It seems like we are about to see a decline of oil industry...

How will this affect the world?


https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3aze ... is-upon-us

They write: “Perhaps we were the first to notice that, even before COVID-19, the year 2019 would be the last ever to register daily production of oil closer to 100 million barrels. Indeed, before the coronavirus landed in Italy, the size of the oil market had already started its permanent slippery downward slide towards an uncertain future.”

In this analysis, oil demand was seen to peak at the end of 2019 and early 2020. “I thought we had a glitch in our forecasting model,” explained Villamizar. “But all the revisions pointed to a similar result.”

“We forecast a long-term Darwinian transformation in the future oil sector,” write Villamizar, Willoughby, and Mayor. “The new market structure rising from the old oil reality will be dominated by an oil troika made up of US, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.”

Only 20 percent of industry players will survive by 2050, they forecast. And the oil market will be “one-third smaller than today.”

About time.

Funny I remember reading an article in Flight International titled "Fuel State Finite", claiming that oil production was about to decline. That was around 1977.

Most long term predictions I heard in my life were wrong.

Oil Prices Today has also been questioning the future of oil, although not that quickly. Oil capitalization would seem to indicate that the market is coming to the same conclusion. The debt load of oil sands and fracked oil is disturbing to everyone.

Braybuddy wrote:

Funny I remember reading an article in Flight International titled "Fuel State Finite", claiming that oil production was about to decline. That was around 1977.

That is what you get when it is not factored in that we may come up with more efficient ways of finding, reaching and extracting oil.....

This time around the reasons are different. We could produce much more oil if we needed to, we haven't even really made a dent into oil sands for example, but that other forms of energy are very competitive on price. And since expanding production means tapping into more expensive sources, that probably isn't going to happen. Ships and aircraft may be the only customers in the not so distant future.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Oil Prices Today has also been questioning the future of oil, although not that quickly. Oil capitalization would seem to indicate that the market is coming to the same conclusion. The debt load of oil sands and fracked oil is disturbing to everyone.

And they have to consider demand falling off a cliff before the investment can pay off with new projects. A wind and solar park however .... you can add battery storage or power2gas/fuel/electrolysis at any later date if that gives you the most return.

Best regards
Thomas

Oil will rebound a bit when Covid is over, but at this time it appears alternative energy, fuel efficient vehicles, batteries( definitely batteries), and appliances that are more efficient with electricity do seem to spell a demand shift away from Oil.

casinterest wrote:

Oil will rebound a bit when Covid is over, but at this time it appears alternative energy, fuel efficient vehicles, batteries( definitely batteries), and appliances that are more efficient with electricity do seem to spell a demand shift away from Oil.

All of those batteries, plastics, and ore-based vehicles and appliances (and the recycling of such products) aren't going to show up and be charged largely by way of unicorn farts. On the other hand, dead dinosaurs...

Vaccine and/or herd immunity withstanding, there will always be Hajj, education/employment/emigration abroad, cruises plowing the calm seas and people/employees travelling to such, Brazilian and English mouse vacations, pyramid vacations, the Great Annual Canadian Migration south for the winter, weirdo vacations to southeast Asia for certain "purposes", Lexii from Japan to Karen's doorstep during the 'December to Remember Sales Event', iPhones bought with 3 months of salary, and all of the new pieces of clothing manufactured on the planet which can't be sent via Zoom. And even if half of all business travel is permanently cut for teleconferencing, that cut would account for maybe...10% of any given passenger load on an average airline flight? We've already long seen the shrinkage of the front of the cabin over the last generation.

Dino DNA will continue to move the planet until every last drop is sucked. And those economies that forcibly tie their future to the alternatives will continue to fade into the background.

The world needs energy for sure, that doesn't mean oil. Even for the applications where there is no alternative so far, synfuels can already be used, with no oil involved. It doesn't necessarily makes sense, but it's possible. A global carbon tax will shake things up.

KFLLCFII wrote:

Dino DNA will continue to move the planet until every last drop is sucked. And those economies that forcibly tie their future to the alternatives will continue to fade into the background.

Aviation and shipping is only a fraction of the World's oil usage. No one is saying that oil will disappear overnight. There will be a use for it for a long time. The point is, it has started to decline and will continue to do so as new technologies are making it obsolete.

Could you elaborate your theory that economies that 'tie their future' to alternative energies are 'fading into the background'? If I didn't know any better, I'd almost mistake this for wishful thinking.

Also, since you appear to be a big fan of all things fossil, you can take solace in the fact that natural gas is still going strong.

Francoflier wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

Dino DNA will continue to move the planet until every last drop is sucked. And those economies that forcibly tie their future to the alternatives will continue to fade into the background.

Would you elaborate your theory that economies that 'tie their future' to alternative energies are 'fading into the background'? If I didn't know any better, I'd almost mistake this for wishful thinking.

The alternatives are expensive, low energy-density, and require large amounts of real-estate for shoehorning into production and storage for major population centers which have long been built out...which all take away from economic prosperity as more and more of it is forced to take over from cheaper, conventional methods. And then there's the remote areas which don't necessarily have the wherewithal to mass-produce energy used for charging electric vehicles and heating homes when shipments of gas/diesel and heating oil to the service stations a few times a month is more than enough to cover their needs.

The conventional methods are relatively cheap, high energy-density, and easy to transport and store where needed. The entire industrialized, built-out world has been tailored to function with and around them.

Any economy which is increasingly based on alternatives which cannot exist within the existing footprint of every conventional method AND match, let alone exceed, the cost, portability, density, longevity, and wide availability of every conventional method by definition cannot compete with those economies which do not choose to follow down the same path.

That's not wishful thinking.

What IS wishful thinking is that 'smug' can pay the bills.

KFLLCFII wrote:

Any economy which is increasingly based on alternatives which cannot exist within the existing footprint of every conventional method AND match, let alone exceed, the cost, portability, density, longevity, and wide availability of every conventional method by definition cannot compete with those economies which do not choose to follow down the same path.

I disagree.

The LARGE benefit of "alternative energy" is it guards against being held hostage by outside parties, by the nations that hold the "non-alternative" energy. China has very little (known) energy reserves, they very much prefer to be self reliant, this drives their push for using other options. Any leading nation needs to not be completely beholden to other nations (kinda part of the definition).

Many nations are also looking to alt energy options as it leads to higher tech and greater efficiency, two things that also define leading nations actually. China is again is an obvious example. They still use coal, a lot of it, and oil etc. however the electrification they are pursuing also produces two key things they desire: Greater technology and better energy efficiency.

So lets review:
Alt energy drives ever improving efficiency, better technology, and independence from outside nations. Not bad and not doom for nations that can pursue it.

Tugg

I am curious to see how this will affect the level of democracy in the OPEC nations. Declining oil revenues (Saudi Arabia is already burning through its cash reserves) will inevitably lead to an increase in taxes and most certainly end the zero-taxation system they have been going so far. If this will result in a classical "no taxation without representation" remains to be seen.

Soon enough nations that make a large efforts to reduce emissions will stop buying stuff from nations polluting with no regard for the environment. So being a "leading nation" will mean nothing if you can't trade.

Aesma wrote:

Soon enough nations that make a large efforts to reduce emissions will stop buying stuff from nations polluting with no regard for the environment. So being a "leading nation" will mean nothing if you can't trade.

I've seen little evidence in my life that this will occur, especially given how many products and services are bought from our out sourced to nations that have little no environmental control or protection, not to mention workers representation/rights. When it comes right down to it, most will continue to choose the 1 cent option over the $1 option and find a way to ignore the repercussions of that financial choice. After all that is what China has counted on for decades and has been doing their economy pretty well too. Short of tariffs or an embargo, I don't expect purchasing habits to change and would bet a large sum that any such actions would be fought tooth and nail.

Aesma wrote:

Soon enough nations that make a large efforts to reduce emissions will stop buying stuff from nations polluting with no regard for the environment. So being a "leading nation" will mean nothing if you can't trade.

California has legislated all sorts of carbon reductions only to export their pollution by buying outside electricity. Germans do the same or use backup coal power.

olle wrote:

It seems like we are about to see a decline of oil industry...

How will this affect the world?

Very little. There is no reason to worry for the oil industry during the next hundred years.

There is these days some promotion of small electric cars. That will affect the oil industry, but much less than most people think. Large trucks, ships, aircraft, agriculture, manufacturing plastics, composites etc, there are no serious attemps to replace oil. And most people will be surpriced to learn how small part the small cars energy consumption is compared to the total oil consumption in the major developed countries.

Any decline in oil consumption in some countries will easily be more than countered by increased consumption in developing countries.

The COVID crisis has had a negative effect on the oil industry, but much less than most industries. And if we one day do recover from COVID, then the oil industry will be the first to be back on full steam.

Don't worry!

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

California has legislated all sorts of carbon reductions only to export their pollution by buying outside electricity. Germans do the same or use backup coal power.

The German example isn't fair. A large part of cost for the Energiewende was getting solar technology on the learning curve to a point where it becomes competitive in sunny regions of the world.

PV rooftop prices (the misleading chart on the vertical axis starts at 1000 Euro/ kW instead of at 0, on the other side floor based PV installation price decline should look even more dramatic):

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

German potential for sun energy in winter is close to zero.
"Germany has about the same solar potential as Alaska, which has an average of 3.08 sun hours/day in Fairbanks."
Hours of sunshine/ day in Stuttgart:

same source, I admit "hours of sunshine" is a funny unit.

O.k., there is more wind in winter. Even though, solar isn't a technology suitable for our location. It was the Green Party's pet project to develop solar cell technology. The Greens were required for a coalition, so it was done.
Say "Thank you."


The feed in tariff is valid for 20 years. Interesting enough Germany quit as important player in solar in 2013, after solar became much cheaper than earlier.

same source

In 2012 solar electricity producers got paid 9 billion Euros at an average price of 36 cents/ kWh. That includes more than 50 cents/ kWh for rooftop solar installed from 2000-2006 as well as 21 cents/ kWh for ground based solar installed in 2011.
source in German: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erneuerba ... otovoltaik

However after 2012 wind turbine installation continued on a significant scale till 2018. In 2020 the surcharge caused by renewables is 6,8 cent/ kWh.
source in German: https://www.netztransparenz.de/EEG/EEG- ... mlage-2020
The surcharge is caused by the difference between spot price and feed in tariffs.

Consider the merit order effect which lowers electricity prices, thereby increasing the difference between spot price and feed in tariffs.
Roughly half the cost of the German Energiewende is paid by conventional power companies through lost profits. They at times even made losses.
Coal doesn't enjoy much sympathy, but I believe it would have been the government's duty to make sure they get compensated properly for their back up services. For many years that wasn't the case.
For mid day peak demand Germany had gas turbines. Because of mid day solar those couldn't be operated profitable any longer. Operators wanted to retire them, but politics didn't allow. For many years there was no compensation for back up services either. So much about investment security in Germany.

So far I spoke of coal power plants which became unprofitable through the amounts of electricity generated by renewables, lowering market rates of electricity.
If a coal power plant is designed for 30 years of service, does politics have the right to introduce carbon tax on short notice without compensating coal plant owners for the value loss of their plants?


Could every US state satisfy energy demand by wind energy?
Germany is tiny, something like an US or Indian state. There are areas in the North with good enough wind. But for acceptance wind requires low population density at the same time. Germany has a discussion if wind turbines should be allowed within one km of human settlement. If not, wind energy in Germany is finished.

Tiny country, low wind and sun potential, high population density and huge energy demand: just like with oil, Germany will have to import electricity.
That doesn't mean that wind or solar energy isn't suitable for the world.
Indeed my idea is that Germany buys excess renewable electricity from other parts of Europe/ North Africa and in exchange provides backup for parts of Southern Europe through Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) with district heating including huge hot water tanks. Basically all colder countries in Europe need to install backup through such CCGTs. But Germany has the geology to store huge amounts of gas, so in my view more responsibility rests on German shoulders.

California can have solar cells facing Southwest and solar towers for electricity demand after dusk.
I'm a bit disappointed that there are no more news of solar towers from California.
Mankind is still not finished finding technical solutions. If California continues working on solar towers I would be quite o.k. with them exporting pollution by buying outside electricity.

In the long run California may be just too far North for winter sun. The US and Europe have the same problem. Europe is even less suitable for solar in winter.
Does the US also have more wind in winter?


source: https://adagebiopower.com/us-map-new-me ... ude-lines/


source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... map_BG.png

I believe one has to produce renewable electricity where the conditions allow, not where there is demand.
Just like Europe, the US needs to invest in High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission. We can ask the Chinese how to do it.

prebennorholm wrote:

olle wrote:

It seems like we are about to see a decline of oil industry...

How will this affect the world?

Very little. There is no reason to worry for the oil industry during the next hundred years.

There is these days some promotion of small electric cars. That will affect the oil industry, but much less than most people think. Large trucks, ships, aircraft, agriculture, manufacturing plastics, composites etc, there are no serious attemps to replace oil. And most people will be surpriced to learn how small part the small cars energy consumption is compared to the total oil consumption in the major developed countries.

Any decline in oil consumption in some countries will easily be more than countered by increased consumption in developing countries.

The COVID crisis has had a negative effect on the oil industry, but much less than most industries. And if we one day do recover from COVID, then the oil industry will be the first to be back on full steam.

Don't worry!

Scania in Europe says that it stops doing development in Diesel engines and sees only electrical engines in a few years from now. The Development in Scania will come to MAN, VW trucks and Navistar.

I suppose that Volvo and Mercedes do the same. That represents around 60-70% of all trucks world wide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmcMmYdF6lA

I believe one has to mention the "Green Paradox":
"The Green Paradox is the title of a controversial book by German economist, Hans-Werner Sinn
...
According to Sinn green policies, by heralding a gradual tightening of policy over the coming decades, exert a stronger downward pressure on future prices than on current ones, decreasing thus the rate of capital appreciation of the fossil fuel deposits. The owners of these resources regard this development with concern and react by increasing extraction volumes, converting the proceeds into investments in the capital markets, which offer higher yields. That is the green paradox: environmental policy slated to become greener over time acts as an announced expropriation that provokes owners to react by accelerating the rate of extraction of their fossil fuel stocks,[5][6] thus accelerating climate change.

Countries that do not partake of the efforts to curb demand have a double advantage. They burn the carbon set free by the “green” countries (leakage effect) and they also burn the additional carbon extracted as a reaction to the announced and expected price cuts resulting from the gradual greening of environmental policies (green paradox).[7][8]
...
Sinn emphasises that a condition for the green paradox is that the resource be scarce in the sense that its price will always be higher than the unit extraction and exploration costs combined. He claims that this condition is likely to be satisfied as backstop technologies will at best offer a perfect substitute for electricity, but not for fossil fuels. The prices of coal and crude oil are currently many times higher than the corresponding exploration and extraction costs combined."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_paradox

Sinn gives a speech in English.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6M56x4c99I&t=7m20s

I don't share his pessimism, nor his estimates about what storage is possible. Everything depends on the assumptions. For example he considers wind and sun over Germany, instead of considering it over Europe.But his speech does show us what problems we face. Without CCGT backup covering maybe 10-20% of electricity consumption at close to 100% backup capacity, going green isn't possible. If rather 10 or rather 20% will depend on Norway's willingness to build pumped storage for the rest of Europe. But then one also needs heat for district heating.


Germany, comparatively obsessed with the Energiewende, still extracts lignite. How likely is it that easy accessible oil resources around the world remain in the ground?

Global warming is not acceptable. If man wants to go to the moon, he can. There is very little man can't do if the motivation is there.
Suppose Germany's solar subsidies early in the learning curve comes to 150 billion Euro or so. With around 80 million inhabitants that's less than 2000 Euro/ German. Piece of cake, peanuts compared to a banking crises.

olle wrote:

prebennorholm wrote:

olle wrote:

It seems like we are about to see a decline of oil industry...

How will this affect the world?

Very little. There is no reason to worry for the oil industry during the next hundred years.

There is these days some promotion of small electric cars. That will affect the oil industry, but much less than most people think. Large trucks, ships, aircraft, agriculture, manufacturing plastics, composites etc, there are no serious attemps to replace oil. And most people will be surpriced to learn how small part the small cars energy consumption is compared to the total oil consumption in the major developed countries.

Any decline in oil consumption in some countries will easily be more than countered by increased consumption in developing countries.

The COVID crisis has had a negative effect on the oil industry, but much less than most industries. And if we one day do recover from COVID, then the oil industry will be the first to be back on full steam.

Don't worry!

Scania in Europe says that it stops doing development in Diesel engines and sees only electrical engines in a few years from now. The Development in Scania will come to MAN, VW trucks and Navistar.

I suppose that Volvo and Mercedes do the same. That represents around 60-70% of all trucks world wide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmcMmYdF6lA

It will take years to perfect the system, and decades for the technology to filter down to developing nations. I mean, take for instance my country, Malaysia, which is among the more advanced developing nation out there. Only in the past few years are hybrid cars starting to get more affordable here - and hybrids have been around since what, the 1990s?

So it'll be a while before people really cut oil out from their systems.

There are and will be dislocations as more and more energy is wind and solar. Bonneville Power (think the Columbia River) dams were built for maximum power. Aluminum plants and an intertie to California ate up most of the excess of needs of the Pacific Northwest. Both are gone, California most because of wind and solar. We have electricity to spare much of the year. Hydro power is great for peak power, but for various reasons, not least gravity, it cannot be turned off, only slowed down. Montana and Wyoming are losing a lot their economy in this, I have wondered why, given the great grid connections that exist, we aren't arranging for wind energy to come from there. They have much better potential there than we do.







`

KFLLCFII wrote:

The alternatives are expensive, low energy-density, and require large amounts of real-estate for shoehorning into production and storage for major population centers which have long been built out...which all take away from economic prosperity as more and more of it is forced to take over from cheaper, conventional methods. And then there's the remote areas which don't necessarily have the wherewithal to mass-produce energy used for charging electric vehicles and heating homes when shipments of gas/diesel and heating oil to the service stations a few times a month is more than enough to cover their needs.

The conventional methods are relatively cheap, high energy-density, and easy to transport and store where needed. The entire industrialized, built-out world has been tailored to function with and around them.

Any economy which is increasingly based on alternatives which cannot exist within the existing footprint of every conventional method AND match, let alone exceed, the cost, portability, density, longevity, and wide availability of every conventional method by definition cannot compete with those economies which do not choose to follow down the same path.

That's not wishful thinking.

What IS wishful thinking is that 'smug' can pay the bills.

There's a lot of confusion here. The topic is oil, not electric energy.
Only a very tiny fraction of oil is used for electricity production (approx 1% in the US). Around 70% of it is used for transportation, and the vast majority of that goes to road transport.
I suspect the percentages do vary a bit around the World, but would remain within the same order of magnitude.
The electrification of road transport will happen. The momentum is gathering, and it stems not from that 'smugness' you seem to attribute to those who actually try and help the World around them, but from the cold economic truth that electric vehicles are already cheaper to own (thanks to their high efficiency and low maintenance costs) despite their relative higher cost. And their purchase cost is bound to decrease further over time as the economy of scale kicks in.
Passenger cars will be the initial target, along with light delivery vehicles. Long distance commercial vehicles might cling on to diesel for a while longer, but will eventually follow suit as electric storage density improves. Ships and airplanes will hold on to fossil fuels for longer, but pressures to switch to low-carbon alternatives will increase over time.

The fact is, the oil industry will keep declining gradually as the use of inefficient internal combustion engines declines. Where the energy that powers their electric replacement comes from is an entirely different debate. The great thing is, there are dozens of ways to generate electricity. I expect production to become increasingly diversified and fractioned, with each nation choosing the methods that suit them best. There will be a focus on renewables as the effects of climate change worsen but either way, oil is not and will never be a major player in that field. Natural gas, on the other hand, will be used for a while, although I expect its use to plateau at some stage in the medium term as newer generation and storage methods appear, along with pressures to decrease its use (or to carbon-neutralize it).

Hopefully, the hysteria surrounding nuclear will subside a bit and reason will prevail again to allow for it to make a return to the scene, with improved technology to ensure safety and cleanliness.

Hysteria is not why nuclear power plants are not being built. Costs are the main reason. Even in France they are taking too long and experiencing huge cost overruns. And as well the costs of dismantling plants at the end of their lives is high and going up. Not to mention no one knows what it is going to cost to dismantle plants gone wrong. I am suspecting the three Japanese plants may hit $1 Trillion.

Puerto Rico's wind towers were blown down - decommissioning costs - trivial. Replacements - probably ill cost less than original ones.

Francoflier wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

The alternatives are expensive, low energy-density, and require large amounts of real-estate for shoehorning into production and storage for major population centers which have long been built out...which all take away from economic prosperity as more and more of it is forced to take over from cheaper, conventional methods. And then there's the remote areas which don't necessarily have the wherewithal to mass-produce energy used for charging electric vehicles and heating homes when shipments of gas/diesel and heating oil to the service stations a few times a month is more than enough to cover their needs.

The conventional methods are relatively cheap, high energy-density, and easy to transport and store where needed. The entire industrialized, built-out world has been tailored to function with and around them.

Any economy which is increasingly based on alternatives which cannot exist within the existing footprint of every conventional method AND match, let alone exceed, the cost, portability, density, longevity, and wide availability of every conventional method by definition cannot compete with those economies which do not choose to follow down the same path.

That's not wishful thinking.

What IS wishful thinking is that 'smug' can pay the bills.

There's a lot of confusion here. The topic is oil, not electric energy.
Only a very tiny fraction of oil is used for electricity production (approx 1% in the US). Around 70% of it is used for transportation, and the vast majority of that goes to road transport.

There's no confusion...When referring to the alternatives of oil (and natural gas/propane) with regard to transportation, the end result is one which lacks internal combustion, and for all intents and purposes, therefore gains (requires) electrical propulsion instead. But, other than solar-powered paperweight vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles, and nuclear-powered vehicles, none of the pure-electric vehicles lacking internal combustion can self-propel without connecting to a grid (or personal power plant/generator) for recurrent charging from an outside source. So if you remove oil (and natural gas/propane) from the propulsion equation, you must segue the topic to large-scale electrical energy, because pure-electric vehicles (overwhelmingly) cannot operate without it. And as I said previously (to compound the matter), if the method to generating that electrical energy (now with an order of magnitude higher demand to replace that 70% of oil going toward transportation) does not exist within the existing footprint of every conventional method AND match, let alone exceed, the cost, portability, density, longevity, and wide availability of every conventional method, then the economy who chooses such an alternative method by definition cannot compete with those economies which do not choose to follow down the same path.

Francoflier wrote:

I suspect the percentages do vary a bit around the World, but would remain within the same order of magnitude.
The electrification of road transport will happen. The momentum is gathering, and it stems not from that 'smugness' you seem to attribute to those who actually try and help the World around them, but from the cold economic truth that electric vehicles are already cheaper to own (thanks to their high efficiency and low maintenance costs) despite their relative higher cost. And their purchase cost is bound to decrease further over time as the economy of scale kicks in.

There's no doubt that (forced) electrification in certain pockets of the world will happen, but so too must productivity and overall efficiency steadily decline in such pockets. Forcing the mass of vehicles onto a grid (while perhaps individually and instantaneously efficient against oil) by definition reduces individual and overall productivity, and is therefore inefficient as an economy. You're just not going to get the same GDP per capita against an economy which largely does not electrify, because your costs just cannot compete with theirs. Exports decline by way of lowered demand for your (relatively expensive) goods and services, which lowers your revenue, which lowers your profitability, which lowers your demand for skilled workers and puts your costs above your revenue, which leads to...a very bleak outlook...unless/until your economy gets back into the competitive edge that your competitor has...oil.

Francoflier wrote:

Hopefully, the hysteria surrounding nuclear will subside a bit and reason will prevail again to allow for it to make a return to the scene, with improved technology to ensure safety and cleanliness.

I wholeheartedly agree with regard to the grids.

But it still wouldn't address the competitive edge that economies based largely on self-powered vehicles have over economies based largely on grid-powered vehicles.

Get a nuclear cell safely and efficiently down to the combined size and cost of an average internal-combustion car/truck/semi engine and fuel tank, and give it the immediate power and range of such, and you'll knock the competitive edge off oil.

There was an estimate a few years ago that all LED lighting could save enough half the electricity to charge half of the US if everyone used electric vehicles. That may be why Trump/Koch brothers are opposed to LED lighting. It likely is still mostly true, but I have not seen an updated figure. Larger, but smart hot water tanks could level out a lot of electrical demand, in conjunction with smart charging for EVs.

What's the efficiency of countries ravaged by fires, tornadoes, cyclones, on a more steady and regular basis ? Bigger ones ? What's the efficiency of countries experiencing year after year of droughts ? Is having to built thousands of kilometers of dikes efficient ?

There are studies about this. Taking climate change right on will cost magnitudes less than dealing with the consequences.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

There was an estimate a few years ago that all LED lighting could save enough half the electricity to charge half of the US if everyone used electric vehicles. That may be why Trump/Koch brothers are opposed to LED lighting. It likely is still mostly true, but I have not seen an updated figure. Larger, but smart hot water tanks could level out a lot of electrical demand, in conjunction with smart charging for EVs.

A link for that fact, please. A Tesla driven 10,000 miles uses about 3200 kW/h per year, there’s 270,000,000 cars in the USA. LEDs use 1/3rd of incandescent lights.

Aesma wrote:

What's the efficiency of countries ravaged by fires, tornadoes, cyclones, on a more steady and regular basis ? Bigger ones ? What's the efficiency of countries experiencing year after year of droughts ? Is having to built thousands of kilometers of dikes efficient ?

There are studies about this. Taking climate change right on will cost magnitudes less than dealing with the consequences.

There are also studies that say the opposite. Climate change effects are likely to be limited and localized, so we should not penalize the use of fossil fuels that maximize the economic growth central to advancing human welfare. That’s the point right? To make people’s lives better?

I’ll take my chances with the weather and cheap energy.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

A Tesla driven 10,000 miles uses about 3200 kW/h per year.

You are quoting Tesla numbers.

What I have seen in everyday traffic is that EVs (except micro vehicles) normally indicate roughly 40 - 45 kWh (not kW/h) per 100 miles, quite a bit more than 32.

To that we add quite a bit during those eight months/yr when we need heating to prevent dew and frost on the windows. And we compensate for charger/charging efficiency, about 90% for slow charching, less for fast charging. Some cars (mainly the more expenive ones) can be fast charged immediately after long distance highway driving because they have a battery cooling system. Battery cooling, when acctivated, takes subtantial energy.

Most people driving a non-micro EV 10k miles will, depending on circumstances, experince a consumption between 5000 and 6000 kWh.

Tugger wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

Any economy which is increasingly based on alternatives which cannot exist within the existing footprint of every conventional method AND match, let alone exceed, the cost, portability, density, longevity, and wide availability of every conventional method by definition cannot compete with those economies which do not choose to follow down the same path.

I disagree.

The LARGE benefit of "alternative energy" is it guards against being held hostage by outside parties, by the nations that hold the "non-alternative" energy. China has very little (known) energy reserves, they very much prefer to be self reliant, this drives their push for using other options. Any leading nation needs to not be completely beholden to other nations (kinda part of the definition).

Many nations are also looking to alt energy options as it leads to higher tech and greater efficiency, two things that also define leading nations actually. China is again is an obvious example. They still use coal, a lot of it, and oil etc. however the electrification they are pursuing also produces two key things they desire: Greater technology and better energy efficiency.

So lets review:
Alt energy drives ever improving efficiency, better technology, and independence from outside nations. Not bad and not doom for nations that can pursue it.

Tugg

Actually, more renewable energy seems to speeds up GDP growth:

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2626/pdf

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

Any economy which is increasingly based on alternatives which cannot exist within the existing footprint of every conventional method AND match, let alone exceed, the cost, portability, density, longevity, and wide availability of every conventional method by definition cannot compete with those economies which do not choose to follow down the same path.

I disagree.

The LARGE benefit of "alternative energy" is it guards against being held hostage by outside parties, by the nations that hold the "non-alternative" energy. China has very little (known) energy reserves, they very much prefer to be self reliant, this drives their push for using other options. Any leading nation needs to not be completely beholden to other nations (kinda part of the definition).

Many nations are also looking to alt energy options as it leads to higher tech and greater efficiency, two things that also define leading nations actually. China is again is an obvious example. They still use coal, a lot of it, and oil etc. however the electrification they are pursuing also produces two key things they desire: Greater technology and better energy efficiency.

So lets review:
Alt energy drives ever improving efficiency, better technology, and independence from outside nations. Not bad and not doom for nations that can pursue it.

Tugg

Actually, more renewable energy seems to speeds up GDP growth:

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2626/pdf

Best regards
Thomas

Actually for countries like Germany and Sweden electrification will mean a fast increase in GDP. We import all energy for transport and wind and solar energy is fast increasing. I can see a fast increase of electrical highways being built the next few years in wake of corona. This will in silence also be the solution of decrease oil import from Russia.

olle wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I disagree.

The LARGE benefit of "alternative energy" is it guards against being held hostage by outside parties, by the nations that hold the "non-alternative" energy. China has very little (known) energy reserves, they very much prefer to be self reliant, this drives their push for using other options. Any leading nation needs to not be completely beholden to other nations (kinda part of the definition).

Many nations are also looking to alt energy options as it leads to higher tech and greater efficiency, two things that also define leading nations actually. China is again is an obvious example. They still use coal, a lot of it, and oil etc. however the electrification they are pursuing also produces two key things they desire: Greater technology and better energy efficiency.

So lets review:
Alt energy drives ever improving efficiency, better technology, and independence from outside nations. Not bad and not doom for nations that can pursue it.

Tugg

Actually, more renewable energy seems to speeds up GDP growth:

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2626/pdf

Best regards
Thomas

I can see a fast increase of electrical highways being built the next few years in wake of corona.

so far that seems to work quite well:



from: https://www.welt.de/regionales/hamburg/ ... ebeck.html

best regards
Thomas

DfwRevolution wrote:

I’ll take my chances with the weather and cheap energy.

Are you from Bangladesh?

tommy1808 wrote:

olle wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Actually, more renewable energy seems to speeds up GDP growth:

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2626/pdf

Best regards
Thomas

I can see a fast increase of electrical highways being built the next few years in wake of corona.

so far that seems to work quite well:



from: https://www.welt.de/regionales/hamburg/ ... ebeck.html

best regards
Thomas

That is exactly the story. The solutions is already here. Easy to charge for so the investments will not be a real problem eaither, Will give a lot of jobs and decrease imports while increasing GDP... The trucks will have batteries but for around 50 kilometers or less and before that a diesel hybrid for shorter distances

olle wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

olle wrote:

I can see a fast increase of electrical highways being built the next few years in wake of corona.

so far that seems to work quite well:



from: https://www.welt.de/regionales/hamburg/ ... ebeck.html

best regards
Thomas

That is exactly the story. The solutions is already here. Easy to charge for so the investments will not be a real problem eaither, Will give a lot of jobs and decrease imports while increasing GDP... The trucks will have batteries but for around 50 kilometers or less and before that a diesel hybrid for shorter distances

and it is just 3 million EUR/km ....

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

olle wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

so far that seems to work quite well:



from: https://www.welt.de/regionales/hamburg/ ... ebeck.html

best regards
Thomas

That is exactly the story. The solutions is already here. Easy to charge for so the investments will not be a real problem eaither, Will give a lot of jobs and decrease imports while increasing GDP... The trucks will have batteries but for around 50 kilometers or less and before that a diesel hybrid for shorter distances

and it is just 3 million EUR/km ....

best regards
Thomas

Everything is compared to the cost in Diesel per kilometer.. It is also one investment that will stay there for 50 years.

olle wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

olle wrote:

That is exactly the story. The solutions is already here. Easy to charge for so the investments will not be a real problem eaither, Will give a lot of jobs and decrease imports while increasing GDP... The trucks will have batteries but for around 50 kilometers or less and before that a diesel hybrid for shorter distances

and it is just 3 million EUR/km ....

best regards
Thomas

Everything is compared to the cost in Diesel per kilometer.. It is also one investment that will stay there for 50 years.

oh, i wasn´t being sarcastic, 3 million/km is really cheap.

best reagrds
Thomas

DfwRevolution wrote:

Aesma wrote:

What's the efficiency of countries ravaged by fires, tornadoes, cyclones, on a more steady and regular basis ? Bigger ones ? What's the efficiency of countries experiencing year after year of droughts ? Is having to built thousands of kilometers of dikes efficient ?

There are studies about this. Taking climate change right on will cost magnitudes less than dealing with the consequences.

There are also studies that say the opposite. Climate change effects are likely to be limited and localized, so we should not penalize the use of fossil fuels that maximize the economic growth central to advancing human welfare. That’s the point right? To make people’s lives better?

I’ll take my chances with the weather and cheap energy.

So, to "make people lives better", will you take climatic refugees in your home ? Or your city ?

Part of the pollution (and oil consumption) comes from eating too much meat in the West, causing obesity and cardiac issues. By no means can this be described at having a better life. Shouldn't it be a worthy goal to eat less meat, pollute less, and actually live better ?

Francoflier wrote:

There's a lot of confusion here. The topic is oil, not electric energy.
Only a very tiny fraction of oil is used for electricity production (approx 1% in the US). Around 70% of it is used for transportation, and the vast majority of that goes to road transport.

No, there is no confusion.
Changing electricity production is only a first step. Traffic and house heating will have to go electric as well.
I don't think oil will be replaced in the chemical industry for a long time. But then a lot of oil goes for traffic.

KFLLCFII wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Oil will rebound a bit when Covid is over, but at this time it appears alternative energy, fuel efficient vehicles, batteries( definitely batteries), and appliances that are more efficient with electricity do seem to spell a demand shift away from Oil.

All of those batteries, plastics, and ore-based vehicles and appliances (and the recycling of such products) aren't going to show up and be charged largely by way of unicorn farts. On the other hand, dead dinosaurs...

Vaccine and/or herd immunity withstanding, there will always be Hajj, education/employment/emigration abroad, cruises plowing the calm seas and people/employees travelling to such, Brazilian and English mouse vacations, pyramid vacations, the Great Annual Canadian Migration south for the winter, weirdo vacations to southeast Asia for certain "purposes", Lexii from Japan to Karen's doorstep during the 'December to Remember Sales Event', iPhones bought with 3 months of salary, and all of the new pieces of clothing manufactured on the planet which can't be sent via Zoom. And even if half of all business travel is permanently cut for teleconferencing, that cut would account for maybe...10% of any given passenger load on an average airline flight? We've already long seen the shrinkage of the front of the cabin over the last generation.

Dino DNA will continue to move the planet until every last drop is sucked. And those economies that forcibly tie their future to the alternatives will continue to fade into the background.

Dino DNA is stored solar energy. As Photovoltaic cells get better and batteries get better, it becomes possible to produce, store, and use energy in many more practical areas.
Dino DNA is nice because we have used it for so long, and it does have it's benefits. However Electric Energy on Demand, and optimization of engines means that Electric is much more viable now. Look at the Teslas and other electric cars. Fossil Fuels and Nuclear energy still dominate the power sources in the US, but for how long?

casinterest wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Oil will rebound a bit when Covid is over, but at this time it appears alternative energy, fuel efficient vehicles, batteries( definitely batteries), and appliances that are more efficient with electricity do seem to spell a demand shift away from Oil.

All of those batteries, plastics, and ore-based vehicles and appliances (and the recycling of such products) aren't going to show up and be charged largely by way of unicorn farts. On the other hand, dead dinosaurs...

Vaccine and/or herd immunity withstanding, there will always be Hajj, education/employment/emigration abroad, cruises plowing the calm seas and people/employees travelling to such, Brazilian and English mouse vacations, pyramid vacations, the Great Annual Canadian Migration south for the winter, weirdo vacations to southeast Asia for certain "purposes", Lexii from Japan to Karen's doorstep during the 'December to Remember Sales Event', iPhones bought with 3 months of salary, and all of the new pieces of clothing manufactured on the planet which can't be sent via Zoom. And even if half of all business travel is permanently cut for teleconferencing, that cut would account for maybe...10% of any given passenger load on an average airline flight? We've already long seen the shrinkage of the front of the cabin over the last generation.

Dino DNA will continue to move the planet until every last drop is sucked. And those economies that forcibly tie their future to the alternatives will continue to fade into the background.

Dino DNA is stored solar energy. As Photovoltaic cells get better and batteries get better, it becomes possible to produce, store, and use energy in many more practical areas.
Dino DNA is nice because we have used it for so long, and it does have it's benefits. However Electric Energy on Demand, and optimization of engines means that Electric is much more viable now. Look at the Teslas and other electric cars. Fossil Fuels and Nuclear energy still dominate the power sources in the US, but for how long?

For exactly as long as renewable energy plus long term storage takes to get cheaper than burning fossil fuels, just like renewable energy generation has been cheaper for a while, and renewable + short term storage have just become. Given how steady the price drops that is a when, not an if question.

Fonds are hesitant or stop investing in fossil fuel because the risk becomes to high, not for their love of the environment.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

olle wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

and it is just 3 million EUR/km ....

best regards
Thomas

Everything is compared to the cost in Diesel per kilometer.. It is also one investment that will stay there for 50 years.

oh, i wasn´t being sarcastic, 3 million/km is really cheap.

best reagrds
Thomas

And most of the 3 million will be for local economy

olle wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

olle wrote:

Everything is compared to the cost in Diesel per kilometer.. It is also one investment that will stay there for 50 years.

oh, i wasn´t being sarcastic, 3 million/km is really cheap.

best reagrds
Thomas

And most of the 3 million will be for local economy

That is a plus that applies to almost everything with renewable energy. You largely pay people work work, creating lasting value, instead of spending it on something combustible, and quite literally burning your money.....

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

olle wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

oh, i wasn´t being sarcastic, 3 million/km is really cheap.

best reagrds
Thomas

And most of the 3 million will be for local economy

That is a plus that applies to almost everything with renewable energy. You largely pay people work work, creating lasting value, instead of spending it on something combustible, and quite literally burning your money.....

best regards
Thomas

There is a number of demo electrical highways right now being tested in Germany and Sweden.

Suppliers is Siemens but I suppose ABB will be a major player.

All major actors like Volvo, Mercedes, Traton (Scania & MAN) is on board. Considering that transport is equal close 20% of CO2 it is one revolution.

Economically and politically it will be one dramatic change. Both Germany and Sweden is big importers of oil.

olle wrote:

Suppliers is Siemens but I suppose ABB will be a major player..

i know, i sold them some of the rugged on-board computers on those Trucks

best regards
Thomas

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Hysteria is not why nuclear power plants are not being built. Costs are the main reason. Even in France they are taking too long and experiencing huge cost overruns. And as well the costs of dismantling plants at the end of their lives is high and going up. Not to mention no one knows what it is going to cost to dismantle plants gone wrong. I am suspecting the three Japanese plants may hit $1 Trillion.

So you subsidize them and invest in more cost-effective ways to harness that energy and drive down costs...you know, like everyone's telling us to do with renewables. Electricity grids are always going to need an always-on base source of power that renewables won't be able to provide. Depending on geography, some places can use hydro, geothermal, tidal, etc. while some places will use nuclear...at least if they're serious about going carbon neutral while servicing their energy needs. Nuclear is by no means the only solution, but any carbon neutral energy policy that doesn't include it in the fold is just unserious.

flyguy89 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Hysteria is not why nuclear power plants are not being built. Costs are the main reason. Even in France they are taking too long and experiencing huge cost overruns. And as well the costs of dismantling plants at the end of their lives is high and going up. Not to mention no one knows what it is going to cost to dismantle plants gone wrong. I am suspecting the three Japanese plants may hit $1 Trillion.

So you subsidize them and invest in more cost-effective ways to harness that energy and drive down costs...you know, like everyone's telling us to do with renewables. Electricity grids are always going to need an always-on base source of power that renewables won't be able to provide. Depending on geography, some places can use hydro, geothermal, tidal, etc. while some places will use nuclear...at least if they're serious about going carbon neutral while servicing their energy needs. Nuclear is by no means the only solution, but any carbon neutral energy policy that doesn't include it in the fold is just unserious.

In Europe the solution is partly as mentioned to connect different grids from north to south. Probably wind balanced with hydro energy, Nuclerar in France with Solar in the south can balance tops and lows during the year.

As example Scandinavia uses a lot of power energy in the winter for heating, it has a lot of water that can balance wind power. Using the different energy sources together and balance each other is required.

flyguy89 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Hysteria is not why nuclear power plants are not being built. Costs are the main reason. Even in France they are taking too long and experiencing huge cost overruns. And as well the costs of dismantling plants at the end of their lives is high and going up. Not to mention no one knows what it is going to cost to dismantle plants gone wrong. I am suspecting the three Japanese plants may hit $1 Trillion.

So you subsidize them and invest in more cost-effective ways to harness that energy and drive down costs...you know, like everyone's telling us to do with renewables. Electricity grids are always going to need an always-on base source of power that renewables won't be able to provide. .

while i agree we should push Gen IV reactors for dealing with our nuclear waste alone, with electricity being a nice extra, it has long been shown that renewables can cover 100% across the European grid, without higher total cost. Same for heat.

best regards
Thomas

Sokes wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

German potential for sun energy in winter is close to zero.

Yet here I am, effortlessly powering my entire house and a BEV with solar power in southern Germany. There are 30kWp on the roof which throw out 36.000kWh anually, the house needs roundabout 6000kWh for everything (including heating and hot water!) and the BEV another 1500kWh. The surplus is fed to the grid.
The PV modules have become so good that they don't really need direct sunlight any more, to such extent that it now even makes sense to install them on north facing roofs.
Even the dullest December day will yield 10-15% of peak power, more than enough!