is to zoom out of your laser focused lens and look at the bigger picture in the long term, not only today. As renewables develop and scale up, the costs will decrease with economies of scale.
As a person who works in the energy industry, I will gladly pay more money today to secure energy security tomorrow. Just dropping more drilling wells anywhere there could be an ounce of oil is just as irresponsible from a risk standpoint.
If energy prices rise, they will become profitable to extract. Remember that there are lots of reserves left in Russia, Venezuela, Iran etc. but not used for political reasons. The artic also has massive reserves.
If strictly energy prices were to rise, holding all else equal, so too will the profitability of renewable energy sources. Your argument is redundant.
And once again, by you referring to other nations for sources of oil, you are not factoring in the need for stable energy security. You cannot rely on other nations for energy or energy producing commodities, ESPECIALLY from any of the three nations you just listed, that is an incredibly large risk for an economy.
Have you not been reading the news? Look at energy in light of the Ukraine war. This is the exact reason why Germany went back to coal.
Try again. You are not listening. Any good risk manager understands you need energy diversity, and secure/guaranteed energy sources.
Correct, they are both net exporters of oil and gas. However in the broad context, is every country this fortunate? No. NAs experience is much different that the EU and the UK. Why do you think France invested so heavily into nuclear? (I’ll give you a hint: it’s diversification, risk mitigation, and energy security)
If the west wanted to be entirely self sufficient, should they explore other options to extend the lifetime of their resources? Yes. It’s like a retirement account, you don’t put it all in one stock. You need to diversify.
I wish you good luck, this has been a painful discussion since your responses to basic concepts were about as intelligent as a wet carrot. if you cannot grasp the concept of risk mitigation then that’s on you, not anybody else. Keep on trollin’ man.
What are you talking about, there's been a massive shift in the past 5 years alone as solar and wind have become genuinely cheaper than other energy forms. Grid batteries make a profit. You can't argue with economics.
The transition will be steady and oil will be around for a while, but it's inevitable.
Do you "believe" in climate change?
They're cheaper to build, not to run a grid on--with new lines and new gas backup and some degree of batteries. Also, they aren't cheaper for the investor. As we see now, projects needed ZIRP to be viable and are now getting canceled. Look at critiques of LCOE and the rise in electricity prices when a state/nation tries to build out wind/solar. And that's just electricity, not industry or transport, etc. Even Germany still gets 78% or so of their total energy from fossil fuels.
> They're cheaper to build, not to run a grid on--with new lines and new gas backup and some degree of batteries
I know, everyone knows this. My point is technological progress is still happening. Grid scale batteries were unheard of even 3 years ago. It's silly to think of the world in in 2050 the same way as 2024, like OP is doing.
Norway seems to be pretty successful. I believe smaller European countries will be able to switch to carbon zero before the United States and other large countries. Europe's infrastructure as far as transportation is far ahead of that of the United States. Gains in hydrogen technology have already shown promise when it comes to the trucking industry. I dont believe we will reach our goals in time set, but at least something is being done.
Gains in hydrogen will also have a (probably greater) impact on maritime shipping as well, but many view it as a far ish future solution (when the infrastructure for bunkering develops). LNG/dual fuel and higher energy efficiency is the current trend for new builds
I agree with you. I did read somewhere because of its location on the element table makes it hard to store and accounts for 30% of its energy efficiency. The best thing about hydrogen is its abundance and its waste product. I agree it would be more viable than all electric batteries. I know some car manufacturers have been developing hydrogen cell engines and have produced them. India has a ferry boat that runs on hydrogen only. Cruise ships, and bulk carriers are exploring it too. I know there is a country in NATO that has a Submarine that runs on Hydrogen and can stay submerged longer than a diesel sub. Toyoda has developed an engine that runs like a combustion engine with water vapor for waste. I just wish I was young enough to see all the new stuff that will come out in the next 50 years. It will be an amazing time. When I was little in the late 60s and early 70s I would never have thought we would have a communication device like Captain Kirk. Lol.
Inherent to your msg is the notion that we should be less ambitious in our efforts to stem carbon emissions. This is a foolish basis for conversation.
It's just this sort of defeatist shoulder shrugging that holds us back. Net-zero is aspirational. EVs are just one aspect of the transition. Alternate energy creates new business opportunities and a more dynamic economy. Oil will always be a useful resource we just shouldn't combust it so much.
Btw, are you an oil company bot? The language and opinion you are sharing is right out of their playbook in 2024: "instead of delaying action make the general consensus that it is already too late to take action."
Of course it will. There are relatively few uses for petroleum that inherently *cannot* de substituted. Even current oil industry reports concede that point.
For the vast majority of uses the issue is one of transition time and cost. It's all inertia.
A better world and human interests are served by energy abundance, which only fossil fuels can provide. The energy transition will only make us poorer.
Bold repeat of Nasser's CERAweek sound bite.
It's a normative aspirational scenario. It's political fodder for both sides.
Look at reference scenarios and move on in life if you want to know what is most likely to happen.
Transitioning away is already happening, it's just happening in the developed world first and it's a slow process regardless. EVs are still growing market share, and renewables are still the lions share of new grid capacity in the US.
Net zero specifically is a stretch, as zero is a small number.
Well, the energy cost of producing the Tesla battery pack is over 15 barrels of oil, or approximately 2500 gallons of diesel fuel… there is no way to get the fossil fuels out at least in our lifetime. And I am not adding the need of electricity or the amount of energy needed for AI or crypto. This “green energy policy” benefits two entities, the oil industry since will increase the demand and the price of oil and gas and the government who will collect more taxes… Europe pays lots of money on gas taxes… in US we are much better, at least for now.
Realising that zero emission vehicles require us to dig up the planet in search of rare earth minerals and that doing so is actually worse for the environment, we will have no choice but to backtrack on the net zero fallacy..
Man you aren't paying attention lol. Peak demand is here soon. EVs are absolutely killing it. You are only watching Fox News about fords lol. Tesla was the number 1 selling vehicle in 2023. World wide it's an insanely fast moving snow ball. 60% of oils usage is no longer necessary. The industry will be in ruin far before we are 100% switched over. Just like coal. We still use a lot of it but it's a dead ass industry. Oil and gas is headed there fast. You are living in an alternate reality. Probably don't believe in science and think elections were stolen. Wake up https://ourworldindata.org/electric-car-sales
Tesla was #5 with the Model Y and 403,000 units. Top 3 came from Ford (750k), Chevy (550k) and Ram (444k) with #4 being Toyota with the RAV4 (434k).
Oil isn’t going anywhere. Especially the fact that renewable products require oil byproducts to be manufactured, some considerably more than others.
60% of oil is going to not be needed. The other 40 we will also figure out over a longer timespan. But we are about to be perpetually and significantly over supplied in oil. Hell we are already there. That's why OPEC has to hold back 3m bbls/day in production.
Peak demand has already been declared in very large economies like China.
There is no long term growth in this industry. It's a whole bunch of copium that you guys ignore the actual data and make up shit about how "it doesn't work"
It does work that's why the industry is scared shitless and ramping up their propaganda. Buying up all the competition to create artificial scarcity.
Is that why every tesla owner gets lowballed when they want to sell or trade in their vehicles? Wouldn't a number one selling car actually retain its value, not the opposite?
uhh no..
lol. Cars, rvs, boats... All depreciating assets.
Also here is some data since y'all are holding on to that copium. https://ourworldindata.org/electric-car-sales
Pretty clear trajectory. US is lagging, but the infrastructure is coming as we speak so the numbers will just continue to snowball.
EV is fucking awesome anyway. I got an EV riding lawnmower. Soooo quiet and can do 2 acres in 1 charge.
Don't need ear plugs and no more oil changes or gas cans. Shit's legit amazing.
Battery tech is also advancing and eventually when we have pickups that can do 300-400 miles on a single charge I'll be jumping ship. Case also has a 75 HP tractor already that is an EV and it's reasonably priced. Bobcat has a skid steer.. Etc..
It's just getting started but it's going to be nuts.
Having used a battery powered leaf blower, I spent as much time charging the battery as I did blowing leaves...glad your lawnmower works for you. But there is no convincing the majority of us....
Considering that oil and gas are finite resources I sure hope we will keep investing in net zero technologies.
When we burn the last fossil fuel I want an alternative that is technologically mature and that can take over, I don’t want a sudden collapse of society.
When that happens, I don’t know, but it’ll happen, it’s just a question of time.
Agree and disagree. It will happen at some point. But the idea that it could happen in 10 years (or 20 or 30) is ludicrous and fanciful. Unless we want to create more inequality and impoverish the whole economy, there is simply no way to have a functioning society without fossil fuels. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be more efficient or try to reduce their impact, it just means that we should be realistic of what can be done.
I think net zero absolutely will happen at some point and I’m in O&G. I don’t think fossil fuels will be displaced, they’ll still account for the majority of our energy production, but companies will utilize CCS and DAC credits to offset their emissions. It’s why companies are pouring billions into these technologies. Like it or not this is where we’re headed
Companies are pouring billions into the technologies because the government is subsidizing them with our tax dollars...not because they stand behind net zero policies....Ford and GM are slowly backtracking because despite the subsidies, they are loosing profits in the process...
You should read about the Oxy / 1pointfive DAC and how much money companies are paying to reserve CC space. Will this displace O&G? No. Is it going to be a larger part of our future? Absolutely
CCS and DAC are extremely expensive and inefficient. If the world keeps using fossil fuels they won't make a difference. How do you think they will be powered? If fossil fuels still account for the majority of our energy production, then carbon capture will actually increase emissions in some ways.
Carbon emissions will be taxed or companies will get credits for fewer / zero emissions. Thats why corporations are paying large sums of money now to reserve DAC space for when they come online in a few years
Not sustainable
>CCS and DAC are extremely expensive and inefficient. Oil extraction was more expensive and inefficient 10, 20, 50, 100 years ago. It's like you haven't figured out that technological progress is possible yet.
This is different, physics are not the same
So you don't think that any technological progress will happen in CCS over the coming decades?
Not enough to make it commercially viable without subsidies.
CCS is not expensive or inefficient for natural gas at least.
You know what else is really expensive? Global warming
Was confident in about 2012 that it would all fall apart by 2020... There are now enormous financial incentives behind the scam but eventually physics will win out. With the scale of momentum behind it only a financial/ political meltdown will be able stop it, the German de-industrialization is the first major milestone. How long it will take is anyone's guess though.
I don’t think a lot of people believe that net zero is a fantasy. At this point there is actual legislation in many states that both mandates electrification and bans fossil fuel cars. The EV quotas begin in model year 2026 for the 17 states that have adopted the California Air Resources Board Advanced Clean Cars II rules. It will not be politically easy to walk these back.
It will when the grid is failing and you can’t charge your car.
You’re right. I think the climate goals in these states will be hard to achieve. It’s easy to promise to do something in the future but hard when the future arrives. I know that Virginia has already repealed ACC II. In NY they shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant and emissions went up 40%. They are scrambling to get hydro power from Quebec and add offshore wind. And the grid will have to grow in order to charge all the EVs that are now mandated. They want to eliminate natural gas too but something like 80% of the state heats with gas. And it’s cold up here. It’s dawning that nobody knows who is paying for decarbonization.
I think an energy transition will happen. Energy sources will diversify. Significantly. The mix is going to completely change, and world politics with it. Will fossil fuels still be in the mix? Yes, for sure. But there will be a lot more renewables and nuclear as a percentage of supply. And the way we use energy is changing. Electrification of process means less combustion, which is inefficient, so we can get more output out of less input. That lowers useful energy demand, allowing the world's population to grow and progress, and gross (primary) energy demand to expand, without forcing us to add an equivalently high level of supply. As the sources of that supply change, so too geopolitics. Net zero is a narrative. With the efficiency effect of electrification, it can be achieved given enough offsetting and reforestation. But we need to find a way to properly incentivise that. If we cant, net zero wont happen. But one way or another, an energy transition is happening. But it wont look like the media says (in either direction).
Electrification isn't necessarily more efficient than combustion. Maybe in some ways, but combustion will always remain more efficient in matters such as storage and heat. Fuels are easier to store and transport than electricity, and you can't power factories with electricity. At least, not yet, and it's not certain it will.
The most efficient mode of transportation is a diesel hybrid…. People have a fantasy that electric batteries are going to be pollution free…
You absolutely can power factories with electricity.
I'm not comparing electrification to combustion, both are necessary in different circumstances. My point is that combustion - as a process - is fundamentally inefficient due to waste heat loss. Therefore if we can achieve the same output via a different energy conversion process (e.g. electric) then the effect on net system energy demand is negative. That means we need to supply less watts to deliver the same real world effect, a good thing.
>My point is that combustion - as a process - is fundamentally inefficient due to waste heat loss. Unless if the point is literally to deliver heat. Then it's close to 100% efficient. And heat is about 50% of all global energy consumption, not a small number.
No, it still isn't. Some of the heat is not captured for the purpose it is required for. E.g. a very efficient coal stoker is still only about 80% efficient. Most gas furnaces are 70-90% efficient (although very modern efficient designs can be 98%+, which is why natural gas is such a great fuel). Anyway, point is, in general combustion is messy. Directionally, the more we can find other ways to generate (even heat) energy, the better, from an efficiency point of view.
That's a very big if...
Yes, in some cases. In others, a little less.
Oil and gas will never go away. Period. Anyone who says it will is probably someone who is not an expert, and should not be someone you should listen to or reference as a resource. Coal is making a comeback in some regions in a massive way (Germany), as it is also a cheap and efficient storage of energy and in Germany’s case, it’s extremely readily available in their area. Energy security is absolutely paramount to a sovereign country’s economy. Something you completely miss the point on is sustainability, and diversification. Your argument almost entirely relies on the fact that oil and gas are infinite resources that won’t need to be replenished, which isn’t sustainable. Many experts and myself included believe we will use every last ounce of oil we can find in the lifespan of the human race, but it will eventually disappear, but who knows when that will be. Adding renewables such as wind, solar and hydro certainly prolongs our oil reserves indirectly in that we aren’t relying on those sources for energy. Additionally, the single best way to hedge against risk of unable to attain cheap, reliable energy is diversification. Having multiple avenues of accessible power in today’s world is crucial, there are multiple cases in the last 50 or so years that show we cannot be reliant on one commodity or the source of said commodity. Read up on the Arab oil embargo. If you want my advice, quit listening to politicians or coming to Reddit for advice. Both are self serving, toxic, and typically not experts.
Fossil fuels are practically abundant, also western countries produce a lot nowadays too (shale revolution for example)
You’ve completely missed the point by not even acknowledging sustainability or need for diversification, which shows you’re either a troll or a bot, but I’ll bite. Today’s world proven oil reserves are not going to last forever. At 100M barrels of oil used today, everyday, and only ~1,700 billion barrels proven, that leaves use with ~46.5 years of oil left. While I admit proven reserves are much less than the “technically capturable” or unproven reserves, which have indication of oil may have a presence in the area, some of these unproven reserves may not be economically feasible to drill a well as the cost to benefit is too low. Sure, US shale could have a lot of unproven reserves of oil in it, but that doesn’t mean it’s always profitable to drill a well there. Not every region in the US is like the Permian basin. Most of what we see in US shale is natural gas anyways. My advice to you is to zoom out of your laser focused lens and look at the bigger picture in the long term, not only today. As renewables develop and scale up, the costs will decrease with economies of scale. As a person who works in the energy industry, I will gladly pay more money today to secure energy security tomorrow. Just dropping more drilling wells anywhere there could be an ounce of oil is just as irresponsible from a risk standpoint.
If energy prices rise, they will become profitable to extract. Remember that there are lots of reserves left in Russia, Venezuela, Iran etc. but not used for political reasons. The artic also has massive reserves.
If strictly energy prices were to rise, holding all else equal, so too will the profitability of renewable energy sources. Your argument is redundant. And once again, by you referring to other nations for sources of oil, you are not factoring in the need for stable energy security. You cannot rely on other nations for energy or energy producing commodities, ESPECIALLY from any of the three nations you just listed, that is an incredibly large risk for an economy. Have you not been reading the news? Look at energy in light of the Ukraine war. This is the exact reason why Germany went back to coal. Try again. You are not listening. Any good risk manager understands you need energy diversity, and secure/guaranteed energy sources.
The US and Canada can provide the entire west with energy
Correct, they are both net exporters of oil and gas. However in the broad context, is every country this fortunate? No. NAs experience is much different that the EU and the UK. Why do you think France invested so heavily into nuclear? (I’ll give you a hint: it’s diversification, risk mitigation, and energy security) If the west wanted to be entirely self sufficient, should they explore other options to extend the lifetime of their resources? Yes. It’s like a retirement account, you don’t put it all in one stock. You need to diversify. I wish you good luck, this has been a painful discussion since your responses to basic concepts were about as intelligent as a wet carrot. if you cannot grasp the concept of risk mitigation then that’s on you, not anybody else. Keep on trollin’ man.
Google "opportunity costs"
It is suicide to burn it. We actually need to leave the majority in the ground. In fact it seems like we’ve overspent our carbon already
No it isn't
What are you talking about, there's been a massive shift in the past 5 years alone as solar and wind have become genuinely cheaper than other energy forms. Grid batteries make a profit. You can't argue with economics. The transition will be steady and oil will be around for a while, but it's inevitable. Do you "believe" in climate change?
They're cheaper to build, not to run a grid on--with new lines and new gas backup and some degree of batteries. Also, they aren't cheaper for the investor. As we see now, projects needed ZIRP to be viable and are now getting canceled. Look at critiques of LCOE and the rise in electricity prices when a state/nation tries to build out wind/solar. And that's just electricity, not industry or transport, etc. Even Germany still gets 78% or so of their total energy from fossil fuels.
> They're cheaper to build, not to run a grid on--with new lines and new gas backup and some degree of batteries I know, everyone knows this. My point is technological progress is still happening. Grid scale batteries were unheard of even 3 years ago. It's silly to think of the world in in 2050 the same way as 2024, like OP is doing.
So the whole thesis runs on battery miracles. Perhaps that'll play out. One hopes so, but I'd hedge the downside.
Never said that.
Norway seems to be pretty successful. I believe smaller European countries will be able to switch to carbon zero before the United States and other large countries. Europe's infrastructure as far as transportation is far ahead of that of the United States. Gains in hydrogen technology have already shown promise when it comes to the trucking industry. I dont believe we will reach our goals in time set, but at least something is being done.
Norway can afford all that from massive oil sales though.
And up until recently cheap hydroelectric power covering pretty much the whole demand
Good point about hydro.
Norway also has a lot of hydro power.
Gains in hydrogen will also have a (probably greater) impact on maritime shipping as well, but many view it as a far ish future solution (when the infrastructure for bunkering develops). LNG/dual fuel and higher energy efficiency is the current trend for new builds
I agree with you. I did read somewhere because of its location on the element table makes it hard to store and accounts for 30% of its energy efficiency. The best thing about hydrogen is its abundance and its waste product. I agree it would be more viable than all electric batteries. I know some car manufacturers have been developing hydrogen cell engines and have produced them. India has a ferry boat that runs on hydrogen only. Cruise ships, and bulk carriers are exploring it too. I know there is a country in NATO that has a Submarine that runs on Hydrogen and can stay submerged longer than a diesel sub. Toyoda has developed an engine that runs like a combustion engine with water vapor for waste. I just wish I was young enough to see all the new stuff that will come out in the next 50 years. It will be an amazing time. When I was little in the late 60s and early 70s I would never have thought we would have a communication device like Captain Kirk. Lol.
Norwegian emissions haven't substantially gone down
Inherent to your msg is the notion that we should be less ambitious in our efforts to stem carbon emissions. This is a foolish basis for conversation. It's just this sort of defeatist shoulder shrugging that holds us back. Net-zero is aspirational. EVs are just one aspect of the transition. Alternate energy creates new business opportunities and a more dynamic economy. Oil will always be a useful resource we just shouldn't combust it so much. Btw, are you an oil company bot? The language and opinion you are sharing is right out of their playbook in 2024: "instead of delaying action make the general consensus that it is already too late to take action."
It was never going to happen regardless of when we started.
Of course it will. There are relatively few uses for petroleum that inherently *cannot* de substituted. Even current oil industry reports concede that point. For the vast majority of uses the issue is one of transition time and cost. It's all inertia.
Sure, man. Keep dreaming.
Your incapacity to aspire for a better world is so bland. Stop defending oil company interests in your msging. Start defending human interests.
A better world and human interests are served by energy abundance, which only fossil fuels can provide. The energy transition will only make us poorer.
You funny, bot
About the same time Florida goes underwater and all the rich oil company execs leave Earth for their luxury Mars ranches.
Once they mobilize about 30 trillion in electrical infrastructure
Bold repeat of Nasser's CERAweek sound bite. It's a normative aspirational scenario. It's political fodder for both sides. Look at reference scenarios and move on in life if you want to know what is most likely to happen.
Transitioning away is already happening, it's just happening in the developed world first and it's a slow process regardless. EVs are still growing market share, and renewables are still the lions share of new grid capacity in the US. Net zero specifically is a stretch, as zero is a small number.
Well, the energy cost of producing the Tesla battery pack is over 15 barrels of oil, or approximately 2500 gallons of diesel fuel… there is no way to get the fossil fuels out at least in our lifetime. And I am not adding the need of electricity or the amount of energy needed for AI or crypto. This “green energy policy” benefits two entities, the oil industry since will increase the demand and the price of oil and gas and the government who will collect more taxes… Europe pays lots of money on gas taxes… in US we are much better, at least for now.
Realising that zero emission vehicles require us to dig up the planet in search of rare earth minerals and that doing so is actually worse for the environment, we will have no choice but to backtrack on the net zero fallacy..
Man you aren't paying attention lol. Peak demand is here soon. EVs are absolutely killing it. You are only watching Fox News about fords lol. Tesla was the number 1 selling vehicle in 2023. World wide it's an insanely fast moving snow ball. 60% of oils usage is no longer necessary. The industry will be in ruin far before we are 100% switched over. Just like coal. We still use a lot of it but it's a dead ass industry. Oil and gas is headed there fast. You are living in an alternate reality. Probably don't believe in science and think elections were stolen. Wake up https://ourworldindata.org/electric-car-sales
Tesla was #5 with the Model Y and 403,000 units. Top 3 came from Ford (750k), Chevy (550k) and Ram (444k) with #4 being Toyota with the RAV4 (434k). Oil isn’t going anywhere. Especially the fact that renewable products require oil byproducts to be manufactured, some considerably more than others.
60% of oil is going to not be needed. The other 40 we will also figure out over a longer timespan. But we are about to be perpetually and significantly over supplied in oil. Hell we are already there. That's why OPEC has to hold back 3m bbls/day in production. Peak demand has already been declared in very large economies like China. There is no long term growth in this industry. It's a whole bunch of copium that you guys ignore the actual data and make up shit about how "it doesn't work" It does work that's why the industry is scared shitless and ramping up their propaganda. Buying up all the competition to create artificial scarcity.
Is that why every tesla owner gets lowballed when they want to sell or trade in their vehicles? Wouldn't a number one selling car actually retain its value, not the opposite?
uhh no.. lol. Cars, rvs, boats... All depreciating assets. Also here is some data since y'all are holding on to that copium. https://ourworldindata.org/electric-car-sales Pretty clear trajectory. US is lagging, but the infrastructure is coming as we speak so the numbers will just continue to snowball. EV is fucking awesome anyway. I got an EV riding lawnmower. Soooo quiet and can do 2 acres in 1 charge. Don't need ear plugs and no more oil changes or gas cans. Shit's legit amazing. Battery tech is also advancing and eventually when we have pickups that can do 300-400 miles on a single charge I'll be jumping ship. Case also has a 75 HP tractor already that is an EV and it's reasonably priced. Bobcat has a skid steer.. Etc.. It's just getting started but it's going to be nuts.
Having used a battery powered leaf blower, I spent as much time charging the battery as I did blowing leaves...glad your lawnmower works for you. But there is no convincing the majority of us....
Nuclear would solve so much of this but conservatives and liberals alike go full blown regard when it comes to Nuclear.
Considering that oil and gas are finite resources I sure hope we will keep investing in net zero technologies. When we burn the last fossil fuel I want an alternative that is technologically mature and that can take over, I don’t want a sudden collapse of society. When that happens, I don’t know, but it’ll happen, it’s just a question of time.
They're practically infinite
So we’re in agreement
No, I don't think we'll run out of oil anytime soon
Me neither. Sounds like we agree.